Congressional Record, Volume 169 Issue 181 (Thursday, November 2, 2023)

[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 181 (Thursday, November 2, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H5315-H5359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1800
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 838 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for further consideration of the bill, H.R.
4821.
Will the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser) kindly take the
chair.

{time} 1801

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4821) making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2024, and for other purposes, with Mr. Meuser (Acting
Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 78 printed in House Report 118-261 offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), had been disposed of.

Amendment No. 79 Offered by Mr. Burlison

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 79
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. BURLISON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement or enforce the final rule of the
Environmental Protection Agency titled ``Endangerment and
Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act'' and published December
15, 2009 (74 Fed. Reg. 66496).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. Burlison) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. BURLISON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment,
which would prohibit funds to implement the final EPA rule titled:
``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases
Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.''
Mr. Chair, on December 7, 2009, this rule was signed by the EPA
Administrator, and it found that six greenhouse gases endanger both the
public health and the public welfare of humans, specifically emissions
from motor vehicles.
Since this rule has been implemented, we have seen some of the most
radical and asinine decisions and regulations come from the executive
branch. This includes strict regulations on car emissions and the Big
Government attempt to dismantle the gas-powered vehicle. It includes
power plant regulations that have shut down coal plants, killing
thousands of jobs along the way. It includes the use of taxpayer
dollars to bribe people into buying electric vehicles and solar panels
with someone else's money. It includes the Paris climate accord, a
terrible deal that sold America's sovereignty to international
bureaucrats in exchange for energy poverty here at home, all while
China and India get to continue increasing their emissions for decades.
What have the American people gotten from these policies? Nothing.
These policies cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and the American
people are left scratching their heads, looking for what their benefit
is.
The worst part is that these policies do more harm than good because
the radical environmentalists have gotten their way in the past decade,
and the American people are left dealing with the fallout.
In California, we have seen brownouts and blackouts as a result of
the closure of coal plants. We have seen skyrocketing prices at the
pumps because this administration won't expand drilling or fracking in
United States territory.
In Texas, during Winter Storm Uri, we saw a horrible blackout 2 years
ago because of its dependency on unreliable sources of energy. To think
that, in the 21st century, Americans would have to face these
challenges and, in the case of Texas, that Americans would freeze to
death--over 150 people froze to death--is unacceptable. It is all
because we want to prevent the use of energy that creates carbon
emissions.
News flash: We depend as a nation on coal, natural gas, and oil.
Without it, we are a poor nation.
The benefits of using our resources outweigh the potential cost of
emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
The regulation that this amendment defunds is the root of the
environmental insanity we have been dealing with for the past decade.
It is time to show the American people that we have their backs and
that we are done appeasing the radical environmentalists.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, we are now only 15 days away from a
government shutdown, and instead of focusing on keeping the government
open, we are working on a bill that is going nowhere.
The draconian cuts proposed in this bill violate the agreement
reached by former Speaker McCarthy and President Biden that were
memorialized in statute in Public Law 118-5, the Fiscal Responsibility
Act of 2023.
We would not be teetering on the brink of a government shutdown if my
Republican colleagues had held up their end of the bargain.
Furthermore, we are here to protect the welfare of the American
public. We cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change, such
as the drought, flooding, severe storms, and wildfire events we are
experiencing.
As of October 10, the United States has experienced 24 confirmed
weather climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each.
This is a new record.
This amendment seeks to prohibit funding to further understand
greenhouse gases, which will result in more resilient communities,
mitigate the impacts of climate change, and protect our world for
future generations.
Not investing in strategies that minimize and prevent the
acceleration of climate change and instead paying billions in disaster
relief shows my Republican colleagues are not thinking about what is
best for the American

[[Page H5316]]

taxpayer. Our economy, health, livelihoods, food security, and quality
of life all depend on healthy ecosystems.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus
instead on addressing climate change and making our Nation stronger.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURLISON. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle argue that greenhouse gases are an endangerment that we need to
eliminate. This is a one-sided view that completely ignores the
enormous benefits that fossil fuels have had while only focusing on the
rise in temperatures.
Their climate hysteria assumes that any warming is caused by these
gases and that it is a catastrophe. That is simply not accurate and
ignores the destruction that is caused by their agenda.
Just ask the hundreds of people, many of whom lost their lives in
Texas during Winter Storm Uri. Just ask the energy-poor nations around
the world that have a much lower standard of living than us.
The endangerment rule, which my amendment defunds, is based on a
narrow, one-sided view that refuses to look at the ramifications of
banning fossil fuels.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I will point out one thing that my
colleague said in what I thought was a very misguided argument.

He said the benefits of using our resources outweigh the costs. He
said we ignore the benefits of fossil fuels by only focusing on rising
temperatures and that this is our agenda. I want to be perfectly clear.
Climate change is not my agenda. It is not the Democrats' agenda. It is
the majority of all scientists' agenda around the world. It is the
majority of facts based on what is going on with adverse weather,
warming oceans, warming temperatures, and the hottest summer on record.
To say we are just looking at our agenda completely denies the
challenges that we are facing today. There are plenty of benefits of
fossil fuels. In fact, we have benefited from fossil fuels for
generations. We have become an incredibly wealthy Nation. I don't deny
that.
For all of us, we would rather continue with the status quo, but the
fact is that we know how to create renewable energy, how to reduce our
dependence on fossil fuels, and how to reduce the warming of our
planet. It is our responsibility. It is not an agenda or sort of a whim
or a fad. It is our responsibility.
That is what we are here to do, to protect the American public, to
protect it for future generations.
I don't know about my colleague, but I have three children and seven
grandchildren. Each one of those grandchildren, if not today, if not
tomorrow, then when they are old enough to talk, are going to say:
Grandma, what were you doing when the planet was melting? What did you
do when you had the resources, ability, and scientific knowledge to
convert to renewable resources? Yet, you decided to say: I am just
going to stick my head in the sand and pretend the science doesn't
exist. I am going to pretend that none of this matters and is some kind
of an agenda or a fluke. I am just going to put my faith in the fossil
fuel industry.
We know what to do here and know what our responsibility is here. To
neglect that and not continue to do what we are supposed to do to
reduce the impact and mitigate the influence of climate change is
completely going against our responsibility to the American public and
to future generations.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to reject this amendment. I ask my
colleagues to continue to support the work that we are currently doing
in this country to mitigate the impact of climate change.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Burlison).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 80 Offered by Mr. Burlison

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 80
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. BURLISON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement Executive Order 14057 (relating to
Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal
Sustainability) (86 Fed. Reg. 70935; Dec. 8, 2021).

{time} 1815

This executive order is another example of how this administration is
more than willing to waste the taxpayers' time and energy in furthering
a radical climate agenda. It manipulates the Federal Government that
they must achieve a carbon pollution-free electricity sector by 2035
and net zero emissions no later than 2050.
The text of the order declares that the Federal Government will lead
by example and cut out carbon emissions.
However, is this administration really leading by example?
Has John Kerry stopped using private jets?
Has Pete Buttigieg?
Of course not. This hypocrisy is exactly why I filed this amendment.
The amendment defunds an executive order that wastes taxpayer dollars
and continues our country down a path of dangerous energy policies.
Unfortunately, this administration knows this is the result of the
order, and they are more than willing to place these burdens on the
American people. They are willing to waste money in reconfiguring
buildings and buying fleets of new electric vehicles all on the backs
of our taxpayers. They are also in favor of new regulations that will
suppress our energy industries.
Nonetheless, do you know what, Mr. Chairman?
They will be fine because they don't have to feel the repercussions
of their policies. It will be everyday Americans who will see their
utility bills go up. It will be our constituents who are left unable to
pay their bills or afford gas. It will be the average person who is
experiencing blackouts because we have shifted towards unreliable
sources of electricity instead of reliable baseload energy sources.
Again, those who drafted this executive order won't have to feel the
pain. They only care about furthering a radical agenda that is
impossible to achieve.
The attempt to reach a 100 percent carbon-free America can only
happen after our reliable energy sectors are dismantled and our way of
life is destroyed. The energy sector that they want to dismantle is
what made America a rich and prosperous nation. Coal, natural gas, and
nuclear energy are the answers to the future which demands more
electricity than we can ever fathom today, not the types of reforms
that the other side calls for.
We only need to look at California or winter storm Uri in Texas as
examples of why traditional energy sources are so vital. This executive
order only hurts the American people and pushes us down a road that
leads to a weaker, poorer, and less prosperous country.
Mr. Chairman, I call on my colleagues to pass this amendment and
defund this executive order, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment blocks an executive order that
seeks to reestablish the Federal Government as a leader in
sustainability and improve the Nation's preparedness and resilience to
the effects of a changing climate.
We are here to protect the welfare of the American public, and we
cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change such as the
drought, flooding, severe storm, and wildfire events we are
experiencing.

[[Page H5317]]

The Federal Government is the single largest landowner, energy
consumer, and employer in the Nation, and it is appropriate that it
would lead the Nation on a path to achieving net zero emissions by
transforming how the government builds, buys, and manages electricity,
vehicles, buildings, and other operations to be clean and sustainable.
Not investing in strategies that minimize and prevent the
acceleration of climate change and instead paying billions into
disaster relief shows my Republican colleagues are not thinking about
what is best for the American taxpayer.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus
instead on addressing climate change and making our Nation stronger,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURLISON. Mr. Chairman, instead of focusing on a misguided
climate policy, we should instead focus on sources of energy that help
our society grow and flourish. Energy sources such as wind and solar
claim to be sustainable, but they are often backed up with the more
reliable sources of energy such as coal, natural gas, and nuclear.
Wind and solar also use vast amounts of raw materials and land and
have their own environmental issues. The cost of using these energy
sources and abandoning fossil fuels is simply misguided. Fossil fuels
help humans flourish, and we should protect these fuels by defunding
this executive order.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Burlison).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 81 offered by Mrs. Cammack

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 81
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be made available to finalize any
rule or regulation that meets the definition of section
804(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentlewoman
from Florida (Mrs. Cammack) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Florida.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment
which would restrict funds at the Department of the Interior and
Related Agencies from being used to finalize any rule or regulation
that have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
Under the current administration, the regulatory landscape has never
been worse. Regulatory agencies within the Department of the Interior
have been able to exert an extraordinary amount of power and influence
with very little oversight and very little authority to do so.
My amendment seeks to change this by requiring that any major rule
proposed by these agencies be approved by both Houses of Congress
before they can take effect. This means that the elected
Representatives of the American people here in the people's House would
have a direct say in shaping the regulations that affect our natural
resources and our public lands and that have a tremendous impact on our
everyday lives.
It means that the individuals who are closest to their constituents,
who understand the needs and concerns of their communities, will be at
the forefront of decisionmaking as our Founding Fathers intended.
By including my amendment into the Interior-Environment
appropriations bill, we send a very powerful message that we are
committed to accountable and transparent governance. We are standing up
for the principle that significant regulatory decisions should not be
made behind closed doors but rather in the open Halls of Congress where
the voices of the American people can be heard.
Since President Biden took office, the regulatory climate has added
hundreds of billions with a b of dollars in fresh regulatory costs
which are eventually passed down to consumers--our constituents.
We have seen the Biden administration's waters of the U.S. regulation
create confusion and uncertainty for landowners, farmers, and
businesses across the Nation, not to mention how expensive these
regulations have been. As American families and businesses continue to
suffer under the economic crisis caused by the disastrous Biden
policies, this administration has decided to move the country back
towards more costly and burdensome WOTUS regulations of the past--
needlessly in the process raising housing costs by hundreds of millions
of dollars when it is already in a housing crisis.
Under this administration, we have seen a proposed greenhouse gas
emission standard for heavy-duty vehicles directly impacting our
Nation's trucking by forcing costly, unachievable mandates on
enterprise fleets with thousands of trucks to small mom-and-pop family
businesses.
We have seen the regulatory overreach regarding mandatory reporting
of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems and
permitting requirements for livestock emissions under the Clean Air
Act. I could go on and on and on. It is clear that overreach under this
administration has been extreme and it has gone too far.
It is simple. Congress should have oversight over the EPA and other
agencies like this because this agency was established through
executive action rather than explicit congressional authorization.
Let me say that for the people in the back and the people at home.
The EPA is not even a congressionally authorized agency, and yet we
fund it.
By subjecting the EPA to congressional oversight, we ensure that
decisions made by the agency are accountable to the elected
Representatives of the people. This oversight allows for a more
transparent and balanced approach to environmental regulation allowing
for a thorough examination of policies and their potential impacts on
various stakeholders.
My amendment has the potential to reshape the way our government
operates and ensure that the power of decisionmaking is in the hands of
those who are elected to represent the interests of the American
people. It is time to become transparent and accountable to the people
whom we serve.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I want to be clear. Congressional funding and
inclusion in the annual appropriations bill is congressional oversight
of the EPA. That is what Chairman Simpson, I, and the other members of
the committee do every year so there is oversight of the EPA, and it is
congressionally authorized funding.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida has 1 minute
remaining.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague on the other side
of the aisle. We want to exert more transparency and more
accountability. That is what we are doing here. This amendment furthers
our ability to do just that, to hold Members of Congress accountable
for the actions that are impacting our constituents' everyday lives.
That is exactly what we are designed to do. That is Article I
authority.
We cede that authority to an unelected, nameless, and faceless
bureaucrat through the regulatory regime. These agencies have run away
with their rulemaking authority so that Congress has very little power
to roll back or claw back.
This amendment is a commonsense amendment. Earlier this year, the
same language was passed in a bipartisan manner, so there is no excuse
as to why both Republicans and Democrats cannot support these
commonsense, accountable, and transparent measures on behalf of the
American people.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H5318]]

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 82 offered by Mr. Clyde

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 82
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the cancellation or suspension of oil and gas
leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Clyde) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment No.
82, which would simply prohibit funds made available by this act to be
used for the cancellation or suspension of oil and gas leases in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or the National Petroleum Reserve in
Alaska.
On September 6, 2023, the Biden administration's Department of the
Interior posted a press release announcing Secretary of the Interior
Haaland's cancellation of seven oil and gas lease permits covering
365,000 acres in the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, also known as the ANWR.
The former dean of our House, Congressman Don Young, once told me
that his mission in Congress--a mission that he worked for for decades
to accomplish--was to allow drilling in the ANWR. That was his passion.
This mission was finally accomplished during the Trump administration
with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Now, just 1\1/2\ years
after Congressman Young's passing, the administration is reversing his
important work.
President Biden's disastrous America last energy policies and his
embrace of the radical Green New Deal agenda have jeopardized American
energy independence and have cost hardworking Americans significant
inflation, both at the gas pump and in their utility bills.
First, the Biden administration halted construction of the Keystone
XL pipeline. Then President Biden froze all oil and gas lease permits
on Federal lands, and later he drained our Strategic Petroleum Reserve
to boost political capital while putting American national and energy
security at risk.
Previously under President Trump's America first agenda, the Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act established an oil and gas leasing program in the coastal
plain of ANWR, increasing our Nation's energy security and lowering oil
and gas prices for hardworking Americans. However, on President Biden's
first day in office, he issued a disastrous executive order, Number
13990, titled: Protecting Public Health and the Environment and
Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis, and it imposed a
temporary moratorium on the statutorily mandated oil and gas lease
activities in the coastal plain.
So now President Biden is waging his latest battle in his war on
American energy independence, the outright canceling of these oil and
gas leases in the coastal plain of the ANWR while citing a dubious
source of statutory authority and potentially losing out on 7.7 billion
barrels of recoverable oil according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
This action by the Biden administration is blatantly circumventing the
democratic process and subverting the will of Congress.

{time} 1830

My amendment to the fiscal year 2024 Interior, Environment, and
Related Agencies appropriations bill would prohibit funds from being
used to implement the Biden administration's cancellation of the
statutorily mandated oil and gas leases in the coastal plain of the
ANWR.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment to
prevent the cancellation of oil and gas leases in the coastal plain.
Vote to unleash American independence and vote to lower your
constituents' gas prices and utility bills.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. My colleague
proposes that we don't allow the cancellation of lease sales in a
pristine environment that is already suffering from the impacts of
climate change. The Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the
rest of the planet.
It shows that my Republican colleague and so many others are not
thinking about what is best for the American taxpayer. He should be
focused, instead, on investing in strategies that minimize and prevent
the acceleration of climate change.
He invoked one of my favorite colleagues, our dear departed colleague
Don Young. I remember several years ago when Don Young came to visit me
in Maine to an Arctic conference, and we discussed climate change. He
said: I haven't decided yet if this is man-made, but I do believe
climate change is happening.
None of us can expect to share the words of Don Young, who is not
with us here today, but I think he witnessed the warming that is going
on in the Arctic in his State, the glacial melting.
I recently visited Alaska, and I met with Tribal communities. There
are 31 communities, most of them Tribal communities, that currently
have to be moved because of the glacial melting, because of the
permafrost melting. The cost of that, I have heard some people
estimate, is about a million dollars a person to move a community, not
to mention the cultural loss, the economic loss.
The challenges that people are facing, what is going on in the Arctic
today is unfathomable. Nothing we could have ever predicted. Nothing
that the scientists could have predicted. Yet, my colleague wants us to
continue drilling for oil. My colleague wants us to deny the importance
of renewable energy.
We are talking about an area where it is expensive to drill. The fact
is, most of the oil companies don't often want to be up there anymore,
and it is not practical for us to be drilling for oil. To be doing it
in the very places that are experiencing the losses because of climate
change in such an extreme way makes absolutely no sense.
It is a misguided policy. To go against this cancellation of these
lease sales is wrong. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and
focus instead on addressing climate change, making our Nation stronger,
and investing in renewable energy.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, I concur with my colleague on the other side of
the aisle that climate change actually does happen. It happens four
times a year--spring, summer, fall, and winter. Congressman Don Young
represented Alaska. He knew Alaska better than anyone did, and he knew
what was best for the ANWR. It was his passion that ANWR be open for
drilling for the security of America, the entire country, for energy
independence.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 83 Offered by Mr. Clyde

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 83
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the
proposed rule titled ``Management and Protection of the
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska'' and published
September 8, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 62025).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman

[[Page H5319]]

from Georgia (Mr. Clyde) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of my
amendment No. 83 to the FY24 Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies appropriations bill, which halts the funding for the Bureau of
Land Management's misguided proposed rule on energy development in the
Alaska National Petroleum Reserve.
In these times of global upheaval, record-high gas prices, and
economic instability, restricting American energy production would be
unwise to the point of recklessness. It undermines the pillars of our
national strength, our national security, fiscal health, and the
prosperity of the American taxpayer. Yet, the Biden administration
seeks to drastically limit access to responsible energy production on
our own soil--resources that rightfully belong to the American people.
The Alaskan reserve holds the potential to supply hundreds of
thousands of barrels of oil per day, lessening our reliance on
untrustworthy foreign sources. Yet, this administration seeks to
negligently barricade access to our invaluable domestic resources.
The Bureau of Land Management rule plainly defines the clear intent
of Congress within the National Petroleum Reserves Production Act,
which is to responsibly harness these resources through competitive
leasing. The rule imposes arbitrary restrictions and redundant
regulations that serve no purpose other than obstructing energy
development. We cannot allow Washington bureaucrats to override the
legislative mandate from this Congress and push a radical anti-American
energy agenda down our throats.
Utilizing the Alaskan reserve's resources is crucial for our energy
security and the operational viability of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
Leaving this vital infrastructure stranded would weaken America's
strength on the world stage amidst looming threats from adversaries
like Russia, China, and Iran. Our energy independence must stand
resolute.
In short, my amendment wisely prevents the squandering of taxpayer
dollars on stifling our tremendous American energy potential. I urge my
colleagues, those who cherish our working families, fiscal prosperity,
and national security to rally behind this necessary course correction.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, once again, I remind everyone, we are here to
protect the welfare of the American public. This amendment would
prohibit the Bureau of Land Management from balancing oil and gas
development with protection of lands that harbor significant
subsistence uses and resources throughout the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska.
My colleague is describing the Willow Project, an oil drilling
project by ConocoPhillips that is located on the plain of the North
Slope of Alaska in the National Petroleum Reserve. This amendment would
prohibit the administration from stopping that project for all of the
reasons we have previously discussed.
My colleagues are always talking about if we don't do this drilling,
if we don't do this drilling in significantly critical areas like the
North Slope of Alaska, like places where climate change is already
having an unreasonable impact, we will have to go to untrustworthy
foreign sources. Why is it they always use that argument, that somehow
we have to go to untrustworthy foreign sources? Our goal is to convert
to renewable energy, to have all American energy, whether it is wind or
solar or tile or so many of the other opportunities that we have out
there to make sure we do invest in America and American jobs instead of
misguided projects like this.
This amendment also prohibits the BLM's ability to respond to
changing conditions in the Arctic while providing transparency and
conservation and development decisions.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. CLYDE. Mr. Chairman, it is vital that we unleash and support
American energy, fossil fuel energy, and pursue pro-American energy
policies. I am deeply concerned that my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle refuse to put the needs of Americans first.
Given the current state of affairs globally, we should not be relying
on energy supplies from foreign powers. Therefore, I again urge my
colleagues to support my amendment, which defunds this disastrous BLM
rule.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I have just one more thing to say about this
project, just to know what we are talking about. It is not a
hypothetical. As we have mentioned, we have already talked about the
excessive warming that is happening in the Arctic, the changes they are
already experiencing in places like Alaska. This project is likely to
produce 287 million tons of carbon emissions plus other greenhouse
gases over 30 years. It would adversely impact Arctic wildlife and
Native American communities. This would damage the complex local tundra
ecosystem. According to another government estimate, it would release
the same amount of greenhouse gases annually as half a million homes.
We know how to do this in another way. We don't have to do this
project. We don't have to drill for oil in sensitive areas, and we
don't need to do this particular project.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mr. Collins

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 84
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end, before the short title, insert the following:

north atlantic right whale

Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the
proposed rule titled ``Amendments to the North Atlantic Right
Whale Vessel Strike Reduction Rule'' (87 Fed. Reg. 46921;
published August 1, 2022).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Collins) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits any funding from being
used by the EPA to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce NOAA's
vessel speed limiter rule.
This is a misguided rule that would require any vessel over 35 feet
to go 10 knots or less all along the Eastern seaboard from Maine all
the way down through Florida. They claim they are doing this in order
to protect the North Atlantic right whale.
Well, let's review some of the facts.
Approximately 15 whales have been killed by boats in the last 18
years. You have got better odds of hitting the lottery than this.
The right whale population has been consistent since 1980.
The right whales used to calve every 3 to 5 years, but now they are
only calving every 7 to 9 years.
What is this rule going to do for the economic impact? It has a $84
billion economic impact on the East Coast. It will jeopardize 340,000
East Coast jobs, and there are 63,000 registered boats that will be
impacted with this new rule.
There is a better way to track these whales, but NOAA just refuses to
do it. We tag horses, cows, pets, many other animals. Why can't we tag
these whales as well? There is no reason that we can't use some
commonsense solutions such as this. Tagging the whales would allow the
boats to avoid any whales that are in the area without the need to put
some burdensome speed restrictions all along the East Coast.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

[[Page H5320]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I am opposed to this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to adopt this
commonsense amendment and prevent the EPA from enforcing this job-
killing rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. Crane

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 85
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. The salary of Brenda Mallory, Chair of the
Council on Environmental Quality, shall be reduced to $1.

{time} 1845

Affordable and abundant energy is essential for a secure and
prosperous country. NEPA is now out of sync with current environmental,
political, social, and economic realities, with Ms. Mallory
spearheading its exacerbation and failures.
The average American family is now spending about $2,400 more today
than when President Biden took office. I have constituents who can
barely pay their energy bills solely because the administration chose
to raise their electric rates to pay for its Green New Deal agenda,
almost doubling some Arizonans' bills.
If Congress doesn't act to reverse Biden's energy crisis now, it may
not be long before more Americans can't afford soaring energy costs.
Ms. Mallory's incompetence has shown that Congress should reduce her
salary.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment is petty and punitive.
Rather than pursuing grudges against public servants, my colleagues
across the aisle should focus their energy on negotiating with the
Senate on a bill to fund the government.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chair, the bottom line is that the American people are
tired of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., affecting a policy that is
destroying their lives. That is why we are doing this.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 86 Offered by Mr. Crane

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 86
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end, before the short title, insert the following:

public land order no. 7923

Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce Public Land
Order No. 7923 (88 Fed. Reg. 37266; published June 7, 2023).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Crane) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment,
which defunds Public Land Order No. 7923.
In June, the Biden administration issued this public land order
banning over 300,000 acres of Federal mineral estate surrounding the
Chaco Culture National Historical Park for 20 years. This would
effectively prevent all private landowners and Navajo allottees from
mineral leasing land in this area.
The ban will have significant negative economic impacts on both the
Navajo Nation and American taxpayers, severely limiting Tribal revenue,
economic development, self-sufficiency, and American energy production.
Chaco Canyon carries both cultural and historical significance for
communities in the region. The development of this land should be
determined by those with lawful sovereignty, not out-of-touch Biden
administration officials hellbent on imposing their radical agenda on
Tribal communities.
In July, the House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the
ban, and we heard from Navajo Nation citizens who expressed
disappointment with Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and the Bureau of
Land Management for stripping away their mineral rights. The government
of the Navajo Nation has called on Congress to oppose any buffer zone
in the area.
The Biden administration's decision to move forward with this ban
makes it clear that they only care about Tribal voices so long as they
are in line with the approved Biden agenda.
Interestingly, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, when serving in
Congress, worked on a lease sale that was ultimately deferred. She had
complained that the Trump administration failed to fulfill its legal
and moral obligation to consult with Native Americans.
The Biden administration, of which Secretary Haaland is a part, is
now opposing an unprecedented blockade on Native mineral rights and has
refused to listen to the Navajo Nation's concerns.
Mr. Chair, this administration likes to talk about their supposed
support of Tribal communities but has no problem implementing a
destructive choke hold on Tribal revenue and economic prosperity.
Secretary Haaland and President Biden are throwing the Navajo Nation
under the bus, driven by extremists with no concern for Native
interests or the energy needs of all Americans. I am proud to stand
with the Navajo Nation and offer this amendment that defunds this ban.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the withdrawal for
20 years of public lands surrounding the Chaco Culture National
Historical Park from mineral leasing in order to protect these lands
and the greater connected landscape in New Mexico with a rich Puebloan
and Tribal nation legacy from the impacts associated with oil and gas
development activities.

[[Page H5321]]

It does not impact valid existing rights nor non-Federal interests in
the area that will be withdrawn.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield
the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger
Fernandez).
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chair, I, too, rise in opposition to
amendment No. 86.
As noted, this amendment would roll back protections for Federal
lands and Federal lands only within a 10-mile area around the World
Heritage Site, Chaco Culture National Historical Park, in New Mexico,
in my district, and only from new oil and gas drilling.
I stand here on the second day of Native American Heritage Month, and
what we are doing on the second day of Native American Heritage Month
is not recognizing, honoring, and protecting Native American heritage.
Instead, what this amendment is doing is destroying Native American
heritage. It is destroying the ability of Native Americans who hold
these lands and these sites sacred to continue to practice their
spiritual and religious beliefs.
Let's remember that what you are doing is undermining the ability of
people to practice their historic spiritual and religious beliefs
because not only is Chaco County a World Heritage Site, but it remains
to this day a place of cultural and religious significance to the
descendants of the Greater Chaco region.
We need to remember that Chaco Canyon is unique. Between A.D. 900 and
1150, Chaco was the heart of ceremonial, trade, and political activity
for the Ancestral Puebloans. The sweeping ceremonial center you need to
go visit is unlike anything constructed before or since.
However, for the Native Americans who come from this area, Chaco is
not an old place. The sacred nature of Chaco continues unbroken in its
importance to them today.
Given its history, you can imagine the importance of protecting this
land and its people's ability to truly practice their faith.
It is true that there are different points of view within the Navajo
Nation, but let's remember how this bill and how these protections that
have been put into place came to be.
It was the former Navajo Nation president who first approached the
Pueblos in an effort to protect these lands. The advocacy for these
protections began in 2013 when the Eastern Navajo Agency Council passed
a resolution calling for a moratorium on new fracking activities within
their agency.
Navajo Nation's advocacy continued, and in 2017, Navajo Nation
President Russell Begaye, Vice President Jonathan Nez, and the All
Pueblo Council of Governors joined together in a statement opposing new
fracking in the Greater Chaco region.
Protecting Chaco then became a collaborative process. It resulted
eventually in the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act, which
passed this body in the 116th Congress with the support of every
Democrat and 17 Republicans.

The secretarial withdrawal this amendment attacks only happened after
an extensive process of public engagement that included consultation
with all the Tribal nations, including the Navajo Nation, the Pueblos,
and those people who live in Arizona as well who are actually
constituents of the sponsor of this amendment.
Mr. Chair, 100,000 public comments is not ignoring the people. That
is listening to them. It was years of Tribal collaboration that made
these protections possible.
Mr. Chair, let me correct the record. This does not affect in any way
Navajo allottees' land. It does not affect in any way Navajo Tribal
lands. It does not affect in any way rights-of-way or any
infrastructure that is needed.
The existing oil and gas activity can continue, and new oil and gas
activity can continue, but just not on Federal lands.
The existing royalties that are presently going to the Navajo
allottees will continue in force, but we must admit that these
withdrawals and protections are difficult. You must weigh the cultural
and spiritual significance of an area that could be lost forever
against the value of mineral development.
One molecule of gas is the same wherever it is extracted, but once
you destroy a sacred site, you will never get it back.
I believe, even though I recognize the importance of the economic
value of withdrawal, that we must err on the side of protection.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chair, I represent the Navajo Nation in my State. The
Navajo Nation does support this amendment.
One of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talked about
protecting the lands. What she didn't talk about, however, was
protecting the economy of the Navajo people and how this would impact
them, which is, once again, why they support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. Fallon

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 87
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to reduce the number of oil and gas leases issued by
the Secretary of the Interior.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Fallon) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that
prohibits funding in this bill from being used to reduce the number of
oil and gas leases issued by the Secretary of the Interior.
Americans saw the impact on the global oil supply when Russia decided
to illegally invade Ukraine. Of course, we know that Russia is a world
exporter of oil. Gas prices rose over 40 percent. It is a world
commodity.
Now, with the uncertainty in the Middle East and another war
beginning, we are facing more potential energy shortages. This is what
happens when we allow ourselves to be dependent on foreign oil.
The fact of the matter is, like it or not, the world consumes 100
million barrels of oil a day. That is not going to go away anytime
soon. We put ourselves and our great Nation's security at the mercy of
foreign countries' stability, something that we have little to no
control over.
This is not only precarious and foolhardy, but it is also dangerous.
Despite the obvious dangers and national security pitfalls, the Biden
administration continues to cut oil and gas leases in America and
forces us to be more reliant on foreign oil.
Since taking office, the Biden administration has gravely undercut
America's ability to become energy independent by canceling gas and oil
leases continually from even his first day in office until now.
In September, the Biden administration announced they were canceling
the remaining seven oil and gas leases in Alaska. For comparison, the
Trump administration proposed a plan that included 47 new potential
lease sales.
Energy independence is crucial to our Nation's security. Democrats
will have you believe we can survive just fine without oil and gas, but
that is simply not reality. In fact, I didn't come to work today on my
unicorn, and I wasn't talking to my mermaids in my swimming pool, and
the leprechaun next door didn't pay for it all. It is just not a
reality that we live in right now.
I think many Republicans, including me, are for an all-of-the-above
approach--wind where it is practical, solar, and oil and gas, but if we
are going to have a serious discussion about zero emissions or reducing
emissions in this country, we need to talk about nuclear energy, as
well.

[[Page H5322]]

{time} 1900

I urge my colleagues to help their constituents by voting for lower
energy costs and increased national security by voting in favor of this
amendment and in favor of American energy production.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to see my good friend on the
other side of the aisle, and sorry that I so violently disagree with
him on this particular issue, maybe not violently, but strongly
disagree with him on this issue.
This amendment seeks to force the Secretary of the Interior to issue
more oil and gas lease sales instead of allowing for the transition to
clean energy that will result in more resilient communities, mitigate
the impacts of climate change, and protect our world for future
generations.
To not invest in strategies that minimize and prevent the
acceleration of climate change instead of paying billions in disaster
relief shows that my colleague is not thinking about what is best for
the American taxpayer. Our economy and health and livelihood, food
security, quality of life all depend on us making progress on climate
change and renewable energies.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chair, you talk about being an environmentalist,
which I honestly think all 435 Members of Congress are, and not
throwing partisan bombs, which haven't been thrown right now, but you
hear about them in these Halls, unfortunately. Think about what the
United States has done in the last 20-plus years. We have reduced our
carbon emissions by, now, nearly 25 percent, more than any other Nation
in history.
What has China done? They have increased their carbon footprint by
300 percent in that same time.
Why don't we see some of our leftist activists, mostly young people,
protesting outside the Chinese Embassy or the consulates.
The United States, as great a country as we are, we are not a planet,
and, as an environmentalist, we should be wanting the United States to
fulfill the needs of the world.
Again, fact: 100 million barrels a day. How is the wind and solar
industry going to be developed? Well, largely based on the energy that
oil and gas produce.
In the United States, we have an independent judiciary. We are a
rule-of-law nation. We have strong environmental laws. We have an
expertise in oil and gas that has been perfected over more than a
century.
The fact of the matter is we have to produce oil and gas, and I would
rather have the United States do it, rather than Venezuela or a China
or a Saudi Arabia, for that matter. I trust our abilities more.
As an environmentalist and someone who wants to protect this Nation
and the planet for future generations, my 17- and 14-year-old sons,
and, hopefully, their children someday, this is the best path forward.
It is the realistic path forward, and nobody says, because we drill
and produce oil and gas in this country, that clean energy can't be
developed synchronously. Of course it can, and it has been, but the
free markets have to come into play as well to benefit this country and
humankind.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, my colleagues are always saying we have to
reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and I wholeheartedly agree. In
fact, the United States is still a major producer of oil and gas, but
we have to make the investments and force ourselves to move forward on
renewable energy.
We have done that through bills like the IRA. We continue to do that,
and I just want to continue to support that and make sure that we are
opposing expanding our oil and gas leases and just investing in
renewable energy.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a really good amendment. It
is common sense, and I believe that every Member of Congress that votes
for it will feel better about themselves.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 88 Offered by Mr. Fallon

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 88
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Environmental Protection Agency for community-
scale ambient air monitoring.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Fallon) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment that
prohibits the use of Federal funds for community-scale ambient air
monitoring.
In simple terms, ambient air monitoring is the long-term assessment
of pollutant levels by measuring the surrounding outdoor air. Now, on
the surface, that doesn't sound like that much of a big deal at face
value. However, the EPA already monitors this.
The EPA has extensive systems and sensors in place that monitor air
quality and emissions, regulated primarily by the Clean Air Act. Now,
that is at the Federal level.
Let's think about this, too. Having served at the State and local
level, they can also monitor their air quality, and, in fact, they do.
When I was on city council in Frisco, Texas, we had a battery recycling
plant in the middle of the city. The city had kind of grown around it.
We took local action. We didn't ask the Federal Government to do
squat. We paid $45 million to buy that plant. We closed it down. That
is at the local level. I trust folks at the local and State level far
more than I will ever trust the Federal Government. The Federal
Government has a role in roads, military, and other things, but these
kinds of things, I really do trust the local entities.
What is this program doing, if not to be redundant, because this is
already happening at the Federal level with the EPA? Simply put, it is
another attempt by some on the left to push a Green New Deal and push
their narrative that pollution is somehow racist. I have been in these
Halls for 3 years, and I learned crazy things. People claimed that
COVID was racist, that the weather is racist. Now, maybe pollution is,
too.
They are pushing funding for this program so they can send untrained
individuals who they choose with unknown equipment to cities they
choose to further a narrative that pollution is somehow skewed towards
someone's pigmentation.
As I said, I support science. However, there are insufficient
guidelines surrounding third-party individuals or groups that would be
conducting the air monitoring, the equipment they will use, or even the
data matrix that they will utilize, so we would have these untrained
individuals doing this monitoring.
It is kind of seeming to me like putting your thumb on the scale and
having a predetermined outcome before the testing even takes place.
Democrats want to allow for these untrained individuals to operate
this equipment. The Biden administration continues to push nonsense and
their radical agenda and fund them with taxpayer dollars, and this
isn't acceptable.
At a time when our country is trillions of dollars in debt, I refuse
to stand idly by while this administration continues to waste money in
this fashion, and there is no justification for allowing Federal
dollars for a program like this.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and to stop
the mismanagement of even more taxpayer dollars.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

[[Page H5323]]

The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to block air quality
monitoring. So often, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
start their speeches by saying, We believe in clean air, we believe in
clean water, but apparently they don't, and certainly, in this case,
this amendment does not.
Now, I come from a State with one of the highest rates of asthma.
Asthma is directly attributed to not having clean air. One in nine
people in Maine is experiencing asthma. Those are children. Those are
adults. Those are people who have serious health impacts because of
that, so why we would ever deny the opportunity to do more air quality
monitoring to make sure our citizens are safe, to make sure our
children don't have asthma, it is just beyond me.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chair, to my good friend from Maine, I was raised in
New England, and Maine is a lovely State.
Again, Mr. Chair, this is already going on. The EPA already does air
quality monitoring, and this is an additional program that is simply
unnecessary.
I do trust the great people of the great State of Maine. If they want
to monitor their air quality at the State level, they are certainly
welcome to do so, as well as at the local level, as we did in Texas,
and as we took a proactive approach to an issue that was very important
to the citizens in the city that I now represent in Congress that I
used to represent on the city council.
I, again, have yet a second amendment that, if Members vote for it,
they will feel really good about themselves, as my good friend, Matt
Gaetz, just told me.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 89 Offered by Mr. Fulcher

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 89
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, apply, enforce, or carry
out section 216 of Executive Order 14008 (86 Fed. Reg. 7627,
relating to tackling the climate crisis at home and abroad).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Idaho.
Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chair, thank you to my seatmate, Congressman
Simpson, for his overall work on this larger appropriations package. It
is not a simple thing to do right now.
My amendment will restrict funds to implement section 216 of
Executive Order No. 14008, which aims to supposedly conserve 30 percent
of our Nation's lands and waters by 2030.
Over the last 2 years, my colleagues and I on the Committee on
Natural Resources have introduced legislation to reverse President
Biden's land grab and environmental extremism through this 30 by 30
initiative. My constituents in Idaho are tired of interference and
overreach by the Federal Government as it tries to place more use
mandates on land.
Sixty-three percent of Idaho's landmass is federally controlled. If
it is truly the goal of this administration to increase federally
controlled land by another 30 percent, in that case, States in the
West, Idaho included, already disproportionately share in the economic
distress associated with this federally controlled land.
If the lands in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Maine, and other eastern
States were locked up by federally run bureaucracies like those in the
West, I am sure more of my colleagues from those States would share the
same desire that I have to restrict further expansion on the Federal
Government's land footprint.
In addition, there is a direct correlation between the percentage of
Federal landmass with increased budget costs, and, as we continue to
face record-breaking deficits, debt, and debt financing, we certainly
don't need to expand our cost centers.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and stop
this land-grab effort through this 30 by 30 initiative by the Federal
Government.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Idaho?
There was no objection.
Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Chair, I point out that the amount of federally
controlled lands is nowhere equal across our country. In Idaho, it is
32.8 million acres, and, to my good friend from Maine, it is 301,000.
You can't possibly contemplate the ramifications that has when it
comes to local governance and land management for your entire State.
When it comes to federally controlled land, enough is enough. Our
Federal resources are overwhelmed, and they are not in a good position
to manage this landmass, and so oftentimes they don't, and more Federal
use mandates reduce our overall wise land management.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Idaho will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 90 Offered by Mr. Gaetz

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 90
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end, before the short title, insert the following:

crab island area commercial services strategy

Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to finalize or implement a Commercial Services
Strategy for the Crab Island Area of the Gulf Islands
National Seashore.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Gaetz) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.

{time} 1915

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, there is an eclectic attraction in my district
in northwest Florida. It is called Crab Island but is actually not an
island at all. It is a sandbar where people go and enjoy swimming,
snorkeling, fishing, maybe a refreshment or even a hot dog or boiled
peanuts.
Right now, we have a system with our local governments and our State
government working in concert to manage Crab Island. It is all going
really well, and my amendment would prohibit the Department of the
Interior from playing, perhaps an excessive role, in the management of
commercial services. It is a wonderful place, and as we say in the
south, y'all come.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my colleague's invitation for us
all to come visit. I am sure it is a wonderful place. And, of course,
being from

[[Page H5324]]

Maine, we like anything that has the word crab in the title.
Unfortunately, this amendment blocks the National Park Service from
complying with the 1998 Concessions Act, which sets up the framework
for evaluating commercial services and parks. It stops the Park Service
from being able to complete its existing process to remain in
compliance with the Act.
The amendment would effectively grandfather in all permit holders
from the prior year, regardless of whether the services are necessary
and appropriate. The amendment also limits the National Park Service's
ability to ensure public safety of commercial services.
Currently, all vendors undergo public health, fire, and permit
condition inspections throughout an operating season. These inspections
have documented significant concerns such as food being cooked, held,
or served at temperatures or conditions that do not meet public health
standards; refueling processes that place workers and patrons at risk;
lack of basic safety, and fire protection; and operating in violation
of permit conditions.
The amendment eliminates the ability to manage the issuance of a
permit based on current or past performance, which creates conditions
that place workers, visitors, and park resources at risk from some
commercial services. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's great interest
in what is going on in Florida. Though we don't know each other well, I
can only assume that if there were a small patch of land in Maine, I
would be highly deferential as to what a local community in that
congressional district might think about it.
I would inform the House that I have a resolution from the City of
Destin where they speak to some of these concerns, but instead reflect
on the value of the existing State and local cooperation to achieve
those safer objectives.
With all due respect to the Concessions Act of 1998, which I am sure
we would never want to violate the sanctity of, the result of what the
Department of the Interior is trying to do in my community is going to
put a lot of mom-and-pop local businesses out of business, and instead,
it is going to constrain this to a Federal contracting requirement that
no one in our community believes is going to enhance safety, but
instead is going to limit the ability of folks to be able to enjoy the
park in the manner in which they are doing safely now. So that is why I
would ask for adoption of the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gaetz).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 91 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 91
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule
titled ``Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter'' and published by the
Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register on
January 27, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 5558).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment 91, which
prohibits funds to finalize, implement, or enforce the proposed rule by
the EPA titled: ``Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter.''
The EPA's proposed rule will lower the particulate matter or PM
standards to a level Maricopa County and other counties in Arizona
could never meet. The PM present in Arizona is not due to
manufacturing. It is naturally occurring. There is no way to lower the
PM in the desert.
Approximately 50 percent of Arizona is a desert. As a desert, it is
prone to accumulations of frequent dust, including frequent dust
storms. Maricopa County, for example, records one to three massive dust
storms called haboobs every year. The current ambient air quality in
southern Arizona rarely meets the EPA PM 2.5 standards due to the
widespread naturally occurring dust particulate matter throughout the
area. During a dust storm, the PM levels increase dramatically. Over
100 times the non-dust storm days, and it is well-documented by the
National Weather Service.
The proposed rule is unreasonable, incomprehensible, and it is not
based on environmental science. The proposed rule would have
substantial impacts on large swaths of the Western United States, not
just Arizona.
For example, if the standard were set to the proposed levels,
populated areas of Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and New
Mexico would be designated as nonattainment and subject to stringent
regulatory requirements and penalties.
The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which made its
recommendations to the EPA, failed to account for the naturally
occurring and ambient PM concentrations throughout the Western United
States.
The EPA must consider the world in its natural state. In Arizona, and
even in Michigan, particulate matter in comparatively high levels exist
in the natural state.
Without any contribution from mankind, there will be dust and
particulate matter in Arizona that exceeds the proposed and current
regulations adopted by the EPA.
How an agency that is supposed to be based on science can ignore the
National Weather Service data and the data from Maricopa County is
perplexing.
We expect better from our agencies, and we certainly expect an agency
to reconsider the differences between a rainforest and a desert. For
these reasons and more, I ask my colleagues to support Amendment 91
prohibiting funding to finalize or enforce the EPA's proposed rule
titled, Reconsideration of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for Particulate Matter.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment once again attempts to block
the administration from ensuring that the air we breathe is clean. I
truly think we can all agree that breathing clean air is a basic right.
For that reason, I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Yeah. Obviously, the young lady does not understand the
desert. She hasn't been in the desert. You can't just water the desert.
That is why it is the desert. Particulates are in the air. And so, if
you are an asthmatic, if you have got problems breathing, you don't
belong in the desert. But you can't lower those standards without going
through extraordinary circumstances.
You know, we do a lot of watering in the desert anyway, but the
particulates are in the air. It is naturally occurring. So I think this
is just ridiculous that there would be opposition from anybody in
regard to this. If you doubt me, come out to Arizona. I will be happy
to show you a haboob, show you the ambient quality.
This is by far an amendment that we need to adopt. I implore my
colleagues to adopt this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.

[[Page H5325]]

Amendment No. 92 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 92
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce Presidential
Proclamation 10606 of August 8, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 55331,
relating to the establishment of the Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah
Kukveni-Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National
Monument).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment 92, to
prohibit the Biden administration from implementing, administering, or
enforcing the recent Grand Canyon National Monument designation and
corresponding mineral withdraw for almost a million acres.
The monument designation flies in the face of multiple-use doctrines
for public land. Further, it creates no new revenue, and neither
creates nor empowers any employment. Make no mistake, the Grand Canyon
National Park is already protected under the Grand Canyon Protection
Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and multiple other regulations and
laws.
Further, the roughly million acres of newly designated land is far
outside the actual Grand Canyon, believe it or not.
I am also a proud sponsor of the Northern Arizona Protection Act,
which nullifies Biden's designation of corresponding mineral
withdrawal.
The almost million acres of designated land fall within my district
and my colleague from Arizona, Mr. Crane's. But at no point were we
consulted. And our constituents' opposition was ignored. Arizona
already boasts more national monuments than any other State. We do not
want any more monument designations.
The Federal Government already controls far too much land in Arizona,
and this restriction is unacceptable.
Despite repeatedly expressed concerns and questions from my
constituents, county supervisors, local groups, and the House Committee
on Natural Resources, the Department of the Interior has refused to
address any of them.
Instead, without consultation with my constituents or their
Representative in Congress, Biden and Secretary Haaland have
permanently withdrawn more than a million acres from its intended
multiple-use doctrine.
Under House Rule X, the Committee on Natural Resources has general
oversight of any matter relating to its jurisdiction, including the
management of Federal lands and the development of mineral resources.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I have
made repeated inquiries to the Secretary of the Interior regarding this
proposed designation. Yet still, the Secretary of the Interior has not
responded to repeated inquiries from my Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, further bypassing Congress and the legislative process.
Biden's designation is nothing short of a full-scale attack on the
livelihoods of many of my constituents. It sets back our Nation's
national security and even strengthens Russia.
Biden's proclamation imposed a nearly million-acre land grab
permanently banning mining in an area almost the size of Delaware. Some
falsely frame the designation as an effort to protect the Grand Canyon,
which of course is completely disingenuous. No one wants a mine within
the Grand Canyon. The designated area is miles away from the boundaries
of the buffer area--let me repeat that--the buffer area of the Grand
Canyon National Park. The area in question is home to the highest grade
and largest quantity of uranium deposits in the United States. So this
amendment does not just effectively affect Arizona, it harms our
national security for the entire country.
The designation plays right into the hands of Russia, who along with
Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are literally trying to corner the global
uranium market.
China is also joining in on this game, buying up uranium mines in
Africa. Everybody knows that in order to go green, you have to use
nuclear. We better get on board.
There is no question this designation will hurt local revenues, kill
jobs, and undermine American energy security. It does not protect the
Grand Canyon. It is opposed by the people of my district, and I urge my
colleagues to join me in opposition.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the use of any
Federal funds to implement, administer, or enforce the Presidential
proclamation that establishes the ancestral footprints of the Grand
Canyon National Monument in Arizona, an area significant to many Tribal
nations.
The Antiquities Act provides the President with the authority to
designate national monuments in order to protect objects of historic or
scientific interest. This amendment inappropriately restricts the
President's ability to declare national monuments in specific parts of
the country.

Both Republican and Democratic Presidents have used this authority to
increase the protection of special Federal lands. It goes against 100
years of American tradition to protect the nation's cultural and
natural resources.
The Antiquities Act represents an important achievement in the
progress of conservation and preservation efforts in the United States.
Congress should not stand in the way of these achievements.
I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, you know, I love the fact that we have
individuals from across this country, it is a beauty, but it is also
detrimental to us here in this aspect. No one has taken an airplane
over this general area. They don't know what they are talking about.
So number one, being ancestral, anything can be that way. Teddy
Roosevelt set this thing up called public lands. And in due process,
what he did is he established also at the same time the multiple-use
doctrine, the Taylor Grazing Act requiring these lands to be not just
used but to be improved and to be used for multiple purposes. That is
mining. That is energy development. It is not conservation. Let me
repeat, not conservation.
So when people start talking about these monuments, you got to come
out to Arizona. We have got more than any other State combined. So
let's get after this. But this is very important for national security,
and this designation does not need to go through. I ask that people
vote for this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.

{time} 1930

Amendment No. 93 Offered by Mr. Graves of Louisiana

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 93
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end, before the short title, insert the following:

rice's whale

Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management or the Director of the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement to implement the terms of the
``Stipulated Agreement to Stay Proceedings'' (July 21, 2023;
Docket No. 8:20-cv-03060-DLB) entered into by the Sierra
Club, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth,
and Turtle Island Restoration Network and the National Marine
Fisheries Service and the Assistant Administrator for
Fisheries of the National Marine Fisheries Service, including
the ``Notice to

[[Page H5326]]

Lessees and Operators of Federal Oil and Gas, and Sulphur
Leases in the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf;
Expanded Rice's Whale Protection Efforts During Reinitiated
Consultation with NMFS'' (BOEM NTL No. 2023-G01; August 17,
2023).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, this amendment is a funding
restriction. Let me give you a little bit of background. What happened
is the Federal Government was sued by a group of extreme environmental
organizations claiming that a new species of whale was in the Gulf of
Mexico and that its habitat needed to be restricted in order to ensure
the survivability of the species.
Mr. Chair, it sounds like a reasonable approach. The problem is that
what happened is that they didn't provide any opportunity for public
comment, and they did not provide any opportunity for peer-reviewed
science. As a matter of fact, the sensors that are supposed to be
detecting these species did not even detect species in the area where
they are trying to impose restrictions.
Mr. Chair, as a result of this sue-and-settle operation by the
Federal Government, by the Biden administration, 6 million acres of the
Gulf of Mexico have been taken effectively offline or put with
significant restriction in the Gulf of Mexico.
What this does is this further complicates U.S. energy security. It
further restricts opportunities to produce energy domestically.
Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I am opposing this amendment which would
block the Bureau of Energy Management from implementing the terms of a
stay agreement between NOAA and several NGOs related to mitigation
measures to protect the Rice's whales in the Gulf of Mexico.
I guess my confusion here is that this amendment has already been
overtaken by events. On October 27, NOAA announced that it had denied
the petition from several NGOs to establish a mandatory 10-knot speed
limit and other vessel-related mitigation measures to protect the
Rice's whales in the Gulf of Mexico. Further, NOAA stated that it will
not be proceeding with the rulemaking at this time.
I guess I would ask the gentleman, now that he is aware of this
development, since this happened just on October 27, would he consider
withdrawing this unnecessary amendment from a bill that is already
bloated with riders? It seems to have no purpose.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, the Biden administration has
been quite focused on destroying the American energy industry. This
entire insane focus on allegedly protecting a species of whale in the
Gulf of Mexico has been used by the Biden administration to attempt to
deeply restrict oil and gas actions in the Gulf of Mexico.
Whales, Mr. Chair. They wanted to stop vessels from moving at night.
They wanted to stop vessels from moving over 10 knots. It is insane.
Americans are struggling. Inflation is crushing us. The American
energy industry should be unleashed, not oppressed.
I rise in support of Representative Graves' amendment, and I urge all
Members to support this amendment in support of an American energy
industry that should be dominant worldwide.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, once again, I would say I understand we
have disagreements on energy policy, and I understand that my
colleagues often like an opportunity to criticize the Biden
administration because they don't agree with their stand on energy
policy.
I just want to be clear. Again, the Biden administration didn't do
this, as he said in his remarks and I clarified. This was an NGO that
sued to have this happen, but NOAA stated it is not proceeding with the
rulemaking at this time. The Biden administration is not doing this. It
is not slowing down boats. It is not stopping boats at night. None of
the things that he said were actually true. In fact, they have backed
off on this.
I know we all have moments in our own State. I represent a coastal
State. We have all kinds of disagreements on lawsuits that are filed
against current practices, but that didn't happen.
Could he just withdraw this? Because he has got an amendment about
something that isn't happening. Believe me, we have got enough
disagreement and misinformation and there are enough harmful riders in
this bill. I would respectfully request that he just withdraw this and
acknowledge that none of this actually happened.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I certainly do appreciate the
gentlewoman from Maine's concerns, and I appreciate her understanding
of one of the two components of what we are discussing today. The
component that my friend from Maine is discussing pertains to
recreational vessels and port traffic. That is one component, and the
gentlewoman is correct.
However, the component that my friend from Louisiana and I are
raising concerns about is the energy component that has impacted 6
million acres in the Gulf of Mexico. This is actually a bifurcated
decision or approach. One component was rejected, the gentlewoman is
correct. The component that we are discussing actually is very much
alive and very much relevant.
I certainly share the concerns that the gentlewoman has recognized. I
appreciate that component, but that is not what this amendment pertains
to; therefore, I again insist upon this amendment.
Madam Chair, I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's thoughts. I
continue to disagree. I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, once again, as the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) and I have noted, we have watched as this
administration has carried out energy policies that are some of the
most inexplicable, incomprehensible energy policies I have ever seen,
policies that are resulting in a 40 percent increase in energy costs
for American families, making one in every four families choose among
costs like groceries, utilities, rental payments, and other things that
are simply false choices.
We can continue down this path that allows Iran to profit $60 billion
above the amount they were making before the Biden administration took
office, allowing Venezuela to profit $65 billion above the amount that
they were making prior to the Biden administration, or we can simply
produce American energy, some of the lowest carbon-intense barrels in
the world, and actually have American energy security, returning us to
American energy security as we saw under the previous administration,
rather than these policies that are so punitive on American families,
especially those that can least afford it.
Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Tenney). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 94 Offered by Ms. Greene of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 94
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
used to remove any monument on land under the jurisdiction of
the Department of the Interior.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentlewoman
from Georgia (Ms. Greene) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.

[[Page H5327]]

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Georgia.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, my amendment prohibits funds
from being used to remove any monument on land under the jurisdiction
of the Department of the Interior.
For too long, communist Democrats have been hell-bent on erasing our
culture, way of life, and our history, whether we agree with it or not.
As George Orwell wrote in ``Nineteen Eighty-Four,'' they want a
future in which ``every record has been destroyed or falsified, every
book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue
and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered.
And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History
has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the
Party is always right.''
In 2020, nearly 168 Confederate symbols were removed across the
United States, many of which were violently torn down by radical BLM
antifa activists who burned American cities to the ground.
Most recently, the statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, that
stood for nearly a century in Charlottesville, Virginia, was
dismembered and melted down in a 2,250-degree furnace.
The news media was quick to flood social media with video posts of
the statue's head melting down in fire. This was the message: The
communists in our country have made it clear that they will not stop
with Robert E. Lee and will continue to do this until George
Washington's statue is burning in fire.
Whether we agree with the monuments, whether we agree with the
history, our history is our lessons now for this generation and for
future generations to come.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, this amendment is one more controversial
poison pill policy rider that sadly shows that the Republicans are not
interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.
The amendment would prohibit the Department of the Interior from
removing any monument on land under their jurisdiction.
There can be many reasons a monument would need to be removed, such
as the health and safety of visitors and staff. This amendment provides
no latitude for the Department to steward the land and resources they
are responsible for.
In 15 days, the government will shut down, yet we are spending time
on a bill that will never become law and on this superfluous partisan
poison pill rider.
We should be focused on creating a bipartisan bill that abides by the
agreement reached in the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.
Let's do the job we were elected to do, ensure the American people
receive the benefits and services they are entitled to.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I rise in support of this
amendment, and I thank my colleague for introducing it.
Madam Chair, our history is our history, all of it. We live in an era
wherein my Democrat colleagues across the aisle seem to fail to
recognize the simple fact that if you are rewriting history, you are
rewriting history of this body, and the American people have lost all
trust in any kind of sanity coming out of my Democrat colleagues.
From sea to shining sea, taking down statues. How is that working?
How is that going, Madam Chair?
Do we have peace in our time? Is our border okay? Is the world not on
fire? Do we have more or less racial problems in America today than we
did 20 years ago?
It is insane, again, what my Democrat colleagues push.
The confederate soldiers buried in Arlington, shall you remove their
bones?
Madam Chair, I support the amendment.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Zinke).

{time} 1945

Mr. ZINKE. Madam Chairman, the gentlewoman from Maine may have
mentioned that this affects all monuments. In fact, it does not.
As a former Secretary, monuments are under the Antiquities Act, and
there are about 163, as I recall. This only pertains to monuments that
commemorate the Founding Fathers of the United States on land under the
jurisdiction of the Department. I don't recall how many monuments are
to the Founding Fathers, but there are not many. I don't recall any
being a safety issue.
As a matter of fact, I recall all of them being a part of our history
and an important part of our history for all to learn. This does not
affect all monuments or the safety. What it affects is the very essence
of the country, and I support this amendment.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I appreciate the thoughts of the former
Secretary of the Interior, and I thank him for his service, but I want
to be clear. Let me read this back. There may have been an earlier
version of this, but this one says: ``None of the funds made available
by this act may be used to remove any monument on land under the
jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.''
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Chair, actually, there should be no
funds allocated to remove any monument, and there is no necessary
reason to remove the monuments. This is the Democrats' and the Biden
administration's effort to erase our history just as they have done to
the statue of Robert E. Lee. This is an outrage.
This is exactly what they do in communist countries. The Democrats
want to accuse us of book burning while we try to get pornography books
out of our children's schools. The Democrats will do nothing to stop
their attempts to destroy our Nation's history, and we must protect it.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment, and I
urge its passage. I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, just to clear up a couple of things. My
colleague mentioned the Founding Fathers. Robert E. Lee was not one of
the Founding Fathers. He was a general of the Confederacy. That was in
the city of Charlottesville. That wasn't a national monument when that
statue was removed.
I have to say, I find it rich that the party that has supported book
banning in our libraries, rewriting curriculum, and not talking about
our history over and over again is the very one that is saying that we
have to often keep painful monuments in places where they do damage,
where they interfere with people's ability to enjoy the particular area
that they are in, and leave it to the Department of the Interior to
have that discretion.
If we are going to get into talking about book banning and rewriting
history, let's have an honest debate about it and talk about the
differences between our two parties on this.
Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia
will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair understands that amendment No. 95 will
not be offered.

Amendment No. 96 Offered by Mr. Grothman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 96
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H5328]]

The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to develop, finalize, issue, or use assessments under
the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Chair, my amendment No. 96 prohibits funds to
develop, finalize, issue, or use assessments under the EPA's Integrated
Risk Information System, or IRIS program.
The IRIS program has never been authorized by Congress and was
created by the EPA out of thin air in the 1980s. It has been heavily
criticized by everyone from former EPA officials, the National Academy
of Sciences, Federal agencies, and the Government Accountability
Office. Despite that, the EPA spends $20 million to $40 million of
taxpayer money per year on the program.
IRIS has a demonstrated history of conducting low-quality chemical
risk assessments that failed to utilize the best available scientific
data and establish very real regulations for private citizens and
private companies.
EPA has targeted a number of important chemistries, including
formaldehyde; uranium; vanadium, a critical mineral; ethylene oxide,
for sterilization of medical equipment; naphthalene, to shut down oil
production; as well as others.
IRIS risk assessments have been put forth at the expense of American
jobs and cost public confidence in chemistries that are critical to
activity across many sectors of the U.S. economy, from agriculture to
furniture making to transportation and national security.
Bipartisan concerns have been raised repeatedly in Congress about the
failure of the IRIS program to utilize sound science and broad input in
its evaluations. These concerns have been largely dismissed or ignored.
Recently, IRIS has indicated that they intend to use the formaldehyde
IRIS rule, which is below the level in human breath and from natural
background levels, as the basis for their high-priority risk evaluation
and risk management rule for formaldehyde over the next 2 years.
It should be obvious that these bans on formaldehyde, certain
formaldehyde-based products or conditions of use, and unachievable
workplace standards orders of magnitude below OSHA or European Union
requirements will be very damaging mandates for Americans.
This would include direct negative impacts on the manufacturing
community, including on manufacturing of resins, wood products,
adhesives, fertilizers, roofing, coating materials, electrical
products, lubricants, fabrics, and other construction materials as well
as energy, transportation, and agriculture end uses.
There needs to be a change in the way EPA conducts its business
around scientific integrity and accountability and the way in which the
Federal Government conducts chemical risk evaluations.
My amendment is in the interest of protecting American safety and
jobs and ensuring chemical risk assessments conducted by the EPA are
driven by the best available science rather than political and
ideological agendas.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, the EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System identifies and characterizes the health hazards of chemicals
found in the environment in an impartial manner. IRIS assessments are
critical in understanding the environmental risks we face.
This amendment would deny Americans a valuable tool in understanding
the health effects resulting from chronic exposure to chemicals. This
includes cancer descriptors that help us better understand which
chemicals are most likely to cause cancer.
Madam Chair, I support the work done by the EPA. I oppose this
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Chair, I will point out one more time that we are
in a situation here in which our tolerance is well under that of
European or other countries. One more time, we are going put ourselves
in a position which manufacturing is much more expensive, if not
impossible, in the United States compared to other countries.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 97 Offered by Ms. Hageman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 97
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to finalize, revise, implement, administer, or
enforce the notice of interim guidance entitled ``National
Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change'' published by
the Council on Environmental Quality in the Federal Register
on January 9, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 1196).

[[Page H5329]]

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, we simply have no accountability, no taking
of responsibility, and no consequences for these agencies that fail to
carry out their responsibilities. What that means in the long term is
that there is ultimately no more gas for our cars, oil to heat our
homes, or energy to power our First World economy.
What is my point? We do not need to add any more roadblocks under
NEPA making it even more uncertain and difficult for these agencies to
process applications. We don't need any more steps, reviews, analyses,
or guidance documents to make NEPA more burdensome to our producers,
small businesses, ranchers, and manufacturers. We don't need to make it
any more difficult to properly manage our national forests or to
maintain our water infrastructure.
We have reclamation projects that need to be constructed and
maintained. We have forests in dire need of management. We need these
things now, not 10 years from now.
My amendment defunds the CEQ's and this administration's efforts to
use global warming hysteria to further delay such projects that are
subject to NEPA.
My amendment is also critically important to block CEQ's illegal
attempt to avoid compliance with the APA's rulemaking requirements. CEQ
doesn't have the authority to issue guidance documents with the force
and effect of law, yet that is exactly how this guidance document will
be interpreted--as imposing new requirements on project proponents as
part of the NEPA review process.
We must, therefore, stop CEQ from implementing a so-called guidance
document that is, in reality, no such thing. CEQ should be forced to go
through the public rulemaking process to adopt such wide-ranging
changes to NEPA procedural requirements.
The reality is that NEPA was designed to address reasonably
foreseeable impacts of a particular project, not to allow agencies to
try to guess what temperature it will be a thousand miles away 75 years
from now.
I read an article a year ago assessing the global warming hysteria
that we are living through. This gentleman who wrote the article made
an excellent observation that I believe is worth repeating here: ``The
notion that government should impoverish actual human beings as a means
of promoting the welfare of humanity is a pagan superstition on par
with sacrificing individuals to the sun god.'' I couldn't have said it
better.

{time} 2000

We must block the CEQ from pursuing an agenda of impoverishment and
government imposed wretchedness. We must no longer tolerate their
bowing to the sun god, and we must return common sense and rational
thinking to our permitting and NEPA processes.
Please join me in supporting my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 98 Offered by Ms. Hageman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 98
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement or enforce the final rule of the
Environmental Protection Agency, titled ``Clean Water Act
Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule'',
and published on September 27, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 66558).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentlewoman
from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment
which prohibits the implementation and enforcement of the EPA's final
rule entitled: Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Improvement Rule.
The U.S. EPA published in the Federal Register its revised Clean
Water Act Section 401 certification rule on September 27 of this year.
This proposal was made in direct response to the 2021 Biden executive
order that directed agencies to tackle the so-called climate crisis.
This rule applies to 401 certifications, which are water quality
certifications issued by State or Tribal authorities that verify
compliance with water quality requirements. The CWA allows States a
great deal of discretion in reviewing and conditioning 401
certifications to ensure compliance with the CWA and State surface
water quality standards.
This final rule returns to the broader scope of review that was in
place prior to the 2020 rule and requires States and Tribes to evaluate
the water-quality-related impacts from an entire activity as a whole,
including construction and operation, rather than doing what it should,
which is solely focusing on the aspect of the activity directly
authorized by a given Federal license or permit.
The final rule also includes a broad definition of the term
``neighboring jurisdiction'' which means that it can include any
jurisdiction other than the one in which the discharge originates.
The EPA's proposed rule is too broad, is contrary to the clear intent
of section 401 of the Clean Water Act and is outside of the EPA's
authority and jurisdiction.
My amendment would prohibit the implementation of this broad,
wrongheaded rule.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise to oppose this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, this is another policy rider designed to
block the EPA from doing its work to protect our air, our water, and
public health. I know my constituents. They look to me to make good
decisions because they want to have clean water to drink, to cook, and
to bathe in, and the EPA working alongside the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency ensures that we have the best water quality standards
around.
So, Madam Chair, on behalf of the Fourth District of Minnesota, I
oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Chair, we all want clean water. This rule has
nothing to do with that. This has to do with the EPA controlling and
dictating matters that they have no business being involved with.
This proposal will put many pending projects at risk, including
mining projects, and it will force the courts to make the final
determinations with regard to such projects by interpreting and
applying two extremely vague and ambiguous provisions included in the
new rule.
This situation will ultimately result in a significant loss of
investment in mining projects throughout the country, and it will cause
greater regulatory uncertainty and inefficiency.
My amendment will block the EPA from implementing this wrongheaded
rule, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of it.
Not only does this rule broaden reviews and jurisdiction for permit
requirements, but it substantially expands the jurisdiction of States
to regulate even those waters that are not considered navigable waters
of the United States as required by the Clean Water Act.
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality had this to say about
the rule:

We are deeply concerned with EPA's blatant claims in the
preamble of the rule to use the section 401 certification
process as a mechanism to expand Federal jurisdiction in
waters that are not waters of the United States.

Wyoming DEQ also highlighted the burdens that would be imposed on
entities due to broadening the scope of activities measured under this
certification to include conditions unrelated or only speculatively
related to water quality.
I will say it again: We all want clean water. This rule has nothing
to do with that.

[[Page H5330]]

EPA's new interpretation of section 401 and its efforts to broaden
States' authority over water bodies and features that are outside of
the jurisdiction of Clean Water Act must be stopped.
We are fed up with the EPA using the Clean Water Act as part of its
effort to implement this administration's radical environmental agenda
and land grab. My amendment is designed to stop this nonsense, to block
the EPA's misinterpretation and application of section 401 of the Clean
Water Act, and to force the EPA to follow the law.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mr. Jackson of Texas

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 99
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end, before the short title, insert the following:

texas kangaroo rat

Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Secretary of the Interior to finalize,
implement, administer, or enforce the proposed rule titled
``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered
Species Status for Texas Kangaroo Rat and Designation of
Critical Habitat'' (88 Fed. Reg. 55962; published August 17,
2023).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Jackson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment
which will stop the Federal land grab happening in my district by the
Fish and Wildlife Service.
My amendment will prohibit funds from being used to implement the
horrible, proposed rule to list the Texas kangaroo rat as endangered.
Under its proposed rule the Fish and Wildlife Service will designate
600,000 acres as critical habitat across five counties in my district.
This decision is a massive overreach by the Federal Government that
will simultaneously harm the farmers and ranchers in my district which,
by the way, is the number one ag district in the State, and it will
simultaneously crush the struggling oil and gas industry.
The State of Texas has long been committed to promoting and
protecting our wildlife and natural habitats through voluntary
conservation efforts that balance responsible stewardship and economic
development.
This horribly flawed rule proposal is a completely unnecessary action
from the Biden administration as the State of Texas has already taken
the initiative to preserve the Texas kangaroo rat.
Action has already been taken to address the conservation needs of
the species while accounting for the unique needs of landowners in
north Texas, which results in thousands of acres of land already being
utilized to conserve the species without punishing private citizens or
the ag and energy sectors.
Unfortunately, the always radical Biden administration decided to
ignore the ongoing efforts and impose unnecessary and aggressive
Federal interference. The Fish and Wildlife Services endangered listing
of the Texas kangaroo rat will have drastic ramifications on the
farming and ranching industry in Texas. If this proposed rule goes into
effect, agriculture producers in my district could be subject to civil
and criminal penalties handed out by radical Biden administration
officials who will stop at nothing to advance its Green New Deal
agenda, meaning farmers and ranchers could face up to 1 year
imprisonment and tens of thousands of dollars in fines for accidental
or even perceived injury of a Texas kangaroo rat or its habitat.
The Texas kangaroo rat can only thrive when there is sparse, short
grasses and small stubble which is exactly what our farmers and
ranchers provide when grazing cattle.
The farming and ranching industries are the backbone of our unique
Texas history, heritage, and economy. Unfortunately, the heavy hand of
the Federal bureaucracy, once again, is looking to destroy that.
If this proposed rule goes into effect, it will significantly
restrict the way our ranchers can use their land, setting a dangerous
precedent of Federal overreach into agriculture production that will
have far-reaching consequences for not only Texas but our entire
Nation.
The agriculture industry is already being hit with rising costs due
to the historic inflation caused by ``Bidenomics'', and this new rule
will only intensify these struggles.
Texas has a proud history of responsible land management and
conservation, and for any effort to succeed, it must be driven by local
communities rather than bureaucrats in Washington.
Madam Chair, I urge every Member in this body to support my
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, ecosystems are in distress, and they are
declining globally at rates we couldn't even have imagined. Human
history will have more than 1 million species directly currently
threatened with extinction within many decades. It will happen within
some of our lifetimes.
This amendment seeks to legislate species rather than providing
species with the protections that are afforded under the Endangered
Species Act. The species live somewhere. The Endangered Species Act
protects the habitat.
Madam Chair, think of the bald eagle and what we did to protect that,
and how proud we all are of what we did to protect that. Those were
other Members of Congress. Now we have the responsibility to do the
same thing for the next generation.
This law would also potentially increase litigation regarding the
government's responsibility to implement the statutory requirements
under the Endangered Species Act. So that means more litigation and
more taxpayers' dollars spent in litigation.
The best available science and commercial information, not politics,
should determine whether a species is listed, threatened, or
endangered. This amendment circumvents the rigorous process that is put
in place to make those scientific determinations as well as the role of
public input. There is public input that goes into this.
The primary factor influencing the viability of the Texas kangaroo
rat is loss of its habitat largely related to historical land use
changes. Human activities threaten to diminish animal habitats. They
pollute nature. They accelerate global warming which is driving species
to extinction and creating more unhealthy ecosystems. When we lose a
species it impacts and reverberates throughout our ecosystem and we all
suffer because our economy, our public health, livelihoods, food
security, and quality of life all depend upon ecosystems working
together.
Defunding the service's ability to list a species would work against
the clear intent of the Endangered Species Act and would, as I said
before, cause more litigation by outside groups, not less, but more
litigation costing taxpayers more money.
Most importantly, Madam Chair, it would also undercut the service's
ability to work collaboratively with Tribes who seek help on ecosystem
protection, other Federal agencies, States, and local communities, and
landowners who wish and want to work cooperatively to conserve species.

So, Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and to
protect vulnerable species so that future generations can benefit from
a world with healthy ecosystems and robust biodiversity just as
previous generations did for us, and the best example is the American
bald eagle.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JACKSON of Texas. Madam Chair, there are no better stewards of
the land and the animals in Texas than the farmers and ranchers in
Texas' 13th

[[Page H5331]]

Congressional District. We do not need the Federal Government telling
us how to accomplish this.
Madam Chair, I appreciate having the support of all of my colleagues,
I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on the amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 100 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 100
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the
Draft Resource Management Plan or Draft Environmental Impact
Statement referenced in the notice titled ``Notice of
Availability of the Draft Resource Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement for the Redding and Arcata
Field Offices and an Associated Environmental Impact
Statement, California'' (88 Fed. Reg. 67344; published
September 29, 2023).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from California (Mr. LaMalfa) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, my amendment would stop the latest in a
series of land grabs in the West by the Biden administration.
Many of the Presidential proclamations and the executive actions
enabling these land grabs stem from section 216 of Executive Order
14008 signed by President Biden just a week after taking office.
This order started the 30 by 30 plan which seeks to restrict and lock
away roughly 30 percent of this Nation's public lands by the year 2030.
``30 for 30'' is a nice series on ESPN about sports figures, but 30
by 30 is very dangerous for us in the West.
In support of this executive initiative, the Bureau of Land
Management published a new resource management plan for northwest
California at the end of September. Much of the BLM plan area overlaps
with my own congressional district.

{time} 2015

In total, the so-called preferred alternative detailed in BLM's draft
management plan would designate 42,000 acres as protected for the
environment or for conservation.
Under the Bureau's current management plan, just 100 acres of land
are labeled suitable for wild and scenic river designations, but this
draft plan would see the number would explode to nearly 34,000 acres.
The difference between 100 acres is one-sixth of a square mile, and
34,000 acres is 53 square miles.
In Shasta County, 33,000 acres would be labeled areas of critical
environmental concern. Concern. We can be concerned about just about
anything around here, can't we? Several thousand more will be removed
from eligibility for livestock grazing. Grazing, which is known to be
very helpful in fire suppression and actually stirring the land and
having things grow.
The same interest groups that are supportive of this management plan
are also behind a continuous push to remove hydroelectric dams now on
Butte Creek, as well as the ones we are suffering up on the Klamath
River. This would prevent recreational fishing on Butte Creek.
Madam Chairman, the 30 by 30 plan is indicative of how much
environmentalists just don't understand real life for rural Americans
and certainly life for the people in my own congressional district. If
environmentalists actually lived in the Churn Creek Bottom or up in
Magalia, they would understand that my constituents who do live there
want to take care of the natural resources.
The folks in Churn Creek Bottom don't just graze without regard to
the health of the land. They know, because they live there, that they
will need to graze this land again in a few months, in a few years, in
10 years, and on, as many families have been doing for six generations
in my district.
In my life, I am really a rice farmer. I would fight to protect our
rivers from pollution because it is bad for my crops and for my
neighbors. This isn't rocket science, folks. Beyond my farm, the
waterways in the Sacramento Valley need to be clean because people like
to recreate, like to fish, and just have a nice environment. No, we are
not bad stewards of the land. We certainly don't need Biden coming in
and setting aside 30 percent of all lands in just 7 scant years.
Bureaucrats with orders from D.C., however, should not be telling
Americans to stay away from the public lands. They already know how to
take care of their lands and their rivers. Most of these resources are
the lifeblood of each and every rural town, anyway.
I urge adoption of this amendment in order to keep just a little more
freedom, a little more possibilities in the economy and a lifestyle
that was once normal in rural America.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, this is just another more controversial
poison pill rider that sadly shows some of the extremes that
Republicans will go to.
Now, we need to be interested in laws that can gain bipartisan
support and become law because people want us to work together and move
forward. The draconian cuts proposed in this bill violate the agreement
that was reached by Speaker McCarthy and President Biden that were
memorialized in Public Law 118-5, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of
2023. I voted for that in good faith and thought we, as a Congress,
were going to honor that commitment to those spending levels.
Now that I have said that, I want to get back to the amendment. In
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the BLM drafted a proposed
draft resource management plan, an environmental impact statement that
is currently open for a 90-day comment period. The public has been
asked to comment. Your constituents can comment, and we have asked them
to do that. This amendment would prohibit the BLM from providing an
updated, comprehensive, and environmentally adequate framework for
managing the uses of its public lands and resources.
We are here to protect the overall welfare of the American public and
to preserve our lands and resources for future generations.
Unfortunately, this would be disregarding the law and trying to
circumvent the rigorous process that is in place to update the
management plans to better address larger, higher intensity wildland
fires, for example, something I know the gentleman and I have both
worked on and both agree that we need to do so much more on to protect
our public lands from wildland fires and private lands from it as well.
This amendment nullifies that public comment I was talking about
before, 90 days public comment. We have invited the public in to make
comments. We are currently collecting them. This amendment would say,
you know, we asked you to comment, but we are just going to totally
disregard it. We are not going to even look at it.

I believe we cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change
we are experiencing. Our economy, our health, our livelihoods, food
security, and quality of life all depend on healthy ecosystems and so
does reducing and suppressing wildland fires, for example.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus instead on
work we can do together to address climate change and together being
good stewards of our public lands and resources for the benefit of
future generations.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Chair, I have been hearing all day, we need more
plans that can gain bipartisan support, yet the people I represent,
especially in the northern part of my district, don't believe there is
bipartisan support when the Federal agencies come in and take away
their water, make it where they can't access their land, they can't

[[Page H5332]]

get grazing permits anymore. It is crammed down their throats by an
administration that is listening to somebody else rather than them.
That doesn't sound very bipartisan.
It is putting these people out of business who have been successful
for five, six generations on being good stewards of the land, yet now
it is not good enough because of something called climate change, which
CO2 only represents 0.04 percent of our atmosphere. That is
hardly measurable. Yet we are going hell-bent on ruining our economy,
ruining people's lives, ruining legacies because of something that
people who fly in their private jets to Davos like to talk about and
put upon us.
Madam Chair, 30 for 30 does not do anything for climate change. It
just makes it just about impossible to produce domestic food, domestic
energy, et cetera, in this country. That is why I am bringing this
amendment, and I appreciate an ``aye'' vote.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).
The amendment was agreed to.

AMENDMENT NO. 101 OFFERED BY MR. MCCORMICK

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 101
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The salary of Matthew Tejada, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Environmental Justice, shall be reduced to
$1.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. McCormick) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Chair, I rise to offer my amendment No. 101 to
H.R. 4821, the Interior-Environment appropriations bill for 2024. My
amendment reduces the salary of Matthew Tejada, the deputy assistant
administrator for environmental justice at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, to $1.
As the deputy assistant administrator, he often propagates divisive
rhetoric and pushes the Biden administration's disastrous environmental
justice initiatives onto American communities.
While in his position, Matthew Tejada has made divisive and
inflammatory remarks, attributing the disinvestment in some areas, like
East St. Louis, to racism and referred to this as the genocide of
communities. This sort of rhetoric is a tool used by the radical left
to create a greater divide across the Nation.
Matthew Tejada has even said that he wants to use millions of Federal
tax dollars to fix environmental racism. As a conservative, I support
protecting the environment. One of my favorite Presidents--as a matter
of fact, my favorite President--Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican and
one of the greatest champions of environmental conservation.
However, I do not support taking a benign policy topic and twisting
it into a controversial issue used by the government to further its own
political agenda.
This year the EPA received $108 million to go toward funding
environmental justice programs and projects, such as the Biden
administration's Executive Order 13985, which instructs the EPA to
enact an equity action plan.
I am strongly opposed to wasting American taxpayer dollars on issues
that will further divide the country. Investing in our communities is
important. However, incorporating race into an unrelated issue is
simply virtue signaling, which is unhelpful and divisive.
The Biden administration should focus on unifying the country rather
than dividing us so that we can combat the real issues our country is
facing, like the emergency at the southern border, rising inflation,
and the multiple crises happening overseas.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I know the gentleman doesn't see it this
way, but I see this amendment as petty and punitive--the EPA and
environmental justice. I live in a corridor, it is called I-94, and
there was a thriving African-American community there. Absolutely
thriving--undertakers, dentists, doctors, dry cleaners, grocery stores.
It was an amazing place. However, it was the place of the least
political resistance to put a highway through rather than over by the
cathedral, which got a different speed limit and some other things that
happened, or the mansions on Summit Avenue hill just a couple blocks
away.
Snelling Avenue in my district has some of the worst air quality for
the homes that are located around there because of the freeway. I can
give example after example, and I just used transportation, but I can
use other things.
I grew up in South St. Paul, a river town with a meatpacking plant.
Swift Armour could just throw their waste right into the Mississippi
River. The State of Wisconsin sued us not only for that waste but for
the waste of our municipal waste plant that was there. That was in the
poorest neighborhood around between Dakota and Washington County.
You can say it is about race, but it is about people who were taken
advantage of because it was the most expedient thing to do. Now the
Biden administration and other administrations have said, you know
what, we have a responsibility to clean that up. We have a
responsibility to do better, and that is a role that the environmental
pollution control agency should be involved in because the water, the
air, and the soil in many of these places is not anyplace where we
would make an investment or where you would want to buy something.
I understand the gentleman has his viewpoint on what is going on. I
just want you to hear from myself and on behalf of my constituents who
are working to rectify a wrong. We are doing it in a positive way that
moves forward; that is not dividing our communities, but it is uniting
our communities. I don't think when we are mad at something or a policy
that we should be going after individual public servants.
I would like to move forward, Madam Chair, and negotiate with the
Senate a bill to fund the government and to move the EPA forward so we
have clean air, clean water, and we protect our soil.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Chair, I actually appreciate the gentlewoman's
comments. As a former student body president at Morehouse School of
Medicine, a minority university, I appreciate the diversity that our
country represents. The problem I have is that when we are trying to
save the environment, which I have no problem with--I have already
stated, my dad was a forest ranger. I have already stated that Teddy
Roosevelt was my favorite President--I want to protect the environment.
I just don't want to make it an issue about race. I believe we should
protect all people, regardless of their skin color. I believe in equal
opportunities. I believe that if it is the right thing to do, we do it
regardless of what race, what religion, what gender. No matter what the
people are, they are Americans, and they deserve the very best from
their government. The fact is, we are literally using the government to
call the government racist. The very people who are put in charge by
President Biden are calling people who are put in charge by the same
governmental people racist. It is an inconsistency of thought, and it
is divisive.
Therefore, I humbly ask my colleagues to support my amendment to hold
Federal bureaucrats accountable, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page H5333]]

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.

{time} 2030

Amendment No. 102 Offered by Mr. McCormick

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 102
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, apply, enforce, or carry
out Executive Order 14037 of August 5, 2021 (86 Fed. Reg.
43583; relating to strengthening American leadership in clean
cars and trucks), Executive Order 14057 of December 8, 2021
(86 Fed. Reg. 70935; relating to catalyzing clean energy
industries and jobs through Federal sustainability), or
Executive Order 14096 of April 21, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 25251;
relating to revitalizing our Nation's commitment to
environmental justice for all).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. McCormick) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Chair, I rise to offer my amendment No. 102 to
H.R. 4821, the Interior-Environment appropriations bill for 2024.
My amendment would prohibit funds from this act from implementing
President Biden's burdensome and irresponsible Executive Order Nos.
14037, 14057, and 14096.
Executive Order Nos. 14037 and 14057 are just more examples of the
Biden administration's overreach and out-of-touch energy regulations.
The idea that the American people want the consequences of 100
percent of their electricity being carbon pollution-free by 2030, 100
percent of the government vehicles to have zero emissions by 2035, and
50 percent of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the
United States to be electric by 2030 shows just how ignorant this
current administration is to the challenges of everyday Americans who
are facing these problems.
Everyone needs to pay attention. EV popularity is waning, and it is
expensive. Every day, Americans are worried about the skyrocketing
costs of groceries and gas prices or whether their next paycheck will
cover all their bills, including their electricity bills.
The last thing they are thinking about trying to afford is an
electric vehicle that meets the Biden administration's strict standards
and, on average, costs $17,000 more than a gas-powered vehicle.
By the way, for a guy who owns a Tesla and who just had to replace a
battery, that is another $17,000 on top of that. Your battery will go
bad. Anybody who has a cell phone understands that.
These executive orders will hurt low-income Americans most of all.
The Biden administration claims to protect those people.
As we look at Executive Order No. 14096, we see a pattern as the
Biden administration chooses to focus on programs that divide the
American people rather than unite us.
Madam Chair, instead of simply promoting conservation efforts, which
most Americans agree are important, this administration continues to
use divisive rhetoric behind environmental justice, which does not
benefit the poor.
Examples of this divisive rhetoric in the executive order include
``remnants of discrimination continue to persist today''--we are
talking about EV vehicles--or that ``communities with environmental
justice concerns face entrenched disparities.'' I will tell you that
the disparities will be from those who cannot afford these very
vehicles that are required.
Our country needs unifying language and leadership. The Biden
administration fails that test.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on my amendment No.
102 to ensure that American taxpayer dollars are not being spent on
frivolous and polarizing initiatives.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I am a little confused. I serve on this
committee, and one of the debates that we had when we were doing the
markup--and the Chair probably remembers--is how, in the base bill, all
the money that he is talking about was stripped out. It is gone. We
couldn't find offsets to put it back in, but it is gone. The money that
the gentleman is referring to is gone.
Madam Chair, $1.4 billion was taken from EJ in the Inflation
Reduction Act. It was taken away, so it is gone.
However, just getting into what we tried to do, Democrats did try to
make historic investments in environmental justice, and the EPA has
been able to put some of those dollars to use.
As I said, there is no EJ funding. There is zero in the base bill. It
is unfortunate because I think environmental justice, as I said
earlier, makes sure that everybody gets the same degree of protection
from environmental health hazards.
Our rural communities and the community that I grew up in, which is
an older suburb but at the time was very rural, were targeted by
corporations, regulatory agencies, and local planning boards because
the land was cheap and had been polluted. Then, they just kept siting
more pollution around it like landfills or a waste transfer station.
They thought it was a good place to put an incinerator, a garbage dump.
The amount of concentration of pollution in some of these areas is
really mind-boggling because the mindset is that because it is already
polluted, we can just put a little more there.
I know my colleague mentioned that he is a doctor, so I know he knows
that when someone is exposed to a lot of chemicals, when someone is
exposed to a lot of toxins, they have higher health disparities and
shorter lifespans. That is all documented. In these populations, there
are higher cancer rates.
As I said, the money is gone, unfortunately. I hope we can work with
the Senate to put some things back, but I want my colleagues to just
think for a minute that some of these communities started out with one
waste facility or one toxic plant and then another one and another one
and another one came. House values went down, and pretty soon, no one
wanted to live there. In my case, in my community, it was right on the
Mississippi River.
Like I said, I am a little confused by talking about the funding in
this bill that no longer exists, and I am going to reserve the balance
of my time because I think, Madam Chair, Members of this House know how
I feel about this. I strongly oppose this amendment.
Mr. McCORMICK. Madam Chair, I appreciate my colleague pointing out
the equity of environment and her concerns for the people. I know
myself when I grew up having to supply my own insurance, supply my own
gas, supply my own car, which I bought for $1,295 for a 1971 Datsun 510
with 141,000 miles on it, I couldn't afford anything other than that. I
couldn't afford any better insurance. My mom didn't have an insurance
policy. Can you imagine a 16-year-old nowadays having their own
insurance policy not on their parents' plan?

I was in survival mode, which a lot of these people that she is
talking about in these communities are in. That is all they can
afford--a used gas vehicle to get to their job, to be independent, to
live a dignified life where they can sustain themselves, not because
they were told by the government, ``You will do this because I am
protecting you,'' but they had a choice. They had a choice because we
trust people more than we trust government.
Isn't that what this whole argument is about? Do we trust the
government to know what is better for our family and our choices,
whether it be what we drive, where we work, or what our emissions are?
Do we trust the American people no matter what the color of their skin
is, or do we trust the American Government to be the moral standard of
who we are and what we represent?
Who do you trust? What is equity? Is equity when the government
decides everybody will be equal, or when a person had the choice, based
on their God-

[[Page H5334]]

given right to self-determine, regardless of the color of their skin,
regardless of their gender, regardless of their religion, that they
have the freedom of choice to decide their fate based on their own
challenges?
That is what this argument is about. Do we self-determine, or do we
let the American Government become our moral standard of what is right
and wrong, of what is good for me?
I choose the individual over the government. I believe that is the
foundation of our government. I believe that is the foundation of our
Constitution. I believe that that is the unalienable right that God
gave us.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 103 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Illinois

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 103
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The salary of Ya-Wei Li, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Pesticide Programs, shall be reduced to $1.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Mrs. Miller) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my
amendment that would reduce Deputy Assistant Administrator Jake Li's
salary to $1.
Mr. Li oversees all pesticide programs at the Biden EPA. The Biden
EPA has consistently politicized crop reduction tools, creating
uncertainty for farmers.
In their most recent attack on farmers and ranchers, the Biden EPA
released a new herbicide strategy at the request of the radical climate
cult lobby. This program would force farmers to implement costly
mitigation measures, likely forcing them out of production entirely.
According to the Biden administration's own estimates, this program
could cost more than $5 billion for all corn acres in Illinois, Iowa,
and Nebraska alone. This is just one more example of how the Biden
administration puts the leftwing political agenda ahead of farmers who
grow food to feed America and the world.
Madam Chair, please join me in supporting this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, here we go again. We are attacking the
salary of a person who is doing their job, Mr. Li.
Mr. Li has a really important job. Mr. Li's job is to regulate
pesticides. Pesticides can be toxic. One of the things that got me
involved in politics back when I served on the natural resources and
agriculture subcommittee in the State of Minnesota was all the reading
that we were doing about the accumulation of pesticides on food that
children were ingesting because all the studies had been done for
pesticides on an adult healthy male and how it could affect their
development.
The more I learned about pesticides--and they are important. They are
an important tool for our agriculture. We feed the world. We feed our
folks here. If a pesticide isn't regulated--and I don't have the names
right in front of me. Madam Chair, I will get them submitted for the
record. Some of them are water-soluble.
We learned a lot about how pesticide companies would come in and
target local farmers to have them use this pesticide, saying it was
great, but it didn't break down in water. It would get into well water.
It would get into streams. It would do terrible things to the ecosystem
and streams.
In Minnesota, our farmers didn't want that, but they weren't
scientists on a lot of that, so who do they turn to? They turned to
scientific experts to do the due diligence, to check these pesticides
out so when and if they are used, they are used properly so they do no
harm. They only do good.
Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and to
support the EPA in its work to protect our public health and
environment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 104 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Illinois

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 104
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the Solar For All competition of the
Environmental Protection Agency.

{time} 2045

According to the EPA's own website, solar panels contain hazardous
materials that are harmful to humans.
In my home State of Illinois, a school roof lit on fire due to
excessive heat generated by solar panels on the roof.
The Biden administration needs to stop prioritizing the left's
radical climate agenda over the energy needs of the American people.
Please join me in supporting this amendment.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. McCOLLUM. We are now only 15 days away from a government
shutdown, and instead of focusing on keeping the government open, we
are working on a bill that is going nowhere.
The draconian cuts that I talked about earlier in this bill violate
the agreement reached by former Speaker McCarthy and President Biden
that were memorialized in statute and Public Law 118-5, the Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 2023.
We would not be teetering on the brink of a government shutdown if my

[[Page H5335]]

Republican colleagues had upheld their end of the bargain and funded at
the levels we had agreed to and there was a vote that I did take in
this body, so I feel I had a vested interest in thinking that we were
going to honor that agreement.
We are here to protect the welfare of the American people, and we
cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change, drought,
flooding, severe storms, wildfires events that we are experiencing.
As of October 10, the United States has experienced 24 confirmed
weather/climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each.
This is a new record.
I could talk about the money that the Department of Defense, in the
billions of dollars, is having to spend to make buildings resilient and
to try to prevent buildings from collapsing due to these extreme
weather events.
The Department of Defense sees climate change--the Department of
Defense sees climate change, I want to stress this--as a national
security issue. The Department of Defense invests in solar, and the EPA
should not walk away from it.
When we have solar available, it is something that is a strategy that
will help us in preventing the acceleration of climate change, instead
of paying billions of dollars in disaster relief. I don't think that is
what is best for the American taxpayer.
Our economy, our health, our livelihoods, our food security, our
quality of life all depend on how the planet is a healthy ecosystem and
doing what we can to mitigate climate change.
I state again that we have been working to bring wind and solar and
bring the costs down, and many States, including Texas, are embracing a
lot of this, and a lot of small businesses are coming forward.
I agree with my colleague on the other side of the aisle. I don't
want to be purchasing solar panels from China. I want to manufacture
them right here in the United States as part of a full energy embrace
mix.
I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus instead on
addressing climate change, making our Nation stronger, and agreeing
with the Department of Defense that climate change is a national
security issue.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. I would like to remind my friends on the
other side that China controls the mining of rare earth minerals used
to produce solar panels.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 106 Offered by Mr. Nehls

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 106
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. NEHLS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the shooting of cattle in the Gila National
Forest or any other National Forest.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Nehls) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. NEHLS. Madam Chair, my amendment would simply prohibit funds to
be used for the shooting of cattle in the Gila National Forest or any
other national forest.
Folks, let me tell you why this issue is so important.
I am offering this amendment to ensure that the voices of the
concerned residents of New Mexico and cattle grazers across the country
are heard. The Forest Service has been using your hard-earned taxpayer
dollars to issue and execute aerial kill orders for feral cattle in the
Gila National Forest due to environmental concerns.
The Forest Service defines feral cattle as cattle without brands, ear
tags, or other signs of ownership. However, it is oftentimes difficult
to tell the difference between a feral cow and a non-feral cow. My
staff and I tried it. We couldn't tell the difference.
Even if the cows are feral, under New Mexico State law, feral cows
are the property of the New Mexico Livestock Board, which opposed the
actions taken by the Forest Service to shoot these cattle in the first
place.
Cattle grazers are rightfully concerned that their own branded cattle
could have ventured into the area in question due to fences being
burned down by wildfires or damaged from an unusually strong monsoon
season.
The area in question in the Gila National Forest comprises over
500,000 acres, and only 19 of the estimated 50 to 250 feral cattle were
killed.
After the aerial shooting of cattle takes place with high-powered
rifles, the Forest Service leaves the cattle carcasses to decompose
without removal. They don't care.
The Forest Service is clearly appeasing radical environmentalists and
is not taking in the concerns of local landowners and cattle grazers.
Even New Mexico Governor Grisham, the very liberal Governor, said that
the Federal Government needed to do a better job of listening to
residents about this issue.
To my colleagues in Congress: Whether it is local landowners, cattle
grazers, the New Mexico Livestock Board, the New Mexico Farm Bureau, or
Grant County cattle growers, they have all voiced their support for my
amendment.
To my colleagues on the left: Even prominent animal rights
organizations, such as Animal Wellness Action, the Animal Wellness
Foundation, and the Center for Humane Economy have all come out in
support of my amendment.
With that, I believe I should be able to sit down.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. NEHLS. Madam Chair, I don't believe I have to say anymore.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 107 Offered by Mr. Nehls

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 107
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. NEHLS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the Clean School Bus Program of the Environmental
Protection Agency under section 741 of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16091).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Nehls) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. NEHLS. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of my amendment
before us today, which would prohibit funds for the EPA's Clean School
Bus Program.
Let's get right to it, folks. Every Member of Congress and their
staff searching for a pay-for, here it is. Cite this worthless program.
There is no need for the American taxpayer to continue to foot the
bill for activities like this. This program provides $5 billion, with a
b, over 5 years to replace existing schoolbuses with zero-emission and
low-emission models.
While everybody knows that schools are failing our students, the
Biden administration would rather facilitate the transition of
schoolbus fleets to zero-emission, low-emission, and electric bus
alternatives when we have perfectly capable buses now that work every
day.
A majority of eighth graders in our Nation are at basic and below
proficiency levels when it comes to math and reading, yet we are
focused on electrifying our bus fleets. Help me make that make sense.

[[Page H5336]]

With limited government funds and a national debt out of control, pet
projects for this radical environmental ideology are not functional and
has no place in a Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
Furthermore, EPA's top watchdog also said that he is not confident in
the way the Agency has been handing out billions of dollars under this
new program. He said: ``We have seen this before: the equation of an
unprepared agency dispensing an unprecedented amount of money times a
large number of struggling recipients equals a high risk of fraud,
waste and abuse.''
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to prohibit funds for
EPA's so-called Clean School Bus Program and to prioritize the most
immediate needs of the American people.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I am just sad about this. I really don't
understand why my colleague would want to roll back this great program
on clean schoolbuses. I just don't understand. I mean, first off, you
have to deny that climate change is real in order to say we shouldn't
be doing significant things like this, converting our transportation
system--which is an enormous part of climate change challenges,
converting our transportation system to electric vehicles.
We have had this program since the IIJA, which was actually a
bipartisan program. Perhaps you didn't vote for it. You may not have
agreed with it, but it was a bipartisan bill, and this was in that
bill, so this funding is already out there.
I have had the good fortune of talking to someone who works in one of
the school programs where they have the clean schoolbus program. He
couldn't say enough good things about it. He couldn't say enough about
how good it has been for their district.
Number one, I don't know if you know this about electric vehicles,
but your maintenance costs go way down. For most communities who have
big schoolbus fleets, they have to have a maintenance barn. They have
to have maintenance members who work in there, and this has reduced
greatly their costs for maintaining the vehicles because there are not
a lot of component parts in an electric vehicle.
He also told me that they have a little competition with the bus
drivers. Each one is trying to figure out how long can I go on a
charge? How does my bus work? They are all very engaged in this
process.
Also importantly, there are no emissions from this bus. I don't know
if you heard me earlier, but I was talking about the high asthma rate
in my State. We are one of the top 10 in the country in asthma rates,
and that means asthma in kids. So for kids to be able to ride on a bus
that has no emissions, it is just that much better for their health and
well-being.
There are no good reasons to want to eliminate this. We have already
funded it. There is no funding in this bill. You are just talking about
this as sort of a grudge match against electric schoolbuses, which,
frankly, there are more important problems to deal with in this
country.
We have already funded this. School districts are already
implementing this, applying for this. It is reducing their maintenance
costs. They feel very good about these buses.
I suggest you talk to a school district, maybe one in your own
district, your congressional district, and ask them how they feel about
this, how it is working for their community.

You are opposing something that has gone very well. You are trying to
prohibit a program that runs on clear fuel, that reduces the impact
schoolbuses have on climate change. We are doing something good for
America in this program, good for our schools, good for the health of
our kids. There is no possible reason to want to do this, that is why I
said it just makes me sad.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the
Chair.
Mr. NEHLS. Madam Chair, buses are a mode of transportation to get our
prized possessions to the school.
Now, my colleague mentioned about the kids talking with the bus
driver saying, How far can the bus get? They are trying to do some
math. I would probably figure the kid probably doesn't even know the
math, because our schools are failing, so the point is it is
prioritizing the need.
We have to help educate our kids. The school system is failing. They
are failing in States across our country, mostly in these very, very
large cities run by liberals, mayors and city councils, so let's get
our priorities straight and let's help the kids and not worry about the
mode of transportation we have to get them there.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, if my colleague is so concerned about the
challenges that students are facing in our schools, and I admit many
schools are facing challenges because kids have been home during the
pandemic, they have had a lot of setbacks, we are in a very difficult
time in our world, kids have a lot to worry about, I would suggest that
he debates another bill in support of encouraging more funding for the
Department of Education. That would be a good place to put his
concerns, but I would have to say there is no reason to be concerned
about the schoolbuses.

{time} 2100

In fact, we should be happy about the schoolbuses because we are
implementing electrification of our fleet. We are helping the well-
being of our students by making sure there are less emissions from
those buses, and they can ride on buses with cleaner air. We are
reducing the cost of schools who are able to use these electric buses.
I am in strong support of making sure that we have more electrification
of our schoolbuses. I encourage my colleagues to reject the amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. PINGREE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 108 Offered by Mr. Norman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 108
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. NORMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the American Climate Corps.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. NORMAN. Madam Chair, I have been sitting here for about an hour
listening to the debate back and forth on amendments. The amendments
the Republicans are putting up are wanting to put some fiscal sanity
back in this House. My good friends on the left are wanting to spend
more money. The priorities and the cancer in this country is the
bankruptcy of America. The amendments I have will offer to cut programs
that need to be cut.
Amendment 108 prohibits funding for the American Climate Corps. My
amendment would prohibit funding for the American Climate Corps that
the Biden administration recently established through executive order.
This costs, by the way, $30 billion. The Biden administration describes
the American Climate Corps as a workforce training and service
initiative for careers in clean energy and climate reliance economy. As
part of the administration's Justice40 goal, the Corps will focus on
equity and environmental justice. The American Climate Corps will cost,
as I mentioned, $30 billion.
Instead of funding Democrats' woke climate agenda, why don't we focus
on

[[Page H5337]]

a pro-growth agenda that spurs the economy and prioritizes American
energy independence?
Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Gimenez). The gentlewoman from Maine is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, first I have to say, I am perplexed that
anyone would not want to provide good-paying jobs that will help our
Nation tackle the climate crisis and build a stronger country. The goal
of the American Climate Corps is to put more than 20,000 young people
on career pathways in the growing fields of clean energy, conservation,
and climate resilience.
In launching this effort, President Biden is calling on Tribal,
State, and local governments, labor unions, not-for-profit service
allies, the private sector, and philanthropy to collaborate with the
Federal Government to build on current relationships and expand skills-
based training partnerships to ensure our workforce is ready to meet
the climate crisis.
We have seen the devastation to coastal communities impacted by
hurricanes and tropical storms. Why would we not want to train our
youth to restore coastal wetlands that can protect communities from
storm surges. We know the damage and loss that accompanies wildfires
across our Nation. So why would we not want to train youth to manage
forests, to improve health, and prevent catastrophic wildfires?
We know the power of skills-based training as a tool to expand
pathways into good-paying jobs. Let's not deny our youth this
opportunity. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I met a lot of the young people in the Corps.
They are good people. They build bridges. They build roads in our
national forests. Now, to task them with stopping storms and stopping
hurricanes, that is preposterous. They do active work. To say they can
effect that is just, it is laughable if it wasn't so serious.
Democrats want to focus on social movements and further entrench
environmental justice in the bureaucracy. These priorities are
misguided and harmful. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and
ensure that we don't waste more valuable taxpayer dollars and resources
to fund the Biden administration's radical climate agenda.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I don't remember mentioning social movements
or environmental justice, although I do think environmental justice is
very important. I was talking about skill training and making sure our
youth are prepared for the jobs of the future. I don't anticipate that
they can stop storms. That would be Herculean, and I don't think anyone
can stop climate change at this point, but I think they can help us
deal with catastrophic wildfires, with coastal resilience. We can train
people with skills of the future. This is a wonderful opportunity for
our young people. I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 109 Offered by Mr. Norman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 109
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement or enforce the final rule titled
``Control of Air Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-
Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards'' published in the Federal
Register by the Environmental Protection Agency on January
24, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 4296).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, this is another spend-a-thon by my friends
from the left. My amendment would prohibit funding for the rule titled,
``Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine
and Vehicle Standards.''
My good friend, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller) and her
family are big time farmers in Illinois, and anybody that farms the
land--let me tell you what this is going to affect. As far as the
actual vehicles, it affects all models in model year 2027.
EPA last tightened the NOX emissions standards for heavy-
duty vehicles in 2001. The new standards are 80 percent more stringent
than the current rules. The examples of heavy-duty trucks, it is going
to affect every farm in this country. It applies to engines used and a
broad spectrum of heavy-duty vehicles, including trucks from class 2b.
That is the Ford F-250 through the class 8. These are semitrucks. It
affects mobile homes. It affects schoolbuses. It affects pickup trucks
and vans. The cost is from $2,568 per vehicle up to $8,304 for new
equipment on semitrucks.
The American Truck Dealers estimates it is more likely a $42,000
increase. That is per truck. Talk about putting people out of business.
Talk about attacking farmers and everyday Americans. This overreach of
government could reach over $55 billion in the lifetime of the program.
I urge my colleagues on the left to reconsider this vast overreach of
government.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2110

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, the compliance cost is unbelievably high.
Owners and operators of trucks will be forced to leave the market or
keep less safe trucks on the road.
According to the Truckload Carriers Association, the rule outpaces
available technology and would worsen the already tight equipment
market.
I hope everyone that is tuning in tonight listens to what this
amendment will do to every American in this country, regardless if you
are a farmer. If you just own a pickup truck, this is what we are
talking about.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 110 Offered by Mr. Norman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 110
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the Department of the Interior's Office of
Diversity, Inclusion and Civil Rights.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, my amendment would prohibit funding for
policies that advance the Biden administration's radical diversity,
equity, and inclusion agenda.
Specifically, my amendment would prohibit the use of funds for the
Department of the Interior's Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Civil
Rights. This office's goal is to promote equity and justice for all
Americans. What does that mean? I think what they mean is they want
equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity. What this does is further
entrenches environmental justice in the bureaucracy in and of itself.

[[Page H5338]]

From the military to corporations to Federal agencies, we have seen
time and time again that the DEI mission fosters tribalism in the
workplace, undermines our shared American identity, and distracts from
the missions of our Federal agencies.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, one of our greatest strengths as a Nation is
our diversity. The American experience is not a singular experience,
and diversity programs exist to recognize this.
The fact is, and business leaders agree, having a diverse and
inclusive culture in the workplace is critical to performance.
Attempting to defund or block the implementation of these efforts only
takes us back to a time when our Nation's diversity was not seen as an
asset.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, I encourage my colleagues to do
the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I close out by saying the cancer in this
country is the $33 trillion in debt. Companies have to expend funds for
this, which the interest alone is over $20,000 per second. Woke
programs have got to be dealt with. The only way you deal with them is
cut their funding.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina will be postponed.

Amendment No. 111 Offered by Mr. Norman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 111
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost
of Greenhouse Gases.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, my amendment would prohibit funding for the
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. This
is another bureaucratic nightmare that businesses are having to put up
with.
This amendment would prohibit funds from being used by the
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. This
group was originally convened by the Obama administration before being
disbanded by the Trump administration and reimposed through Biden's
radical climate Executive Order No. 13990. Democrats use the social
cost of greenhouse gas metrics to justify sweeping climate policies and
strict regulations that are vague and have no ending to the cost.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I close by saying that by boosting the climate
cost of projects, regulators can use the social cost of carbon to
derail everything from energy to infrastructure projects. Agencies can
also use a higher value to justify new regulations on everything from
power plants to appliances in the home. This administration has
attacked every appliance known to man, including the gas stove.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 112 Offered by Mr. Norman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 112
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The salary of Tracy Stone-Manning, Director of
the Bureau of Land Management, shall be reduced to $1.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, what my amendment does is it reduces the
salary of Tracy Stone-Manning, director of the Bureau of Land
Management, to $1.
Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Rosendale), my good friend.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, I thank Representative Norman, my good
friend from South Carolina, for introducing this amendment and for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chair, I submitted an identical amendment to this one, and I am
glad to see it is being considered today.
This amendment would hold the BLM director, Tracy Stone-Manning,
accountable for her disastrous policies and rightfully reduce her
salary to $1. Ms. Manning has been using the Bureau to push her own
radical environmentalist agenda at the expense of Montanans and all
Americans.
Director Manning has repeatedly and intentionally violated Federal
statute by issuing rules that are completely at odds with the Taylor
Grazing Act.
The Taylor Grazing Act lays out best range management practices and
clearly states that the purpose of the law is to: ``provide for the
orderly use'' of public land in order to ``stabilize the livestock
industry.''
Earlier this year, the BLM issued a Conservation and Landscape Health
Rule that clearly violates the letter and the spirit of the law by
designating multiple use public land under conservation leases for
bison. Allowing bison to graze on allotments that should be leased for
cattle grazing has been a severe blow to Montana's ranching industry.
Director Manning has also continuously ignored the concerns of local
landowners and those most affected by her harmful policies by failing
to hold public hearings outside of the large cities.
Director Manning flagrantly dismissed Montana agriculture groups'
concerns in the decision-making process for American Prairie Reserve's
bison grazing proposal and granted special provisions for one lessee
that no one else in the country has experienced. Her Bureau also
refused to collaborate with the relevant State agencies and declined to
hold sufficient opportunities for local engagement.

{time} 2120

This is a process we have seen far too often with the Bureau of Land
Management under her leadership, creating harmful rules and refusing to
take input or provide engagement opportunities for those who are most
impacted by those rules.
Director Manning has also refused to follow the congressionally
mandated quarterly requirements for Federal land leases. Under this
administration, we have seen the fewest acres leased for oil and gas
since World War II, with only one of those lease sales taking place in
Montana. This directly contradicts Congress' directive and a Louisiana
district court's reversal of the administration's leasing moratorium.
At the same time, Americans continue to face rising energy costs and
persistent inflation. Intentionally

[[Page H5339]]

stalling onshore and gas production is a dereliction of duty and a slap
in the face to hardworking Americans, especially those who rely on
these public lands to keep their economy afloat.
This climate of zealotry and blatant disregard for the rule of law
has been evident with Director Stone-Manning for a long time. She
collaborated with tree-spiking ecoterrorists at the start of her
career, and there is no reason to believe that her views have
substantially changed.
Mr. Chair, for all of these reasons and many more, Director Stone-
Manning needs to be held accountable. Congress cannot stand by idly
while these climate extremists use our Federal agencies to destroy
local economies and the livelihood of everyday Americans.
This amendment will put all of Biden's disastrous energy heads on
notice and force them to finally follow the rule of law that Congress
passed nearly 90 years ago.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I guess it is time I got off my rear-end here
and talked a little bit.
I want to let people know why I have opposed all the Holman rule
amendments that have come before us. I think I screwed up on one and
voted the wrong way, but I have opposed all of them for a number of
reasons.
The Holman rule was originally put in place and then it was kind of
repealed over the last couple of Congresses and then put in place. If
you look back at the history of it, through the whole appropriations
process, I can only remember one or two times when the Holman rule was
actually used. It was used because the individual had committed
criminal activity. That is why they cut the salary. Obviously, it
didn't pass, but that was the intent behind it.
The second reason is that I question the constitutionality of the
Holman rule altogether. We don't have the authority to fire someone in
the administration. We don't have the authority to fire them. This is a
way to get around that by reducing someone's salary to a dollar. You
have essentially fired them unless they can live on a dollar for a
year. I don't know many people who can do that. This is a way to get
around what our constitutional responsibility is, I believe.
Believe me, I don't always agree. In fact, I seldom agree with the
Bureau of Land Management's decisions on a lot of things. Elections
have consequences. If you disagree with them because of a policy, why
do you think they were hired? They were hired to carry out the policies
of this administration. Maybe you don't like those policies. I don't
like some of those policies. That is a good reason to get off our rear-
ends and make sure that we eliminate this administration about 12
months from now.
It is not a reason to reduce someone's salary because they are
implementing a policy for the administration that hired them. That is
why I haven't supported any of the Holman rules because nobody stood up
here and said they believe they have engaged in criminal activity. I
haven't heard it. Until I do, I will continue to oppose these
amendments.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I will add that you are not firing anybody.
You are just reducing their salary to what, in the minds of this body,
they believe that it is worth. A dollar is plenty of money for what
this lady does. By the way, she makes $148,500.
In the words of Bob Abbey, who was the first BLM Director under
President Obama, he said that Stone-Manning's involvement with tree
spiking should disqualify her from leading the agency.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, all I know is if you reduce my salary to a
dollar, you effectively fired me.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina will be postponed.

Amendment No. 113 Offered by Mr. Norman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 113
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The salary of Michael Regan, Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, shall be reduced to $1.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will reduce the salary of
Michael Regan, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to
the large sum of $1.
Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), my good farmer friend.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, in April, EPA Administrator
Regan testified before the House Agriculture Committee and told me the
EPA doesn't incentivize solar panels, that they are a regulatory
agency. His statement to the committee was blatantly false.
The EPA does incentivize solar panels, which is why I introduced an
amendment to strip all funding from the EPA's Solar for All program.
The Biden administration wants to cover rich, fertile farmland that
we use to grow food with Chinese solar panels.
Mr. Chair, I support this amendment because we must send a message to
the EPA to leave the farmers alone and never mislead Congress when
testifying.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I could say it any
better than the chair of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee did about the reason that it never makes sense to
use this amendment to reduce somebody's salary. Reducing somebody's
salary to $1 is basically firing them.
When it comes to Michael Regan, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, my colleagues are talking about a
hardworking public servant. I think we are very fortunate to have him
there and to have him dealing with some of the biggest challenges our
country is facing, whether it is climate change or environmental
pollution, and moving our country forward in a very difficult time. We
are grateful to have him there.
To ask a public servant to take $1 for their hard work in carrying
out this administration's goals is ludicrous.

{time} 2130

To my colleague on the Agriculture Committee, we serve together and
have many areas that we work together on, and to have sort of a grudge
match about this consideration about solar panels on agricultural land,
frankly, doesn't make any sense to me. Of course, his mission is to
make sure we incentivize solar panels, absolutely, of course.
However, to say that he is trying to do this on rich, fertile
farmland goes against the mission of the USDA, and it goes against the
mission of this administration.
It is always a difficult balance to figure out where to put solar
panels. I know in my State we have found some projects where we have
dual use where some kinds of agriculture actually can accommodate solar
panels and also have grazing land and blueberry land. We have a variety
of things going on. Nobody thinks we should use rich farmland--in a
time when we are losing farmland all too fast--for solar panels, and I
am sure Administrator Regan doesn't either.
Nevertheless, incentivizing solar panels, yes, that is absolutely the
mission

[[Page H5340]]

of the EPA. I am thrilled they are doing that and moving us faster and
faster towards renewable energy.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I just take issue, a dollar is--we are
providing a person an opportunity to volunteer, which is a tremendous
opportunity. Mr. Chairman, if you want to be serious about combating
emissions and supporting good environmental policies, why don't we
start with getting countries like India and Communist China to reduce
their pollution? Nobody says anything about that from the left.
This administration is only interested in creating unfair, costly,
and burdensome regulations that will kill American jobs. I am a
developer. The gentlewoman mentioned solar panels. We priced them.
Mr. Chairman, guess where most of the components of solar panels are
made?
China, which is not exactly a friend.
Mr. Regan's salary is a whopping $183,000. Like I said, we are
promoting volunteerism and doing good work for mankind.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, just to respond to a couple of concerns
that my colleague on the other side of the aisle raised, if we are
about to promote a culture of volunteerism, I think it is very hard to
ask the hardworking administrators of the EPA to serve for a dollar
when we all get paid $175,000 a year which is a lot of money in my home
State. I am very grateful the taxpayers of this country support us to
that tune, but until all of us are willing to take a dollar for our
work, it is hard to ask the hardworking members of the administration
to do the same.
To say that Members on the left somehow don't want India or China to
reduce their impact on climate change and their use of fossil fuels,
that is ludicrous. I know that Secretary Kerry has spent a lot of time
meeting with those countries trying to reduce things that they are
doing that impact climate change. I agree. Those countries have to
reduce it just as we are reducing it in this country.
To say that solar panels somehow should be not used in this country
because we are dependent on buying them from China, well, that is based
on the shortsightedness of Republicans who have consistently blocked
our involvement in renewable energy.
Had the gentleman voted for the IRA, he would have seen that we are
incentivizing American manufacturing and doing our best to return the
manufacturing of those solar panels to this country, and if we are
going to consistently oppose renewable energy and oppose the
manufacture of renewable energy, then we are just going to fall further
and further behind in making sure that we are making those components
here in the United States.
So, once again, I reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina will be postponed.

Amendment No. 114 Offered by Mr. Norman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 114
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act
made be used to fund the Justice, Equity, Diversity and
Inclusion Workgroup of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, my amendment would prohibit the funding for
EPA's Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Workgroup. This group
is, in their own words, committed to fostering an inclusive and
respectful culture and improving justice, equity, diversity, and
inclusion. It commits to training and educating members on the implicit
biases and historical environmental injustices.
Mr. Chair, you can look on their website to a page of resources with
hundreds of woke documents. I will read just a few for my colleagues:
The Whiteness of America, ``Remaking Manhood: The Battle Against
Dominance-Based Masculine Culture,'' and Greed's Not Good: 10 Movies
That Expertly Criticize Capitalism.
This is the one thing that has made America the greatest country in
the world.
Another one is 23 Movies for Those Days When the Patriarchy's Got You
Down. Another one is Inclusive Scientific Meetings. I don't know what
that is.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I just urge my colleagues to accept my
amendment. If there were a salary I could cut, I would cut every bit of
it. Taxpayers don't deserve this type of supposed work encouraging
these types of things that are being done in this country.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
The amendment was agreed to.

amendment no. 115 offered by mr. norman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 115
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The salary of Deb Haaland, Secretary of the
Interior, shall be reduced to $1.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, my amendment gives another member of the Biden
administration's paid employees a chance for volunteerism and doing
well for mankind.
It reduces the salary of Deb Haaland, who is the Secretary of the
Interior, to a dollar. She is currently making $221,400. She holds
extreme land and energy views, like support for the Green New Deal and
opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.
We are being forced to buy from OPEC countries that hate America that
are funding Hamas now, and that is what this lady was for, doing away
with the Keystone XL pipeline.
She has used the power of the Department of the Interior to implement
her radical agenda at the expense of hardworking Americans.
Under her leadership she has shut down pipelines, delayed federally
mandated onshore and offshore leases, repealed commonsense regulations,
shuttered mining projects, and much more with no regard for how these
actions have and will continue to raise energy costs, eliminate
American jobs, and harm our national security and increase reliance on
foreign energy sources.
We should not spend another dollar of taxpayer money funding her
salary.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I have listened very carefully so far. So far
I

[[Page H5341]]

haven't heard anything that is not a policy difference. Again, I will
repeat: Elections have consequences. Again, I will tell you I don't
think this is constitutional. I don't believe it has ever been
litigated, but it is a way of getting around the fact that we don't
have the ability to fire somebody within the administrative branch of
government.
Now, if this had been someone like the EM director who was caught
stealing suitcases at airports and that kind of stuff, I have got no
problem with that. He needs to be fired, and he was fired.
Nevertheless, so far I haven't heard anything that would indicate
that the Secretary is doing any more than carrying out the policies for
which she was hired.
Again, elections have consequences.
Instead of doing these types of amendments, why don't we get busy and
try to elect a new administration in about 14 months?
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2140

Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale), my good friend.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, possibly we will shed some light on some
allegations and problems that would raise to the level that the
gentleman would support for removing the salary from Ms. Haaland.
Prior to joining the current administration, Secretary Haaland had
close ties with the Pueblo Action Alliance, a New Mexico-based
organization known for its involvement in environmental and social
justice extremism.
The Pueblo Action Alliance argues that America's economic and
political systems must be dismantled and believes that America is
irredeemable because there is no opportunity to reform a system that
isn't founded on good morals or values. That is who she associated
with.
However, we are not done yet. Secretary Haaland's daughter is now
employed with Pueblo Action Alliance, participating in lobbying trips
to Washington, D.C., and protests, calling for the stop of all oil and
gas development. This relationship raises questions about the influence
this organization may have on the Secretary's decisionmaking within her
role.
In January, the Department received a FOIA request for all
communications between Secretary Haaland's daughter and the Department
of the Interior officials describing her lobbying efforts. The
Department has still not produced the requested information, failing to
meet their statutory obligations.
Secretary Haaland's husband has also consulted for and previously
been employed by an organization that receives a significant portion of
its funding from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian
Affairs falls under Secretary Haaland's purview as Secretary of the
Interior, presenting another clear conflict of interest. Extremely
convenient.
In light of these alarming factors, it is my firm belief that
Secretary Haaland is ill-suited for the position of Secretary of the
Interior, and I hope that this amendment will be adopted.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, so far, I have heard accusations, but I
haven't heard anything. Has she been convicted of any of this kind of
stuff? I don't know. I haven't heard of any of that. Believe me, I
disagree with the Secretary on a lot of issues. So far all I have heard
is policy.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for yielding. I just say
that, again, this idea of asking public servants to be volunteers, to
serve for $1, actually carries no weight until all of the Members of
Congress are also willing to serve for $1. It is completely
impractical, and it would mean that only a few people would have the
opportunity to serve as Members of Congress or to be in the executive
branch.
Also, to criticize Deb Haaland, a woman who I was very proud to serve
with in the House of Representatives, who we were very pleased to have
her here as one of the first Native American women elected to Congress,
but then to go on to lead the Department of the Interior as a Native
American woman who also has oversight of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
who has had so much personal experience but also experience within her
own community, who has a deep love of our public lands, of our natural
systems, and in my opinion, has done a fantastic job, this is
insulting. It is petty. We shouldn't even be here standing at this hour
of the night talking about such a highly regarded and well-respected
public servant.
Mr. Chair, I thoroughly oppose this amendment.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Montana (Mr.
Rosendale), my good friend.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Chair, just to shed a little bit more information
on the subject that I was speaking of, it is very difficult to prove
wrongdoing when the person who has committed the wrongdoing will not
provide the documentation for which the oversight can be conducted.
You can't see the documents, so you cannot see exactly what
arrangements have been made between her daughter, the lobbying efforts
that took place. We certainly can track, though, that her husband is
working for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, being compensated by them. If
we don't do anything except create the perception around this place of
integrity, we have to do a better job, and that has not even been
created.
Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina will be postponed.

Amendment No. 116 Offered by Mr. Ogles

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 116
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to carry out additional monument declarations
proclaimed by the President under section 320301 of the title
54, United States Code (commonly referred to as the
``Antiquities Act of 1906''), as of October 13, 2023.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds from being used
to provide for additional funding for national monument designations
under the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act, passed in 1906,
authorizes the President to singlehandedly designate any Federal public
lands as national monuments. Its creation was motivated by the looting
of Indian artifacts and archaeological sites dating back to the late
1800s.
While focusing on fixing a real issue of its day, the law was
carefully crafted to protect private citizens from government
overreach. The Antiquities Act designations should be done under, and I
quote directly from the legislation, ``the smallest area compatible
with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.''
Clearly, it was meant to be limited in scope.
Just like everything else, this administration and previous Democrat
administrations make it impossible for us to have nice things. Think
about this. In the 8 years that Joe Biden was Vice President under the
Obama administration, the Antiquities Act was weaponized for 550
million acres of land. That is roughly a quarter of the land by acreage
in the United States. That is a problem that goes beyond the scope and
intent of this act.

[[Page H5342]]

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the President
of the United States from designating national monuments under the
Antiquities Act of 1906. The Antiquities Act provides the President
with the authority to designate national monuments in order to protect
objects of historic or scientific interest. Both Republican and
Democratic Presidents have used this authority to increase protection
of special Federal lands.
This amendment inappropriately restricts the President's ability to
declare national monuments in specific parts of the country. It goes
against 100 years of American tradition to protect the Nation's
cultural and natural resources.
The Antiquities Act represents an important achievement in the
progress of conservation and preservation efforts in the United States,
and Congress should not stand in the way of these achievements.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague on one point, that it
has been used, it has been overused, and it has been abused.
This is intended to protect historic sites that are being looted and
being damaged by whatever force is in play. To control, to take from
States and private citizens 550 million acres of land over an 8-year
period is not the intent of this act. It is clear that it no longer
serves its purpose and, quite frankly, if the President or Vice
President identifies an antiquity or area of land that needs
protection, they can come to Congress. If it is worthy of Congress'
designation, we can work with the administration, Republican or
Democrat.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2150

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I continue to oppose the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I ask for adoption of this amendment. We are at
a point in history that if any further monument needs designation, it
should come before Congress and have congressional approval.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 117 Offered by Mr. Ogles

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 117
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Environmental Protection Agency for the U.S.
Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits funds to be used by the
Environmental Protection Agency for the U.S. Global Change Research
Program, or the USGCRP.
This program coordinates with 13 different Federal departments and
agencies. Its focus as it relates to areas within EPA's jurisdiction is
to conduct research on climate change.
I think it is fair to say that the climate is changing, and we have a
role to play in it. However, there is a degree of climate alarmism in
this country that has compelled smooth-talking bureaucrats and their
grant-seeking associates in the private sector to grovel for more and
more funding.
At its core, climate alarmism is immoral. It is impacting industry
and business because people of power are telling Americans every day
that they are going to die unless they adopt these policies, and I
object.
I think more and more Americans are fed up with the subsidizing of
this agenda, of this alarmism. At a time of inflation and at a time
when the economy is struggling, it is time to stop.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to prohibit funding for
the EPA's Global Change Research Program, which will result in more
resilient communities, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and
protect our world for future generations.
The gentleman who proposed this amendment said that there is too much
research on climate change and that climate change alarmism, as he
called it, is immoral.
In my perspective, not being alarmed by the possibility of climate
change is actually immoral. Our responsibility is to care for and
protect future generations, to care for and protect the planet.
He said that the impact is too great on businesses and is creating
problems for businesses. I say if we don't deal with climate change, we
are impacting all of our businesses that have to deal with things in my
State like sea level rise, adverse weather impacts, flooding, drought,
all the things that are impacting our farmers, natural resource-based
businesses, and communities.
It is our responsibility to do something about this. To say it is
just alarmist or that somehow we shouldn't talk about it, research it,
or do something about it is putting our heads in the sand and not
taking responsibility for what we need to do.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I think part of the problem in this country is
that we tend to hold ourselves or the left tends to hold us to a
standard that is really unattainable. Meanwhile, our partners, like
China, are left to abuse the environment. They are the worst polluters
in the world or one of the worst polluters in the world, and they are
held to a different standard. This puts a burden on our industry.
It is climate alarmism, and this administration's agenda no longer
allows us to be energy independent. We are now dependent on our enemies
for precious metals and for gas and oil. We should be an energy-
independent nation.
When we look at the crisis in this country with inflation and
economy, the fact that the American Dream of homeownership is slipping
away, it gets back to this alarmism. The fact that we are undermining
our oil and gas industry with ESG, this alarmism has made us no longer
energy independent.
If we are going to get out of this mess we are in with these
deficits, we have to grow our way out of it. When you look at
inflation, when you look at commodities, when you look at the price of
oil and gas, we have to move away from this alarmism and get back to
the facts.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, there is a lot of alarmism going on because
we are facing a significant climate crisis. We just had the hottest
summer on record. We are having some of the most challenging weather,
whether it is a hurricane or a drought or flooding, impacting all of us
in all of our districts.
We are facing this and trying to end our dependence on foreign
sources of energy by making sure that we have renewable energy in this
country, by investing in American businesses, not Chinese owned, not
other foreign countries, but making sure as we did through the IRA that
we are investing in American manufacturing and American energy
solutions.
Most of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose this.
They continue to oppose the solutions that we

[[Page H5343]]

have to implement to make sure that we are energy independent and that
we can deal with climate change. This is one more example of that.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, we may have had a hot summer, but I just went
trick-or-treating with my kids and the low that evening was 29 degrees,
so temperatures change. Temperatures have been changing for the
millennia.
That being said, it is this alarmism, this agenda, that stands in the
way of our energy independence.
If we were truly worried about the environment, if we truly wanted to
be energy independent, we would have modular nuclear reactors being
built all over this country. That is the future of electricity. That is
the future of the environment. That is the future of us being energy
independent. Meanwhile, this agenda blocks such types of projects.
It is time we admit the truth that they are making us more dependent
on our enemies. This amendment is a good amendment.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 118 Offered by Mr. Ogles

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 118
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enforce any COVID-19 mask mandates.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits the funds appropriated
by this act from being used to enforce any COVID-19 mask mandates. I
was fortunate enough to introduce this amendment during the Energy-
Water appropriations, and I am happy to do so again here.
Policy involving mandatory mask implementation is not about safety
nor about science. It is about control. Let's be clear: Mask mandates
are about control.
Tom Jefferson, a leading epidemiologist who coauthored what The New
York Times Opinion section called ``the most rigorous and comprehensive
analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for
reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19,''
found that there was no evidence that masks made any difference.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2200

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit any funds to
enforce any COVID-19 mask mandates. This amendment is one of the more
controversial poison pill policy riders that sadly shows extremist
Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan
support and become law.
Preventing disease reduces healthcare costs, such as hospitalization
and pharmaceuticals, and benefits employers by resulting in less
employee absenteeism. Facial masks are an essential personal protective
measure to fight the COVID-19 virus.
We also know that some people infected with the virus that causes
COVID-19 can suffer from the long-term effects from their infection,
meaning they can experience health problems that can last for years.
Why would we politicize something that would help our fellow Americans
stay healthy?
From January 3, 2020, to September 27, 2023, there were 1,127,152
deaths from COVID-19 in the United States reported to the World Health
Organization, some of whom the people in this room knew and loved.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I go back to the study, and it found that
wearing a mask in public places makes little to no difference in the
number of infections.
For the folks on the other side who privately believe that masks
work, it should be noted that mask mandates include any type of mask,
even just your thin paper mask, but the study looked at N95 masks, the
gold standard of masks. You know what they found? It didn't make any
difference.
Even if you pair mask mandates with other preventative measures, such
as washing hands and social distancing, it found that none of it made a
difference.
Going on, Dr. Jefferson goes on to say that policymakers who imposed
mask mandates on Americans were convinced by nonrandomized studies and
flawed observations.
On the other hand, Dr. Jefferson and his colleagues analyzed 18
randomized control trials before reaching their conclusion. They looked
at science, not fear. They looked at science to seek a better outcome,
not seek control.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I don't know that we have time to debate all
the science tonight, but a study that says that mask using has no
impact, I wouldn't want to go into a surgery ward and find out that the
surgeon who was about to perform my operation wasn't wearing a mask.
To say that hand washing doesn't matter, I have never seen a
physician who doesn't go into the emergency room or a surgical room
without washing their hands.
Social distancing, this is starting to sound a little bit like crack
science to me, not anything very serious, something that you might see
on the internet or social media, so I question my colleague's science
in this regard.
I also just say I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, to be clear, it was The New York Times. The
study was examined or authored with coauthors but, in particular, Dr.
Jefferson, and it looked at 18 different studies that used proper
scientific controls. By the way, if you are going to cite the WHO, you
are losing credibility with me.
Mr. Chairman, we have a choice between truth and science or fiction.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
The amendment was agreed to.
Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on
those amendments printed in part A of House report 118-261, on which
further proceedings were postponed in the following order:
Amendment No. 85 by Mr. Crane of Arizona.
Amendment No. 86 by Mr. Crane of Arizona.
Amendment No. 89 by Mr. Fulcher of Idaho.
Amendment No. 91 by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
Amendment No. 94 by Ms. Greene of Georgia.
Amendment No. 101 by Mr. McCormick of Georgia.
Amendment No. 102 by Mr. McCormick of Georgia.
Amendment No. 103 by Mrs. Miller of Illinois.
Amendment No. 107 by Mr. Nehls of Texas.
Amendment No. 110 by Mr. Norman of South Carolina.
Amendment No. 112 by Mr. Norman of South Carolina.
Amendment No. 113 by Mr. Norman of South Carolina.
Amendment No. 115 by Mr. Norman of South Carolina.
Amendment No. 116 by Mr. Ogles of Tennessee.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any of the
electronic votes after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. Crane

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded

[[Page H5344]]

vote on amendment No. 85, printed in part A of House Report 118-261
offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane), on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 161,
noes 251, not voting 26, as follows:

[Roll No. 579]

AYES--161

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Balderson
Banks
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garcia, Mike
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Self
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Drew
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Yakym

NOES--251

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Bacon
Baird
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bice
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Buck
Bucshon
Budzinski
Bush
Calvert
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Ciscomani
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flood
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gonzalez-Colon
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hinson
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
James
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Khanna
Kiggans (VA)
Kildee
Kiley
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
LaLota
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawler
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lucas
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Molinaro
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Moylan
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Pence
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salazar
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Steel
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Valadao
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Zinke

NOT VOTING--26

Barr
Blumenauer
Brownley
Connolly
Garbarino
Granger
Griffith
Hoyer
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Landsman
Lesko
McCarthy
McCormick
Meuser
Napolitano
Newhouse
Phillips
Plaskett
Radewagen
Sablan
Scanlon
Sessions
Sewell
Van Duyne
Wexton

{time} 2229

Mr. KRISHNAMOORTHI and Mrs. STEEL changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye''
on rollcall No. 579.
Stated against:
Ms. BROWNLEY. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted
``no'' on rollcall No. 579.

Amendment No. 86 Offered by Mr. Crane

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Steube). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on amendment No. 86, printed in part A of House
Report 118-261 offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane), on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 219, not voting 28, as follows:

[Roll No. 580]

AYES--191

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez-Colon
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Moylan
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Peltola
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Roy
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Yakym
Zinke

[[Page H5345]]

NOES--219

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Bacon
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Calvert
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Granger
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Hill
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Issa
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
James
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kiley
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Payne
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rutherford
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Valadao
Van Orden
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Womack

NOT VOTING--28

Blumenauer
Connolly
Diaz-Balart
Garbarino
Jackson (TX)
Jackson Lee
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Landsman
Lesko
McCarthy
Meuser
Napolitano
Newhouse
Pascrell
Phillips
Plaskett
Radewagen
Rouzer
Sablan
Scanlon
Sessions
Sewell
Spartz
Torres (NY)
Waters
Wenstrup
Wexton

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2232

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 89 Offered by Mr. Fulcher

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 89, printed in part A of House Report
118-261 offered by the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher), on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212,
noes 202, not voting 24, as follows:

[Roll No. 581]

AYES--212

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez-Colon
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Moylan
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NOES--202

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCaul
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--24

Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bost
Chavez-DeRemer
Connolly
Garbarino
Granger
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Landsman
Lesko
McCarthy
Meuser
Napolitano
Newhouse
Phillips
Plaskett
Radewagen
Ryan
Sablan
Scanlon
Sessions
Sewell
Wexton

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting Chair (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2235

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:

[[Page H5346]]

Mrs. CHAVEZ-DeREMER. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have
voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 581.
Stated against:
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on
rollcall No. 581.

Amendment No. 91 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 91, printed in part A of House Report
118-261 offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 582]

AYES--212

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez-Colon
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Moylan
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NOES--206

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--20

Blumenauer
Connolly
Garbarino
Hudson
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Landsman
Lesko
McCarthy
Meuser
Napolitano
Newhouse
Phillips
Plaskett
Radewagen
Sablan
Scanlon
Sessions
Sewell
Wexton

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting Chair (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2239

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 94 Offered by Ms. Greene of Georgia

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 94, printed in part A of House Report
118-261 offered by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene), on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 583]

AYES--191

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez-Colon
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moran
Moylan
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz

[[Page H5347]]

Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NOES--227

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Bacon
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Ciscomani
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crenshaw
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Duarte
Ellzey
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Feenstra
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Flood
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Mike
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Hill
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Huizenga
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
James
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kiley
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
LaLota
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Owens
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Valadao
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--20

Blumenauer
Connolly
Garbarino
Graves (LA)
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Landsman
Lesko
McCarthy
Napolitano
Newhouse
Pfluger
Phillips
Plaskett
Radewagen
Sablan
Scanlon
Sessions
Sewell
Wexton

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting Chair (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2242

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 101 Offered by Mr. McCormick

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 101, printed in part A of House Report
118-261 offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick), on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 584]

AYES--166

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Babin
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garcia, Mike
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Ogles
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Yakym

NOES--251

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Bacon
Baird
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bice
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Buck
Bucshon
Budzinski
Bush
Calvert
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Ciscomani
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellzey
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flood
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gonzalez-Colon
Gottheimer
Granger
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hinson
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
James
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Khanna
Kiggans (VA)
Kildee
Kiley
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawler
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lucas
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Moran
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Moylan
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Owens
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Pence
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salazar
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Steel
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Valadao
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Zinke

NOT VOTING--21

Arrington
Blumenauer
Connolly
Garbarino
Griffith
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Landsman
Lesko
McCarthy
McHenry
Napolitano
Newhouse
Phillips
Plaskett
Radewagen
Sablan
Scanlon
Sessions
Sewell
Wexton

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2245

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[[Page H5348]]

{time} 2250

Amendment No. 102 Offered by Mr. McCormick

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 102, printed in part A of House Report
118-261 offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick), on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 585]

AYES--217

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Cuellar
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez-Colon
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Moylan
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Peltola
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NOES--202

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--19

Blumenauer
Connolly
Crenshaw
Garbarino
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Landsman
Lesko
McCarthy
Napolitano
Newhouse
Phillips
Plaskett
Radewagen
Sablan
Scanlon
Sessions
Sewell
Wexton

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2248

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 103 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Illinois

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 103, printed in part A of House Report
118-261 offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 586]

AYES--151

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Babin
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Houchin
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Ogles
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Self
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Yakym

NOES--263

[[Page H5349]]

Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Ciscomani
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flood
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Mike
Garcia, Robert
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gonzalez-Colon
Gottheimer
Granger
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hinson
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Hudson
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
James
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Khanna
Kiggans (VA)
Kildee
Kiley
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
LaLota
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawler
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lucas
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Meuser
Mfume
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Moran
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Moylan
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Owens
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Pence
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salazar
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Steel
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Valadao
Van Orden
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Walberg
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Webster (FL)
Wild
Williams (GA)
Williams (NY)
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Zinke

NOT VOTING--24

Blumenauer
Connolly
Garbarino
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Griffith
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Landsman
LaTurner
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
McCarthy
Napolitano
Newhouse
Phillips
Plaskett
Radewagen
Sablan
Scanlon
Sessions
Sewell
Wexton

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2251

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 107 Offered by Mr. Nehls

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 107, printed in part A of House Report
118-261 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls), on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 587]

AYES--196

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Moylan
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NOES--222

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Baird
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Ciscomani
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gonzalez-Colon
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
James
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kiggans (VA)
Kildee
Kiley
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawler
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Molinaro
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salazar
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Valadao
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--20

Blumenauer
Connolly
Garbarino
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Landsman
Langworthy
Lesko
McCarthy
McHenry
Napolitano
Newhouse
Phillips
Plaskett
Radewagen
Sablan
Scanlon
Sessions
Sewell
Wexton

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2254

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 110 Offered by Mr. Norman

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded

[[Page H5350]]

vote on amendment No. 110, printed in part A of House Report 118-261
offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 588]

AYES--207

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Moylan
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Self
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NOES--213

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gonzalez-Colon
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
LaMalfa
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Rogers (AL)
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salazar
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--18

Blumenauer
Connolly
Garbarino
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Landsman
Lesko
McCarthy
Napolitano
Newhouse
Phillips
Plaskett
Radewagen
Sablan
Scanlon
Sessions
Sewell
Wexton

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2258

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 588, I mistakenly voted
``no'' when I intended to vote ``aye.''

Amendment No. 112 Offered by Mr. Norman

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 112, printed in part A of House Report
118-261 offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 589]

AYES--159

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Jackson (TX)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Self
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Yakym

NOES--259

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Arrington
Auchincloss
Bacon
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bice
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Buck
Bucshon
Budzinski
Bush
Calvert
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)

[[Page H5351]]

Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Ciscomani
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flood
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Mike
Garcia, Robert
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gonzalez-Colon
Gottheimer
Granger
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hinson
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Issa
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
James
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Khanna
Kiggans (VA)
Kildee
Kiley
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
LaLota
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawler
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lucas
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCaul
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Moran
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Moylan
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Pence
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salazar
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Steel
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Valadao
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wagner
Walberg
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Zinke

NOT VOTING--20

Blumenauer
Connolly
Garbarino
Griffith
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Landsman
Lesko
McCarthy
Napolitano
Newhouse
Phillips
Plaskett
Radewagen
Sablan
Scanlon
Sessions
Sewell
Spartz
Wexton

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2301

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 113 Offered by Mr. Norman

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 113, printed in part A of House Report
118-261 offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 590]

AYES--150

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Babin
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Houchin
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Self
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Yakym

NOES--265

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Arrington
Auchincloss
Bacon
Baird
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bice
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Buck
Bucshon
Budzinski
Burgess
Bush
Calvert
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Ciscomani
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flood
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Mike
Garcia, Robert
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gonzalez-Colon
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (LA)
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hinson
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Hudson
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
James
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Khanna
Kiggans (VA)
Kildee
Kiley
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
LaLota
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawler
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lucas
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCaul
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Molinaro
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Moran
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Moylan
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Pence
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salazar
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Steel
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Valadao
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Williams (NY)
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Zinke

NOT VOTING--23

Blumenauer
Connolly
Garbarino
Gosar
Griffith
Grothman
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Landsman
Lesko
McCarthy
Napolitano
Newhouse
Phillips
Plaskett
Radewagen
Sablan
Scanlon
Sessions
Sewell
Spartz
Waltz
Wexton

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2304

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 115 Offered by Mr. Norman

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 115, printed in part A of House Report
118-261 offered by the gentleman from South Carolina

[[Page H5352]]

(Mr. Norman), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 591]

AYES--156

Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Babin
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Houchin
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Self
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Yakym

NOES--263

Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allred
Arrington
Auchincloss
Bacon
Baird
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bice
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Buck
Bucshon
Budzinski
Burgess
Bush
Calvert
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Ciscomani
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flood
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Mike
Garcia, Robert
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gonzalez-Colon
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (LA)
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hinson
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Hudson
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
James
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Khanna
Kiggans (VA)
Kildee
Kiley
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
LaMalfa
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawler
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lucas
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCaul
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Meuser
Mfume
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Moran
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Moylan
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Pence
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salazar
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Steel
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Valadao
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Zinke

NOT VOTING--19

Blumenauer
Connolly
Garbarino
Griffith
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Landsman
Lesko
McCarthy
Napolitano
Newhouse
Phillips
Plaskett
Radewagen
Sablan
Scanlon
Sessions
Sewell
Wexton

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2307

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 116 Offered by Mr. Ogles

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 116, printed in part A of House Report
118-261 offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles), on which
further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by
voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 592]

AYES--175

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Yakym

NOES--244

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Bacon
Balint
Barr
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bice
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Bucshon
Budzinski
Bush
Calvert
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (GA)
Carter (LA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Ciscomani
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar

[[Page H5353]]

D'Esposito
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Mike
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gonzalez-Colon
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Hill
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
James
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kiggans (VA)
Kildee
Kiley
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
LaLota
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawler
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lucas
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Molinaro
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Moylan
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Obernolte
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Pence
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salazar
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Valadao
Van Orden
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wagner
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Webster (FL)
Wild
Williams (GA)
Williams (NY)
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Zinke

NOT VOTING--19

Blumenauer
Connolly
Fallon
Garbarino
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Landsman
Lesko
McCarthy
Napolitano
Newhouse
Phillips
Plaskett
Radewagen
Sablan
Scanlon
Sessions
Sewell
Wexton

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 2311

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 119 Offered by Mr. Ogles

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 119
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the Environmental Financial Advisory Board of the
Environmental Protection Agency.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, the Environmental Financial Advisory Board,
or the EFAB, was chartered under the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee
Act. The EFAB boasts of making recommendations that would supposedly
lower the cost of environmental protection.
Unfortunately, they are entirely beholden to the left's climate
alarmism agenda. In a November 2022 meeting, the EFAB spent taxpayer
resources gloating about the establishment of the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund created from the so-called Inflation Reduction Act of
2022, a bill whose subsidies will cost the American taxpayers $1.2
trillion.

{time} 2320

This de facto slush fund provides $27 billion to the EPA through
September 2024. If the argument here is that we need the EFAB to
expedite the rate at which the Biden administration can give out green
subsidies to his donor base, I submit to my colleagues that perhaps the
EFAB has outgrown its usefulness.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Moran). The gentlewoman from Maine is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. The Environmental Financial Advisory Board supports the
EPA's mission to lower the cost of and increase investment in
environmental and public health protection.
Just to be clear about its role, here are some of the activities the
board pursues: ways to lower the cost of environmental protection;
remove financial and programmatic barriers that raise costs; increase
public and private contributions in environmental facilities and
services; and build State and local financial ability to meet
environmental laws.
This mission is critical if we want to ensure that the investments we
need to protect our country from climate change are sound and
achievable.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, let's take a look at the eligible recipients
of this $27 billion boondoggle: State-sponsored green banks; nonprofit
or quasi-government green banks--so much for the free market, Mr.
Chairman--and nonprofit energy conservation funds and nonprofit social
funds, just to name a few. In other words, slush funds, Mr. Chairman.
If you look at the EFAB's charter, you will find that they provide
recommendations on ways the EPA can implement funding from the
infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act to support
environmental justice and to tackle the climate crisis, which is beyond
their original intent.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption at a time of inflation, at a
time when we are growing energy dependent on our enemies. It is time
that we cull back this alarmism. It is time that we cull back these
slush funds. It is time that we do the right thing and cut the budget.
Cut this nonsense.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 120 Offered by Mr. Ogles

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 120
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end, before the short title, insert the following:

mineral leasing act modernization

Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce section 50262 of
Public Law 117-169 (commonly known as the ``Inflation
Reduction Act'').

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, at a time of, again, increased dependency on
our enemies, my amendment addresses the royalty rates that were imposed
by the Biden administration through the Inflation Reduction Act of
2022. We can see today that it did nothing to reduce inflation but in
fact has increased inflation, taking away from many Americans their
dream of owning a home.
In order to pay for what ended up being approximately $1.2 trillion
in green subsidies, the Biden administration chose to raise the royalty
rate of onshore oil and gas leases from 12.5 percent to 16.6 percent
through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
Democrats also voted in unison to quintuple the minimum bid amount
from $2 per acre to $10 per acre. They voted to increase the rental
rate by a factor of 9, from $1.50 to $15 per acre.
At the time of the bill's passage, estimates indicated the bill would
impose a $6.5 billion hike on oil and gas development.

[[Page H5354]]

Here is what I find to be one of the most remarkable things about the
so-called Inflation Reduction Act of 2022: Nowhere in that bill did
Democrats identify any government program worth cutting. Not one.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, it is hard for me to actually understand my
colleague's argument here. He opposes modernizing the Mineral Leasing
Act, basically raising lease fees at a time when he is complaining
about the deficit, meaning the revenue could be very helpful.
The way I read this, we are just catering to oil and gas interests,
enabling them to continue to operate at rates that don't benefit the
American people.
I have no idea how this works well for us. Why would my colleague
think that at a time when he is also looking for more ways to balance
our budget?
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I will point out that a $6.5 billion hike on
oil and gas development isn't going to decrease inflation. It increases
underlying costs.
When you look at commodities across sectors, everything has gone up--
food, oil, et cetera--because of things like this. Instead of saving
the American people money, this administration chose to surrender our
energy independence.
Again, I go back to the underlying cost of everything. Everything in
this room, everything in your kitchen, is dependent on oil, gas,
diesel. Everything in this country moves by that mechanism, so this so-
called business-friendly idea has done nothing more than cripple our
oil and gas industry. It is contributing to inflation. The fact that it
is called the Inflation Reduction Act is offensive because it did
nothing.
They should admit their mistake and try to fix it. Instead, they go
on increasing costs to an industry that is the backbone of our country.
Again, for minerals, we are currently dependent on enemies. Oil and
gas, we are dependent on enemies.
Mr. Chairman, right now, oil prices are trading around $90 a barrel.
If the Hamas-instigated war against Israel continues or escalates, the
American people will endure the consequences of once again depending on
OPEC for our energy needs. Some estimates say that oil could go up to
$150.
Again, at a time of great inflation, we have to be taking steps to
roll back costs on our infrastructure, on oil and gas exploration.
I always make the comment in my townhalls that if you find oil and
gas in my yard, drill, baby, drill, because we need it. We need it for
our infrastructure. We need it for our independence. We need it for
national security.
It is about time we acknowledge the fact the Inflation Reduction Act
in 2022 was a scam that screwed America.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I couldn't possibly call the Inflation
Reduction Act a scam that has ruined anything in America. I have to say
it is one of the best things we have ever done. It is the first time we
have made a significant investment in renewable energy and in defeating
climate change.
I am sorry that my colleague doesn't see it in the same way. I am
sorry that my colleague thinks that the only way we can end our
dependence on foreign oil is to drill in his front yard. I wish him
luck on that. I hope that he does discover oil in his front yard. That
could be an amazing day in his life.
The fact is that we need to invest in renewable energy. We need to
invest in American manufacturing.
The very idea that this incredibly wealthy industry, the oil and gas
industry, shouldn't pay reasonable rates when it is extracting
resources from the land that belongs to all Americans, that somehow
that should be a free kind of giveaway to them, is that what the free
market is? America giving away its resources to highly profitable
companies is not the way I see the free market. I see the free market
as paying a fair price.
For this administration to modernize this act to make sure that gas
and oil interests are paying a fair price when they do drill on
American public land seems only reasonable to me. It seems like a
better way to take care of American taxpayers.
While the gentleman might say that doesn't amount to much money, I
have been listening to bill after bill tonight where people say this
person's salary here will make a difference on the deficit, that
$15,000 cuts to the Secretary of the Interior would make a difference
on the deficit.
I have been hearing all night long--in fact, all day and all night
long, as I recall--that every penny counts. That these pennies don't
count because we should be giving a break to the oil and gas industry
goes far beyond my understanding of how business should work and how
our job protecting American resources should work.
Once again, this is a terrible amendment, one in a string of terrible
amendments, and I oppose it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for wishing that I find
oil in my yard. I hope I do, but that being said, I joke.
Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this is a step in the right
direction to have a more responsible energy policy. It is lowering the
cost on the producers as they explore and continue to explore for our
energy independence.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee
will be postponed.

{time} 2330

Amendment No. 121 Offered by Mr. Owens

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 121
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end, before the short title, insert the following:

domestic mining

Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement, administer, or enforce any
recommendation of the Interagency Working Group on Mining
Regulations, Laws, and Permitting of the Department of the
Interior contained in the report titled ``Recommendations to
Improve Mining on Public Lands'' (published September 12,
2023).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Owens) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment No. 121 that
prevents any funds in today's bill from being used to implement
recommendations made by the Biden administration's Interagency Working
Group on Mining.
This last September, the Working Group released a 168-page report
containing 65 different recommendations. There are a few
recommendations in this report that were helpful but, unfortunately,
the vast majority further undermine, rather than facilitate, our
industry and congressional efforts to secure our own domestic mineral
supply.
The Biden administration knows and acknowledges that a strong U.S.
mining supply chain is critical. They are aware that demand for
minerals is skyrocketing, doubling over the last 5 years and will
continue to grow. They know that we are dangerously dependent on
overseas suppliers, in particular adversaries like China, Russia, and
other unstable countries, for minerals that are essential to our
economic competitiveness and national security.
Examples of this can be seen in countries like Peru and Chile, which
combined produce about 40 percent of the world's supply of copper. Peru
has gone through seven Presidents in the last few years. In Chile, the
government is

[[Page H5355]]

now making plans to nationalize the country's lithium supply. Despite
acknowledging this as a national security issue, the Biden
administration continues to attack our American suppliers with layer,
upon layer, upon layer of burdensome, duplicative, and unworkable
regulations.
The Biden administration needs to do more than just talk about a
strong, stable American economy. They need to act by fostering a strong
domestic minerals supply. Unfortunately, they continue to do the
opposite by proposing inconsistent, uncoordinated, and insufficient
policies that slow our progress to independence through self-imposed
barriers.
The recommendations in this report embolden our adversaries and are
not beneficial to America. Countries like Australia, Canada, and even
the European Union have committed to increase domestic production. All
of them have developed long-term strategies to be the global suppliers
of choice for minerals. Under this administration, the United States
has yet to put together a long-term strategy. Other countries will be
competing for the same global mineral supply, at the same time, putting
stress on America's ability to source additional volumes outside of our
country.
My State of Utah produces large amounts of copper, gold, magnesium,
and silver. We are the global leader in beryllium, which is used for
aerospace and national security applications. We need to allow these
producers to thrive and to do what they do best. It is well known that
the United States has a higher standard than any other country when it
comes to quality, safety, cleanliness of process and product. We have
an opportunity to emerge as a world leader in the mineral mining space.
This administration needs to stop standing in our way.
Many of these dangerous report recommendations would only reinforce
China as the permanent leader in minerals. This is not good for our
country, our economy, our jobs, our industry, and, most importantly,
for our national security. We should not, therefore, use Federal funds
to administer or enforce these recommendations. Hopefully, the
administration will go back to the drawing board and, with an America
First mindset, create a durable and sustainable strategy that would
actually help our domestic mineral supply chain and the American
worker, not the Communist Chinese Government. The risk is far too great
when we are already decades behind.
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, we oppose this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chair, I think the question is why is it so difficult
for us to understand that independence is the American way.
Independence is what we have always sought. It is allowing the middle
class to grow because it is powered by a strong business segment. It
appears that at every turn that is possible. The Biden administration--
and this is a good example of that--finds a way to put more regulations
to stifle that ingenuity, that innovation, and our opportunity to
become independent.
We have to make sure that we are, in particular with rare-earth
minerals, leading the charge and not falling behind and taking
advantage of the remarkable wealth we have in this country.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 122 Offered by Mr. Palmer

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 122
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to carry out
the powers granted under section 3063 of title 18, United
States Code.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA,
spends as much as $50 million a year to employ nearly 200 armed agents
at an average cost of $216,000 per year, per agent. The American people
would likely be disturbed to hear that.
According to the nonprofit Open the Books, the EPA has spent millions
of dollars over the years on antitank ammunition, amphibious assault
craft, night vision equipment, unmanned aircraft, and other military
equipment. It is difficult for me to imagine that the EPA has a
legitimate use for antitank ammunition. To me, that sounds like we are
arming a SEAL team. The difference is a SEAL team can explain why they
need these things; the EPA cannot.
These agents have been involved in raids in Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming,
Montana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and in my own State of Alabama.
In Alaska, EPA agents wearing flak jackets and carrying long guns
showed up to review paperwork at a family-owned mining operation.
In my home State of Alabama, armed EPA agents took over two waste
treatment facilities in Dothan, Alabama. These agents were posted at
each entrance to the plant and recorded identification information on
all of those going in and going out.
The EPA is just one of more than 70 Federal agencies that employ
armed personnel, many of which most Americans would never associate
with law enforcement.
I think we need to take a step back and reevaluate whether arming the
bureaucracy is the best way to ensure that our laws are enforced.
Federal agencies should be able to demonstrate their need for armed
personnel and, absent such a demonstration, should rely on and partner
with local, State, or Federal law enforcement when there is a need for
armed protection.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Higgins).
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, the EPA does not need armed
agents loaded with attitude rolling up on American citizens trying to
mind their own business. This is happening. It is stunning but it is
happening. You have armed EPA agents rolling up on our farmers with no
warrant. You have two agents emerge from an unmarked car to check the
fuel in the saddlebag tanks of diesel trucks with their little strips
and proceed to issue $10,000 fines.
Can you imagine, Mr. Chair, your city's code enforcement being pushed
by armed agents with attitudes? This is happening in our EPA. It is
happening in other alphabet agencies. It is wrong, and we are going to
put a stop to it one way or another.
I support my friend's amendment, and I urge all colleagues to step up
and push back against the weaponization of our Federal Government
against the American people.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment that would
cripple the EPA's ability to exercise its criminal enforcement function
by preventing the EPA criminal enforcement from being able to issue
warrants, make arrests, or carry firearms.
I am truly befuddled by this attack on law enforcement. The
majority's disdain for the EPA has been evident throughout the debate
of this bill, but this amendment is beyond the pale.
I cannot understand how anyone would think it is a good idea to give
a pass to criminals who deliberately break the law.
The EPA's criminal enforcement function is a vital part of our
efforts to help protect the environment and safeguard the public
health, but it is important to recognize that it is only one part of
these efforts.

{time} 2340

The fact is that EPA's compliance and enforcement process is a
multistep process that uses criminal law enforcement only as a last
resort. EPA initially provides compliance assistance

[[Page H5356]]

to help the regulated community understand and comply with regulations.
EPA compliance monitoring subsequently assesses compliance through
inspections and other activities.
Enforcement actions are initiated only when the regulated community
does not comply or when cleanup is required. Criminal actions are
usually reserved for the most serious violations, those that are
willful or knowingly committed.
The mere threat of criminal action can and does help ensure
compliance. If this irresponsible amendment passes and we remove the
threat of criminal action, we will inevitably see a decline in willful
compliance of our environmental laws. That would be bad news for all of
us, as the quality of our air, water, and public health will inevitably
suffer.
As to the issue of EPA personnel carrying firearms, I would point out
that more than 70 Federal agencies employ law enforcement officers who
are authorized to carry firearms and make arrests in the United States,
including the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the Food and Drug
Administration, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The EPA is hardly
unique in this regard.
Make no mistake, this amendment is clearly anti-law enforcement. It
cripples the ability of the EPA to ensure enforcement of our
environmental laws and will inevitably lead to even more harm to the
public health.
Let's ensure that the EPA can continue to enforce our Nation's
environmental standards.
Mr. Chair, I urge the defeat of this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I am stunned to hear the response to this
coming from the side that supports defunding the police. What we want
to do is have proper law enforcement enforcing our laws and not
weaponizing the entire Federal bureaucracy against the citizens of the
United States.
I can't imagine why the EPA would need anti-tank ammunition to
enforce the laws of the EPA. We have seen what this leads to in
multiple examples, which I will not go into at this point. The critics'
claims, though, that my amendment would put EPA personnel at risk of
harm, that would be wrong.
My amendment does not prohibit the EPA from using funds to provide
security for its personnel or property. It does not prohibit training
of EPA security or law enforcement personnel, either.
My amendment would prohibit funding for the EPA's armed and
militarized agents who have a history of intimidating Americans by
conducting aggressive raids and begin to address the troubling trend of
militarization of our Federal agencies.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 123 Offered by Mr. Perry

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 123
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to give formal notification under, or prepare,
propose, implement, administer, or enforce any rule or
recommendation pursuant to, section 115 of the Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C. 7415).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the EPA from using
funds for actions pursuant to section 115 of the Clean Air Act.
Section 115 of the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to mandate State
emissions levels to whatever level the agency deems appropriate if they
find the following: U.S. emissions endanger a foreign nation, and the
endangered nation has a reciprocal agreement to prevent or control
these emissions in their own nation.
That sounds complicated and screwed up because it is.
Our EPA deciding what we do in our States based on their agreement
with some other nation about what is happening in their nation
shouldn't have an impact on our States.
This is a backdoor provision that allows the EPA to vastly expand its
regulatory authority and encroach on the rights of the States to
regulate their own energy sectors based on the actions of a foreign
nation and a determination of the executive branch solely without any
input from this branch.
It is irresponsible to allow unelected bureaucrats at the EPA to
retain the ability to seize this expansive authority. If the U.S.
Government wants to pursue such a policy, one that, in my opinion, is
constitutionally suspect--be that as it may--it should be done through
an explicit congressional delegation of authority on a case-by-case
basis.
A similar amendment has passed the House during previous Interior-
Environment appropriations packages. I know because I offered it. I am
hoping that my colleagues will do the same on this one and take back
our Article I authority and support this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, section 115 of the Clean Air Act is
essential. It enables the United States to work with other nations to
address transboundary air pollution.
As we have seen recently while Canada was experiencing historic
wildfires, pollution knows no boundaries and can travel anywhere,
whether by air or water.
We cannot address these environmental issues on our own, and we must
work with other nations. Prohibiting the EPA from implementing section
115 of the Clean Air Act is shortsighted, and I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this goes exactly to the Paris climate
accord. When section 115 was written, along with the rest of the Clean
Air Act, that Paris climate accord did not exist. It is not a treaty.
We haven't signed it, yet we are bound to it as long as the executive
branch wants to use it and a foreign government says that our
government is polluting their country.
It is absolutely absurd. It was never envisioned by the EPA. I think
that they had good intentions, and I agreed with those good intentions
at the time, but since the Paris climate accord has been agreed to by
this administration, this is a dangerous precedent to set. It is
dangerous to allow it to be there.
Again, as I said, this has passed in previous appropriations
debates--this very amendment--and I encourage Members to vote in favor
of it again to make sure that we are controlling our country, that
States can control themselves, and that we don't rely on foreign
governments to control our country.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 124 Offered by Mr. Posey

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 124
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amount otherwise made available by this Act
for ``Environmental Protection Agency-Environmental Programs
and Management'' for the Office of Air and Radiation is
hereby reduced by 50 percent.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Posey) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chair, my amendment would reduce the EPA environmental
programs and management account for the Office of Air and Radiation by
50 percent.

[[Page H5357]]

This office has destroyed an entire industry already and is currently
working hard to bankrupt a family-owned business in my district. The
EPA's OAR used the regulatory process to destroy the glider truck
industry in favor of a Chinese-owned trucking industry. Many of these
glider trucks are operated by small mom-and-pop businesses.
Now, the same EPA is targeting a family-owned business in my district
that supplies the only domestically manufactured outboard motors
preferred by the U.S. Navy SEALs and other Special Operations Forces,
including those of our allies.
They are putting their Green New Deal agenda ahead of our national
security and the safety of our men and women on the front lines
protecting our freedom.

{time} 2350

My amendment reduces the number of unelected, unaccountable, and
unrecallable bureaucrats from vetoing the U.S. Navy SEAL military
equipment they direly need, and I ask my colleagues to support me in
joining this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Rose).
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey) which would reduce
funding for the Office of Air and Radiation under the EPA by 50
percent.
The EPA's Office of Air and Radiation is one of the most radical,
out-of-touch, and burdensome regulatory authorities in the Federal
Government that most Americans have never heard of. They are
essentially charged with carrying out the Biden administration and
progressive Democrats' job and economy killing Green New Deal agenda.
The unelected bureaucrats at the Office of Air and Radiation have
repeatedly targeted small business industries--people's livelihoods and
the way of life for thousands of Americans--with little or no regard.
It is time the American people's Representatives in this body, the
U.S. House, say enough is enough and remove the EPA's boot from the
neck of the American people.
Mr. Chair, there is no better way to start than supporting Mr.
Posey's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in doing so.
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, on top of the cuts already included in the
base bill, this would nearly eliminate the office. This means that we
will no longer have anyone in the government to run programs that
prevent air pollution, ensure high-quality indoor and outdoor air,
monitor and reduce pollution from vehicles and engines, prevent acid
rain, protect the public against radiation, and monitor and address
stratospheric ozone depletion.
These draconian and shortsighted cuts put all Americans at risk.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. POSEY. Mr. Chairman, we are talking about a rogue agency here
that is not only failing to do the job that they are supposed to do,
but they are out harming people.
They are harming the heroes who are on the front lines that direly
need their supplies while they fiddle or faddle in the back room,
whatever they do, and deny those supplies, while they themselves are
gorging upon $10 million in combat materials and weapons.
I asked the administrator about this in a meeting a couple weeks ago.
I said, Tell me why the EPA needs the $10 million in combat-grade arms.
He said, Well, I didn't know we got it.
He said, I will get back to you. I will explain it to you.
I am still waiting to hear the answer.
There needs to be some accountability for agencies that are going off
the track, and I think this is really a good start.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Posey).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 125 Offered by Mr. Rose

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 125
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Rose) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 4821,
the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act.
In June, the Biden administration's Department of the Interior led by
Secretary Deb Haaland issued an order to phase out the use of single
use plastics, including plastic straws, by 2032.
My amendment is straightforward. My amendment will prevent the
Department of the Interior from banning the sale of plastic straws on
public lands and national parks.
According to a study published in the journal Food Additives and
Contaminants, paper straws may not be more eco-friendly than plastic
straws. The majority of the paper straws in this study included
perfluoroalkyl substances and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS,
which are often referred to as forever chemicals.
According to a recent article in USA Today, scientists in Belgium
tested 39 brands of straws made of paper, bamboo, plastic, and
stainless steel found in shops, supermarkets, and restaurants across
the country.
The article continued that: ``These `eco-friendly' plant-based straws
are not necessarily a more sustainable alternative to plastic straws,
said the study's conclusion, because they can be considered as an
additional source of PFAS exposure in humans and the environment.''
Mr. Chairman, we have to ask: Why is the Department of the Interior
rushing to ban plastic straws in national parks when it is far from
clear whether or not there is any environmental benefit to switching to
paper straws?
Additionally, paper straws are absolutely despised by many Americans
because they start to become soggy almost immediately when you put them
into a drink. I think probably, Mr. Chairman, most Americans have
experienced exactly that.
So, Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the text of this USA Today
article titled ``Not so eco-friendly? Paper straws contain more
`forever chemicals' than plastic, study says.''

[From USA Today, Aug. 28, 2023]

Not So Eco-Friendly? Paper Straws Contain More `Forever Chemicals' Than
Plastic, Study Says

(By Mary Walrath-Holdridge)

Not a fan of those paper straws that have replaced
disposable plastic ones in the name of being eco-friendly? As
it turns out, some of those efforts to save the environment
may have been in vain.
A new study, published Thursday in the journal Food
Additives and Contaminants, found evidence of ``forever
chemical'' PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in the
majority of both paper and bamboo straws tested.
Scientists in Belgium tested 39 brands of straws made of
paper, bamboo, plastic and stainless steel found in shops,
supermarkets and restaurants across the country.
Of the straws tested, almost all contained some
concertation of PFAS, which are often used during
manufacturing to make products water resistant. Out of the
total 39 tested, the chemicals were detected in 27, none of
which were stainless steel.
Paper straws, on the other hand, were the most likely to
contain PFAS, with 18 out of 20, or 90%, of paper brands
testing positive. They were also found in four out of five
bamboo straws, three out of four plastic straws and two out
of five glass straws.

not so eco-friendly?

Eighteen different PFAS were detected in total, though
overall in low concentrations. The chemical most commonly
found, however, was perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) which was
banned globally in 2020.
``These `eco-friendly' plant-based straws are not
necessarily a more sustainable alternative to plastic
straws,'' said the study's conclusion, ``because they can be
considered

[[Page H5358]]

as an additional source of PFAS exposure in humans and the
environment (e.g. after degradation in landfills or through
incomplete incineration) .''
The study also discovered PFAS that are known to be highly
water soluble, meaning they have the potential to bleed from
the straw into a drink, but did not investigate this
component further.
The researchers proposed that, while manufactures could
intentionally be coating their plant-based straws in
chemicals to make them water-repellent, the presence of PFAS
could also be attributed to contaminated soil or an
unintended consequence of material recycling. The authors
suggested further analysis and studies be conducted to
determine the primary source of contamination in the straws
and how the chemicals may impact drinks and people consuming
them.
This Belgian study comes on the heels of a 2021 U.S. study,
which found the presence of 21 PFAS in paper and other plant-
based straws versus no measurable amounts in plastic ones.
While PFAS were present in most straws tested, the low
concentration, paired with the limited extent to which people
use straws, means they don't pose an immediate risk to
humans.
Small amounts of PFAS are not harmful in and of themselves,
but rather their ability to build up over time, including in
the human body, is what poses the most risk. Even with these
findings, plant-based straws are still better for the
environment than straight-up plastics.
As stainless-steel straws are reusable long-term and all
tested PFAS-free, the study authors suggest the use of these
straws for bother environmental and health-related reasons.

what are pfas?

PFAS stands for ``per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances,''
and refers to a collection of long-lasting chemicals that
take a very long time to slowly break down in the
environment.
According to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), PFAS are widely used and persist for long
periods of time in the environment, meaning they are found in
the blood of people and animals around the world, as well as
air, water, soil and in low levels in foods, packaging and
household products.

what health risks are associated with pfas?

While scientists are still working to determine the extent
to which PFAS impact us, animals and our environment, they
are already associated with a list of health concerns.
According to the EPA, PFAS have been linked to:
Reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or
increased high blood pressure in pregnant women.
Developmental effects or delays in children, including low
birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or
behavioral changes.
Increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney,
and testicular cancers. Reduced ability of the body's immune
system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine
response.
Interference with the body's natural hormones.
Increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity.

where are pfas usually found?

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
PFAS can be found in hundreds of products we use daily. In
some cases, they are approved for use in limited amounts by
the FDA, such as in food packaging.
They are commonly found in:
Stain- and water-resistant fabrics and carpeting.
Cleaning products.
Paints.
Fire-fighting foams.
Cookware.
Food packaging
Food processing equipment.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chairman, the American people do not want their
government dictating what type of straws they can drink from.
A ``yes'' vote on my amendment is a resounding repudiation of the
nanny state that the Biden administration is currently building via
edicts from unelected bureaucrats.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, honestly, I don't even know where to start. I
am pretty sure it is about midnight, and this is the United States
Congress. We are dealing with enormous challenges in the world. We
currently have a war going on in Ukraine with Russia, in Israel with
the Hamas, and we are trying to face a climate change and so many
serious issues, and we are here debating a plastic straw, whether or
not plastic straws should be used, whether or not they are the best
alternative.
I understand it is complicated, what is the best kind of straw to
use, a reusable straw, a paper straw, or a plastic straw, and there are
issues related to this. Nonetheless, this is because of a mandate to
reduce the amount of single-use plastic.
I don't know about you, Mr. Chair, but I have an ocean border that is
longer than any other ocean border in the United States, and one of the
big challenges that we are dealing with right now is an excess amount
of plastic in the ocean. We have no good recycling in this country. We
have excess amounts of plastics in our landfill, and we have toxics
that we are dealing with every day. So reducing our amount of single-
use plastic is important.
Whether or not it is our job in Congress to decide what kind of straw
should be used or exactly how these bans should be implemented, I just
don't think it is something that we should be doing at midnight when we
have a lot of big problems to deal with.
I am just disappointed to see this amendment, to see that my
colleague doesn't want to address the big challenges that we have with
single-use plastic, and the difficult issues that have to be dealt
with.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to
close.
Mr. Chair, it is time to get the government out of our drinks. I
understand the concern that my colleague expresses, Mr. Chair, but I
would say that the best way to avoid the need for congressional
intervention would be for the administration to not be chasing its tail
trying to force American consumers to make choices that are absolutely
not clear in terms of the environmental impact that they would have.
The plastic straw ban being implemented by the Department of the
Interior is fundamentally and fatally flawed. Numerous scientific
studies have cast serious doubts as to whether or not paper straws are
more environmentally friendly than plastic straws.
Mr. Chair, just listen to these headlines regarding paper straws.

{time} 0000

From the National Post, ``It turns out all those paper straws are bad
for the environment too.''
From U.S. News & World Report, ``'Eco-Friendly' Paper Straws Contain
Harmful PFAS Chemicals.''
Finally, from KSL News, ``Paper straws are no better than plastic,
research says.''
Mr. Chair, I include in the Record these several articles.

[From nationalpost.com, Aug. 29, 2023]

It Turns Out All Those Paper Straws Are Bad for the Environment

(By Tristin Hopper)

Canada has legislated the mandatory adoption of paper
straws just in time for new evidence to emerge that the new
straws may be just as unsustainable as their plastic
predecessors.
A new study published in the journal Food Additives and
Contaminants examined more than 20 different brands of plant-
based straws and found high levels of toxic chemicals in
almost all of them.
``These `eco-friendly' plant-based straws are not
necessarily a more sustainable alternative to plastic
straws,'' concluded a research team based at Belgium's
University of Antwerp.
Straws examined by the researchers were largely found to be
laden with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS),
commonly known as ``forever chemicals.''
This not only means that the straws likely aren't
biodegradable, but that they are vectors for chemicals
considered hazardous to human and environmental health.
The report noted that even in situations where a plant-
based straw doesn't become litter, it will most likely end up
in a landfill where it will spend the rest of its lifecycle
``releasing PFAS further into the environment.''
``Straws made from plant-based materials . . . are often
advertised as being more sustainable and eco-friendly than
those made from plastic. However, the presence of PFAS in
these straws means that's not necessarily true,''
environmental scientist Thimo Groffen said in a press
statement.
Canada is in the midst of an all-out drive to prohibit the
distribution of single-use plastics, with plastic straws
being one of the most visible targets of the ban.
In December 2022, Environment Canada made it illegal to
manufacture or import plastic straws, cutlery and checkout
bags, among others. At the end of this year, the sale of
those products will also become prohibited. The transition is
not free; even according to the most optimistic estimates of

[[Page H5359]]

the Government of Canada, the average Canadian can expect to
pay $50 apiece in the higher costs of plastic alternatives.
The University of Antwerp team performed chemical analysis
on 39 different types of straws sourced from Belgium
supermarkets and fast food outlets: 20 paper, five glass,
five bamboo, five stainless steel, and four plastic.
Only the stainless-steel straws were found to be completely
PFAS-free. The steel straws were also the only type that
could realistically be recycled. Researchers were surprised
to discover that even glass straws contained measurable
amounts of forever chemicals.
As to why these chemicals were so widespread in alternative
straws, one reason is that they were added to make the
products water-repellent. The Belgian study also noted that
it might be partially unintended; with so many paper straws
made from recycled materials, manufacturers might be
unwittingly using raw ingredients that were previously
infused with PFAS.
Although Canada's straw ban has often pitched as a means to
protect ocean health, the vast majority of plastic in the
world's oceans comes from a handful of countries (largely in
South Asia) that dump their waste directly onto beaches or
into rivers.
In Canada, by contrast, the vast majority of single-use
plastics are captured by existing waste-management systems. A
2019 report commissioned by Environment Canada determined
that of the 3,268 kilotonnes of plastic waste Canada
generated in 2016, 3,239 kilotonnes were ``collected.''
Ottawa has also done little to no research on the
environmental impacts or the potential unintended
consequences of finding alternatives to single-use plastics.
A Government of Canada report on alternatives to plastic
straws and checkout bags simply advises retailers to find
products that won't be ``problematic.''
That same report touts how Starbucks replaced plastic
straws in 2019 with specialized ``strawless'' lids, but fails
to note that the new lids actually contain more plastic than
the prior cup/straw combo.
____

[From U.S. News & World Report, Aug. 25, 2023]

`Eco-Friendly' Paper Straws Contain Harmful PFAS Chemicals

(By Cara Murez)

``Straws made from plant-based materials, such as paper and
bamboo, are often advertised as being more sustainable and
eco-friendly than those made from plastic,'' said researcher
Thimo Groffen, an environmental scientist at the University
of Antwerp in Belgium. ``However, the presence of PFAS in
these straws means that's not necessarily true.''
For this study, published Aug. 24 in the journal Food
Additives and Contaminants, Groffen and colleagues tested 39
straw brands in a variety of materials for poly- and
perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Straws were paper, bamboo, glass, stainless steel and
plastic. Each straw went through two rounds of testing for
PFAS.
PFAS were found in 69 percent of the straws. Testing
detected 18 different PFAS.
These chemicals were found in 90 percent of paper straws;
about 80 percent of bamboo straws; 75 percent of plastic
straws, and 40 percent of glass straw brands.
PFAS were not detected in any of the five types of steel
straws tested.
The most commonly found PFAS was perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA), which has been banned worldwide since 2020.
Testing also detected trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) and
trifluoromethanesulfonic acid (TFMS). These ``ultra-short-
chain'' PFAS are highly water soluble and so might leach out
of straws into drinks, according to the study.
These all may pose limited risk to human health because
people tend to use straws only occasionally and chemical
concentrations were low, researchers said. But the chemicals
can build up in the body for years.
``Small amounts of PFAS, while not harmful in themselves,
can add to the chemical load already present in the body,''
Groffen said in a journal news release.
It's not known if the straws contained the PFAS to
waterproof them or because of contamination from soil used to
grow materials or water used in manufacturing.
PFAS are used in many everyday products, including nonstick
pans and outdoor clothing. They make these items resistant to
water, heat and stains, but break down very slowly over time
and can persist in the environment for thousands of years.
They're associated with health problems, such as lower
response to vaccines, lower birth weight, thyroid disease,
increased cholesterol levels, liver damage, kidney cancer and
testicular cancer.
A recent U.S. study found PFAS in plant-based drinking
straws as well. While some countries have banned single-use
plastic products, plant-based alternatives have become
popular.
Researchers said the prevalence of PFAS in the straws
suggests they were added as a waterproof coating.
``The presence of PFAS in paper and bamboo straws shows
they are not necessarily biodegradable,'' Groffen said. ``We
did not detect any PFAS in stainless steel straws, so I would
advise consumers to use this type of straw--or just avoid
using straws at all.''

[From KLS.com, Sept. 3, 2023]

Paper Straws Are No Better Than Plastic, Research Says

(By Mariah Maynes)

Plastic straws have long been vilified for their negative
impact on the environment. In efforts to be more
environmentally friendly, many businesses and consumers have
adopted paper straws as an alternative.
Despite well-meaning attempts to cause less harm to the
environment by using paper instead of plastic, researchers
found that paper straws are just as bad.
Christian Britschgi, a reporter for Reason Magazine, said
Belgian researchers conducted a study to examine 39 straw
brands. The straws were made with different materials like
paper, plastic, metal, and bamboo.
The researchers measured the presence of polyfluoroalkyl
substances. The chemicals are common in consumer products and
industrial processes.
The chemicals are often called ``forever chemicals''
because they do not break down in the environment, according
to the CDC. The lack of regular decomposition means these
paper straws can move through soil and water, contaminating
food and drinking water. Bioaccumulation can cause health
problems in animals.
Research has found that these forever chemicals are
hazardous to the environment and to human health. Research
has found that exposure to certain levels of polyfluoroalkyl
substances can result in adverse health risks, the EPA said.
Some examples are decreased fertility, increased risk of
developing some cancers and reduced immunity, among other
conditions. Research into adverse health effects related to
these forever chemicals exposure is ongoing.
Human consumption of products derived from animals that
were exposed to bioaccumulation, breathing contaminated air
or drinking contaminated water, or certain occupations such
as chemical manufacturing, are all examples of exposure to
polyfluoroalkyl substances.

Paper vs. plastic straws

Researchers found that the paper straws all contained
polyfluoroalkyl substances. The paper straws contained higher
concentrations of forever chemicals than their counterparts
constructed with other materials.
Plastic straws also contain these forever chemicals, but in
lower concentrations. About 70 percent of the plastic straws
examined by the researchers contained the chemicals.
The only type of straw that did not contain polyfluoroalkyl
substances was the steel option, researchers found. Steel
straws are a reusable option.
Britschgi said the emissions and pollution produced from
making straws should be taken into account when determining
how environmentally friendly they are.
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Chair, my amendment will stop the nonsense that the
Biden administration is trying to force upon the American people
through the Department of the Interior by prohibiting any funds from
being used to implement, administer, apply, enforce, or carry out any
plastic straw prohibitions.
Mr. Chair, in closing, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on my amendment
and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Rose).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Rose) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moran, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4821)
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment,
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________