Congressional Record, Volume 169 Issue 182 (Friday, November 3, 2023)

[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 182 (Friday, November 3, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H5383-H5393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ciscomani). 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 the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 4821.
Will the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith) kindly take the chair.

{time} 0916

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. Smith of Nebraska
(Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on the
legislative day of Thursday, November 2, 2023, amendment No. 125,
printed in part A of House Report 118-261, offered by the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Rose), had been disposed of.

Amendment No. 126 Offered by Mr. Roy

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 126
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. ROY. 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 environmental justice activities.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Roy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering here on the
legislation we are considering would prohibit any of the funds in this
appropriations bill from being used to carry out so-called
environmental justice activities.
This so-called environmental justice is nothing more, in the end,
than a synthesis of divisive racial ideology and policies that my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to promote with radical
environmentalism.
Basically, they are taking the radical environmental policies
perpetuated in the EPA and Interior through this administration,
doubling down on them, injecting divisive race policies, and now
creating a larger problem for the American people.
The entire ideology is based on the notion that Federal environmental
funding should be allocated based on immutable characteristics. Let's
think about that for a minute. Not only do we need to destroy the
American economy with radical environmental policies, but we need to
inject divisive race policies in the middle of it. That is where we
are.
People are running around, going to the gas station to get gasoline.
They are trying to power their homes. They are wondering why we are
having massive instability around the world. They wonder why China is
on the rise. They wonder why Iran is able to enrich itself by selling
oil to China. They wonder why they can't afford to live their own lives
while inflation is destroying their well-being. Now, we are injecting
race into the middle of it all.
Biden's so-called Justice40 Initiative directs 40 percent of Federal
clean energy and energy efficiency spending based on ethnicity, migrant
status, and income status. You literally just can't make up this
absurdity.
Here are some of the examples.
``Developing a roadmap to dismantle environmental racism'' in
Brunswick, Georgia.
Ecology Action in Bloomington, Illinois, ``seeks to identify and
develop mitigation strategies for disproportionate climate impacts . .
. and increase tree equity.'' What in the hell is tree equity?
Supporting summer high school environmental internships in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, ``to build climate resilience and connect mainly young
people of color to life skills and environmental sector career
pathways.'' However, a recent study conducted by President Obama's
former Energy Secretary found, on average, solar workers make $12,000 a
year less than oil and gas workers.
The fact of the matter is that we are destroying the American economy
by chasing the climate agenda, which my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle fully acknowledge and admit is being

[[Page H5384]]

driven by the climate agenda and that the American people must suffer
higher inflation and higher costs--an inability to afford their own
homes and their own cars to go about their own jobs and their own way
of life--in order to pursue an agenda that everybody acknowledges that,
even if we do everything my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
say we should do, wouldn't dent CO2 production relative to
what is happening in China, India, and countries around the world.
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, in recent years, Democrats have made historic
investments in environmental justice, and the EPA has already put those
dollars to good use. I think it is unfortunate that my colleagues
across the aisle continue to attack good government programs.
Environmental justice, just to explain this, ensures that all
Americans receive the same degree of protection from environmental and
health hazards. It is particularly important in rural communities, like
the one I represent and like the one I imagine my colleague represents.
Many of these rural communities are in the very districts my colleagues
across the aisle are representing.
Rural communities and low-income communities have long been targeted
by corporations, regulatory agencies, and local planning and zoning
boards when siting polluting facilities.
Let me give you a list of the kinds of things we are talking about
here: landfills, waste transfer stations, incinerators, garbage dumps,
diesel bus and truck garages, auto body shops, smokestack industries,
industrial hog and chicken processors, oil refineries, chemical
manufacturers, and radioactive waste storage areas.
Because of this, these communities typically have lower property
values, higher health disparities, and shorter lifespans. We are not
talking about something trivial here. We are talking about serious
concerns about your health, the length of your life, and what your
property is worth.
Why would my colleagues try to defund any effort to improve the lives
of people in rural and low-income communities?
I am sorry, but it is just another attempt to implement an extreme
agenda to attack minority groups at all costs and to return to a time
when environmental discrimination was the norm.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support our rural and low-income
communities by rejecting this amendment, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chairman, the fact is, I have not heard one
constituent--not one constituent among the 750,000 people who I
represent--come up to me and say: Do you know what I need, Congressman
Roy? I need environmental justice funding.
Calls to my office are just begging for environmental justice
funding. Has anybody had a constituent do that, call up and say: Will
you please solve the world's problems with environmental
justice funding? No.

Do you know what I have had? I have had phone calls to my office
saying: I can't afford gas. I can't afford electricity.
I have had calls from workers from a refinery in my district saying
that they are going to drive us out of business and that they don't
know what they are going to do.
That is all a direct result of a radical agenda by Democrats in the
White House, the administration, and my colleagues across the aisle in
this Chamber and the other Chamber who are more interested in advancing
a radical agenda than standing up for American citizens who simply want
to live their lives.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a straightforward amendment. It would
do what the American people want us to do, which is focus on our job
here in this Chamber to deliver our constitutional duties and nothing
more and not divide us by race while also destroying the American
economy with radical environmentalism.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine has 3 minutes remaining.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, my colleague on the other side of the
aisle said no one ever calls his office and talks about environmental
justice. I understand. There are all kinds of words we use in Congress
that people rarely talk to us about. They don't talk to us about many
of the procedures that we have on the floor, all kinds of things that
we do.
However, you do have people who call your office to say: Do you know
what? I don't want that chemical manufacturer sited next to my house. I
am worried about that hog farm that is coming down the road from me. I
am worried about the garbage dump. I am worried about the health
impacts that my family is experiencing because of where we live.
Maybe that didn't happen in your district. I will admit that
everything doesn't happen in all of our districts, but there are
certainly districts across the country where people are experiencing
adverse health impacts. They are experiencing loss of property values
because things have been sited in their neighborhood.
Maybe my colleague, like so many times here in Congress, just doesn't
like the words. I understand. I have heard the term ``environmental
justice'' so many times over the last couple of days, as if it is some
kind of a discriminatory term, or as if it is some kind of term that
they just can't get out of their mouth without feeling angry.
We can call it anything we want. We can call it poor siting of messy
places. We can call it anything my colleagues want. To make sure that
all Americans get a fair deal and that people don't have adverse health
impacts, I am willing to change that, just like we can't say ``climate
change'' without people getting upset.
I am happy, every time we have to discuss this, just to say ``extreme
weather.'' Okay, it is extreme weather. It is too much melting. It is
too much heat. Too much of things that aren't supposed to happen and
going wrong--the hottest summer on record, melting of the polar ice
cap, and people who live in communities like mine experiencing the
greatest heat in the ocean of any oceans on Earth.
These are things that are impacting all of us. I will call it
whatever my colleagues like, but we have to do something about it. We
have to have equity here, and we have to make sure it is a fair deal
for everybody.
I heard you didn't like the term ``tree equity.'' I get it. It is one
of those things that you just think: What are we talking about now?
In fact, urban areas have changed. I am so fortunate that I live in
the most forested State in the Nation. I don't know what it is like
where my colleague lives. If my colleague lives on top of a hill, maybe
there are some trees up there. It makes a huge difference if you are in
a part of the city that has trees, if your playgrounds are paved and
black and hot in the summer, or if your playgrounds have some trees and
shade and some cover so kids can go out and play. We are just talking
about kids being able to play on the playground and having a decent
life.
When we are talking about making sure we plant trees, which often my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle say is a really good idea, we
go ahead and believe we should plant more trees.
Let's not get caught up in the terminology. I think there is a lot we
could work on together here and that we believe in together. This
amendment to disregard all funding for environmental justice--tell me
what you want to call it--that is just not appropriate and is not how
we should be funding our environmental laws and not how we should be
dealing with climate change.
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 Texas (Mr. Roy).
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

[[Page H5385]]

the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.

Amendment No. 127 Offered by Mr. Roy

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 127
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. ROY. 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 by this Act may be
used to implement any of the following executive orders:
(1) Executive Order 13990, relating to Protecting Public
Health and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle
the Climate Crisis.
(2) Executive Order 14008, relating to Tackling the Climate
Crisis at Home and Abroad.
(3) Section 6 of Executive Order 14013, relating to
Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs To Resettle Refugees and
Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration.
(4) Executive Order 14030, relating to Climate-Related
Financial Risk.
(5) Executive Order 14057, relating to Catalyzing Clean
Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability.
(6) Executive Order 14082, relating to Implementation of
the Energy and Infrastructure Provisions of the Inflation
Reduction Act of 2022.
(7) Executive Order 14096, relating to Revitalizing Our
Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Roy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, before I talk about this amendment, the
gentlewoman referred to the importance of having trees. No one
disagrees with that. Yes, I live in the Texas Hill Country, where live
oaks are something we try to figure out how to protect, especially, for
example, when you have an ice storm like earlier this year. You are out
there figuring out a way to go save your trees by cutting limbs and
figuring out how to preserve the beauty that God gave us. Nobody
disagrees with that.

{time} 0930

Nonetheless, the idea that a core responsibility of the Federal
Government is tree equity is absurd. The State of Texas is the eighth
largest economy in the world. We are perfectly capable of figuring out
how to deal with trees.
We don't have any money. We are $34 trillion in debt, $2 trillion a
year in deficit spending, and we are talking about tree equity?
What the hell are we doing? That is the question here.
I love trees. I love live oak trees. I do everything I can to
preserve and protect the environment in which I live because--this is a
crazy idea--I live there. I actually like to fish, and I like to live
in clean air and clean water. I like to have an environment that is
great to be in for my kids and my family.
We had a Clean Water Act and a Clean Air Act in Texas before the
Environmental Protection Agency was even created here in this town.
The fact of the matter is we can do what we need to do to protect our
communities without this place spending money we don't have to
interfere with this. Yes, there are interstate issues we must deal
with, and we can deal with those things. Nevertheless, the fact is we
can do these things.
This amendment that I am offering prohibits any of the funding in the
Interior-Environment appropriations bill from being used to carry out
President Biden's executive orders on climate change.
These executive orders direct the EPA to wage its regulatory war on
the United States energy production and the internal combustion engine.
The fact of the matter is there are ambitious efforts to convert our
entire fleet of vehicles to have two-thirds of new vehicles be electric
vehicles by 2032.
Now, that might sound good in a little focus group in some Ivy League
cabal in Boston, but the idea of what this is going to actually do to
hardworking Americans is something we ought to actually flush out for
the American public when the average EV is $16,000 more than a vehicle
with an internal combustion engine.
Maybe we should talk about the racial justice issues of cobalt miners
around the world who are being exploited in the Congo so that we can
empower China by buying all of their batteries rather than producing
American oil and gas.
If people think that all of this stuff is an accident of what we are
seeing unfold in the Middle East and what we are seeing unfold in
Ukraine while our prices are going up and while our national security
strength is going down because we are pursuing this radical agenda,
these things are all connected.
So, yes, we should not be funding these radical executive orders that
are destroying the American way of life and making it virtually
impossible for people to figure out how to live their lives while we
pursue unicorn energy theories that we are going to be able to somehow
magically produce power without the use of reliable power.
Texas has tons of wind and solar. That is great, but we also have a
grid that is decreasingly reliable directly as a consequence of Federal
regulatory impact on our ability to manage our grid. That is wrong, we
shouldn't do it, and we shouldn't be funding a continuation of it.
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, we are only 14 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 are proposed in this bill violate the
agreement reached by former Speaker McCarthy and President Biden and
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.
Now we are here today 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 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 that 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 spending billions in
disaster relief shows my Republican colleagues are not thinking about
what is best for the American taxpayer. Our economy, our health, our
livelihoods, our food security, and our quality of life all depend on
healthy ecosystems.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and to focus
instead on addressing climate change and on making our Nation stronger,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is that, yes, this bill
returns the funding to the ever-efficient model of effectiveness of the
2018 Federal Government.
Yes, it does back up the funding levels. Frankly, we ought to be
doing it for more of our agencies, and we are trying to take those
steps forward. I will say that unapologetically because the American
people are sick and tired of the Federal Government spending money we
don't have to fund agencies that are directly at war with their way of
life. That is the truth.
That is why gasoline is $1 more than it was when Biden took office,
despite the fact that the President has completely dumped our Strategic
Petroleum Reserve in order to try to preserve political benefits for my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That is just the simple
truth, and everybody knows it.

Yet, we run around here ignoring the reality of what that means for
the American people who are trying to get by every single day while the
Federal Government is directly at odds with their ability to prosper,
earn a living, pay their bills, pay for their energy, pay for their
schools, buy cars, and do what they need to do.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H5386]]

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, my colleague on the other side of the aisle
has proposed this bill that would really slash and burn so many of the
important programs that our President has implemented to tackle climate
change.
Why did he have to do that?
I have been in Congress for about 15 years, and I am very fortunate
to have served that amount of time. But since I came here, I have been
dealing with colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have denied
that climate change existed, who have done everything they could to
support the oil and gas industry, and who have pushed back on any kind
of legislation or funding or anything we could possibly do to deal with
climate change, and 15 years later we are in a very serious situation.
Now, my colleague is proud of saying that it is a simple truth. It is
a simple truth this, it is a simple truth that.
Mr. Chair, let me tell you a simple truth. Our planet is warming. We
had the hottest summer on record, oceans are heating. The polar ice cap
is melting. We are in a very serious state, and most scientists will
say that things are happening much faster than we ever anticipated.
Here we are having a ridiculous debate about something that is not
actually going to go anywhere and a bill that is not going to happen
with a party on the other side of the aisle that wants to cut
everything we have already done in the last 2 years to support funding
for climate change.
This is our responsibility to our children and our grandchildren. Mr.
Chair, you can say that we are just going to handle it in my small town
and my small State. I am just going to explain to you that the planet
is warming as an entire entity. Yes, we have to deal with foreign
countries, but we also have to make sure that our country is on the
right track, that we are investing in renewable energy, that we are not
putting our heads in the sand and just ignoring what is going on out
there, that all of these things are critically important. We have to
stop digging in our heels on every single bill and denying that climate
change is real and making all kinds of crazy arguments about well, it
is India's fault or China's fault or America can't do it.
We can do all these things. We can manufacture the batteries in this
country. We can manufacture the solar panels in this country. That is
much of what we have done in the last bill, the infrastructure bill,
the IRA, investing in our country, and investing in American
manufacturing so that this can be homegrown American energy.
Every time the gentleman talks about gas prices, he refuses to
acknowledge that we are trying to end our dependence on gas and oil, we
are trying to make sure we are an energy-independent nation, and, yes,
that takes a transition. Nonetheless, at this moment in time, we have
to make those investments in the future.
I have never seen a party so unwilling to invest in our economic
future and to acknowledge what is actually happening in our daily lives
and in our families' daily lives.
If the gentleman really listened to his constituents or took their
calls or listened to what people are saying about their worries about
the future, one of their greatest worries is what are we going to do
about the warming planet?
What are we going to do about the number of days when kids can't go
outside and play because it is too hot?
What are we going to do about making sure we are looking at our
future together?
That is not what the gentleman is doing here. He is just denying that
climate change exists. He is denying that we have real work ahead of us
and we ought to be doing it together.
Once again, I oppose this horrible 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. Roy).
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 Texas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 128 Offered by Mr. Schweikert

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 128
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. 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 spending reduction
account), insert the following:
Sec. ___. Each amount made available by this Act (other
than an amount required to be made available by a provision
of law) is hereby reduced by 16 percent.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 128, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chair, this is actually an amendment that is
brutal. It is not a happy place to go, but I am trying to be
intellectually honest here.
Every dime we vote on as Members of Congress is now borrowed.
Remember, Mr. Chairman, the last fiscal year we borrowed 8.4 percent of
GDP. Every dime of military is borrowed; every dime of nondefense is
discretionary, which is functionally what we are going over right now,
and, what, $300 billion, $400 billion of Medicare. For my brothers and
sisters on the left, their solution is often: Well, raise revenues.
Mr. Chairman, we are engaged in this insanity right now where we are
borrowing money to send it to entities that have their own taxing
authority.
I have been the treasurer of the fourth biggest county in America. I
managed the bank, I managed the tax collections, and I managed the
finances, or parts of the finances. I understand local government and
the burdens there, but we had taxing authority.
Is it rational in a society, particularly with the higher interest
rates, for us to borrow and then send the money to entities with their
own taxing authority?
Mr. Chair, I understand both on Republicans and Democrats, we despise
this because there are lots of things we like. There are things I like
that I voted for for years now, but I just look at the math, and I keep
wondering: Is it both moral or rational for us to borrow money and send
it to entities that have their own taxing authority?
If these programs are so important, which many of them are, there is
a solution. Those entities can actually produce the receipts and
revenues themselves.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment, which cuts programs in this bill by an additional 16
percent, and for not all of these programs do local governments or
entities have a taxing authority to pay for them.
The underlying bill provides $25.4 billion in new nondefense
discretionary spending which is $13.4 billion, 35 percent below the
fiscal year 2023 level. The bill also rescinds $9.4 billion in funding
provided to the EPA, The Presidio Trust and the Council on
Environmental Quality through Inflation Reduction Act.
In drafting this bill, we worked really hard to rein in Federal
spending. One thing that all Republicans agree on is that we have to
reduce spending. The debate occurs on how much and how fast.
In drafting this bill, as I said, we worked very hard to rein in
Federal spending while prioritizing critical needs within our reduced
allocation.
Unfortunately, this is kind of a sledgehammer approach when we just
want to reduce the bill across the board by 16 percent.
We would be reducing wildfire fighting. We have done everything we
can to protect wildfire fighting, which is devastating, particularly in
the West where I live.
We have also done everything we can to protect the Indian Health
Service. That is something that is vital here. We don't actually do a
very good job of supporting the Indian Health Service overall.
Mr. Chairman, if you look at the amount of money per patient that the

[[Page H5387]]

VA spends and the amount that average Americans spend, and then how
much we spend per person on the Indian Health Service, it is about one-
half of what we spend on other healthcare needs. So we are trying
everything we can over the years in a bipartisan way to bring up the
Indian Health Service and improve their health, but they don't have a
separate taxing authority to be able to do that. That is the Federal
Government.
This sledgehammer approach which would just reduce every budget in
this bill by 16 percent that is not mandatory spending, I think is
inappropriate, and I don't think it is the proper way to go.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 0945

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chair, I think the chairman actually was
generous. I think it is a lot more than a sledgehammer. This is like a
small nuclear weapon. Partially that was the point.
Obviously, I care tremendously about IHS and have worked really hard
on that. I am just trying to work through this. I want to put this in a
moral paradigm. I have my 15-month-old sitting behind me, but this is
no longer about the next generation. It is about your own retirement.
We have a math problem. It is a brutal math problem. One more time:
We borrow every dime of discretionary; we borrow every dime of
military; and now we are actually borrowing hundreds and hundreds of
billions of dollars of what is mandatory. Some of this breaks my heart,
but I don't seem to be able to communicate to my brothers and sisters
how ugly the math is.
One more time: As of yesterday, we were borrowing $78,000 every
second. $78,000 every second. For our friends on the left, they care
about this. We care about this. It is just so hard to turn off the
faucet.
The very last thing, and then I am going to sit down and shut up and
go away. The debt is primarily driven by demographics. It is something
we don't tell honestly, but we got old. If you actually look at from
today through the next 30 years, 100 percent of the projected debt, 75
percent of it is Medicare, 25 percent if we backfill Social Security in
9 years when the trust fund is empty.
Do you see any of this debate--and I know this is small compared to
the scale we are borrowing, but I have to find some way to get people
to start understanding the scale of this math because the math always
wins. Sometimes it takes a while, but the math will always win.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I sympathize with what the gentleman is
saying. I agree with him. It is a huge problem, and it is a math
problem. He mentioned something that is really important.
We used to spend about 70 percent of the budget on discretionary
spending--that is the money we appropriate through these appropriations
bills--and about 30 percent was spent on mandatory spending. That has
been reversed, where it is about 70 percent mandatory spending today
and only 30 percent in discretionary spending.
Consequently, we have to address mandatory spending. That is
difficult to do because anytime you say we have to reform Social
Security if we are going to save it, all of a sudden, the commercials
are going: Oh, they are going to take away your Social Security.
It is a political football that Republicans and Democrats have to get
together and address. That is why the Speaker has said we are going to
create a debt commission to look at how we can reduce this debt that we
are facing.
I agree with the gentleman. It is horrible what is going on. As I
said earlier, the debate is not really whether to cut spending, it is
how much and how fast. I guess the gentleman said it best when he
called it a small nuclear weapon in this, but I agree with what he is
saying in general. It is how we go about it that is the challenge.
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 Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 129 Offered by Mr. Stauber

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 129
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. STAUBER. 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 implement or enforce the final rule of the Council on
Environmental Quality titled ``National Environmental Policy
Act Implementing Regulations Revisions'' and published April
20, 2022 (87 Fed. Reg. 23453).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that prohibits
any funds from being used to carry out the Biden administration's NEPA
Phase 1 rule.
It is clear we have bipartisan consensus--our permitting system is
broken. Our permitting system is holding up projects in every district,
whether it is Republican or Democrat, and NEPA deserves a lot of this
blame.
When NEPA was first passed in 1969, it was a five-page bill. Over the
last 50 years, it has grown out of control thanks to executive actions
and activist courts. Today, NEPA is an albatross, blocking everything
from highway infrastructure projects that connect communities and
enable commerce to energy projects that are necessary for securing our
energy independence.
In 2020, the Trump administration enacted the first real NEPA reforms
in a generation. It helped bring NEPA back to its original intent.
Importantly, the Trump administration's reforms removed the requirement
to consider ``cumulative impacts,'' that go far beyond a proposed
project. This prevented opponents of important projects from abusing
the NEPA process and pointing to outrageous, distant, so-called
cumulative impacts a project could hypothetically pose.
The reforms also forced Federal agencies to build consistency in
permitting reviews and ensured all Federal agencies follow the same
standards and procedures. These reforms began to point us back in the
right direction. The Biden administration's NEPA Phase 1 rule reversed
the Trump-era reforms. It reinstated the cumulative impact
requirements. It gave free rein back to Federal agencies to put up
roadblocks for projects they didn't want.
The Phase 1 rule is just another part of the Biden administration's
anywhere but America, any worker but American agenda.
Mr. Chair, the Biden administration's NEPA Phase 1 rule is a step in
the wrong direction. It is important that we adopt my amendment and
return some sanity to our broken permitting system.
I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CASTEN. Mr. Chair, I believe my colleagues across the aisle
fundamentally misunderstand or intentionally misrepresent the interests
of energy consumers in the United States and the interests of energy
producers.
NEPA is critically important to protect all Americans, but let's run
through some statistics. There are currently 2,000 gigawatts of
electric generation waiting to be interconnected to the queue in this
country. That is more generation than we have by almost a factor of 2.
Of those 2,000 gigawatts, there is 1 gigawatt of coal, 85 gigawatts of
gas, and every other power plant that is trying to be interconnected to
the grid is a zero carbon source of energy. They are not represented by
NEPA.
Let's talk about the fossil fuel sector. Today, we use about 20
million barrels of oil a day. A decade ago, you know how much oil we
used in this country? About 20 million barrels a day.

[[Page H5388]]

Today, we use 40 percent less coal than we did 10 years ago. Do you
know why? Because those industries cannot compete. People, given the
choice, prefer cleaner, cheaper energy.
The fastest growing vehicle segment is electric vehicles. The fastest
growing source in the power sector is renewable energy. Energy is
getting cheaper. What is the energy industry doing in response? They
are becoming exporters. The reason why the gas industry is growing, the
reason why the oil industry is growing is because they are building
terminals to export overseas. What is hard about that is that the
American people don't want you to drill in their backyard. They don't
want you to drill a pipeline through their neighborhood just so that
you can run it to a terminal and sell it overseas at a profit.
If you are of the opinion that the American people don't have any say
in how their communities look, how their natural parks look, how their
natural lands look, and if you are of the opinion that the profits of
energy producers vastly outweigh the interests of energy consumers,
vote for this amendment. However, if you put energy consumers first,
this is an absolute ``no.''
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the
Chair.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair, I think my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle don't understand this.
This administration just last month removed NEPA for the Floyd
Bennett Field to host migrants. The Biden administration completely
took NEPA off the table for their agenda because of the open border. By
the way, the IRA, the IIJA, and the CHIPS Act are not going to happen
without permitting reforms and NEPA changes. Come hell or high water,
it is not going to happen without the changes. I think both sides of
the aisle understand that and agree with that.
We have the highest standard of living in the world because of our
process. This administration continues to put up roadblocks for energy
transmission, distribution, generation, mining projects, nuclear
projects, road construction projects, dams, and forest management.
Everything that the American people want to do in a reasonable fashion
is held up in part because of NEPA. This is a very good amendment, and
I urge adoption.
Mr. Chair, in closing, we can agree that our permitting process is
broken. In the debt ceiling, we got a couple of permitting concerns
addressed that were generational, hadn't been done in 40 years. We want
to be able to make sure that the American worker, the American
manufacturer, American technology, our natural resources in our country
can be used responsibly.
Why are we putting agreements together with the Congo to mine our
minerals that we have, for instance, in northern Minnesota, the biggest
copper-nickel find in the world. Why are we doing that?
Why is this administration stopping the American worker, stopping the
creativity that we have, stopping not only our energy independence but
our national security by going to our adversaries and asking them for
our critical minerals or asking them for their energy? We can do
better.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 130 Offered by Mr. Stauber

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 130
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. STAUBER. 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, or enforce the proposed rule
of the Council on Environmental Quality titled ``National
Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations Revisions
Phase 2'' and published July 31, 2023 (88 Fed. Reg. 49924).

{time} 1000

She told Congress this administration would just follow and do
business as usual.
She falsely claimed that this administration was already doing
everything the debt ceiling agreement instructed it to do, and that is
absolutely not true.
The NEPA Phase 2 rule is a blatant show of disregard for
congressional intent and the law that this body passed and President
Biden signed into law.
The NEPA Phase 2 rule is completely misguided. It is a step in the
wrong direction, and it is important we vote today to prevent the
administration from moving to finalize the rule.
Mr. Chair, I urge all of 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, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair, what this amendment does is that it allows
American energy, American prosperity, American technology, and American
workers to provide energy and critical minerals, transmission projects,
highway and bridge projects, dams and rivers.
This allows us to do it here. This allows our communities to have a
voice in what happens, not Federal three-letter agency bureaucrats
telling the American people what they need and what is best in their
communities because our local elected officials know better than
Washington, D.C., and the bureaucrats.
These three-letter agencies are out of control. They are unelected.
They are not accountable to anybody, and this administration is not
following the laws that this body passed.
For years and years, administrations haven't followed what Congress
and the Senate have put forward. It is about time we do that, and it
can start today.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.

[[Page H5389]]

The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 131 Offered by Mr. Westerman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 131
printed in part A of House Report 118-261.
Mr. WESTERMAN. 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:

ocean justice strategy

Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to develop, finalize, implement, administer, or
enforce the Ocean Justice Strategy referenced in the Notice
titled ``Ocean Justice Strategy'' (88 Fed. Reg. 37518;
published June 8, 2023).

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 838, the gentleman
from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I commend my colleague from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) for the
great work that he and his committee did in giving us this
appropriation bill. I also commend the minority and everyone who spent
so much time on the floor working through these amendments. Everybody
will be glad to know that this is the last one. It is a great one, and
I hope everybody will support my amendment.
Mr. Chair, I obviously support my amendment, which prohibits funds
from being used to implement the Biden administration's ocean justice
strategy, which undermines the intent of the Ocean Policy Committee by
forcing so-called environmental justice principles into the Federal
Government's role in ocean economic activities.
In 2018, then-President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13840, which
established the Ocean Policy Committee. The Ocean Policy Committee, co-
chaired by CEQ and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, was
created to focus on growing the ocean economy, prioritizing scientific
research, coordinating resources and data sharing, and engaging with
stakeholders.
The committee was codified into law through the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021.
The Ocean Policy Committee should be working on important issues,
such as leveraging resources and expertise to maximize the
effectiveness of Federal investments in ocean research. Unfortunately,
this administration has chosen to advance a misguided agenda that is
not focused on the founding tenets of the Ocean Policy Committee to
grow the ocean economy. Instead, it is pushing concepts like the ocean
justice strategy, which forces environmental justice principles into
the Federal Government's ocean activities.
Ocean justice or environmental justice should not be used to hijack
legitimate work that benefits the American people. It cannot and should
not become a driving force and detrimental tool to impede our Federal
resources management.
For those reasons, I support and urge my colleagues to join me in
supporting this amendment.
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, as far as I can tell, this is just another
attack on environmental justice. The Council on Environmental Quality
is coordinating the development of an ocean justice strategy that will
propose equitable and just practices to advance safety, health, and
prosperity for communities that are residing near the ocean, the coast,
and the Great Lakes. This amendment seeks to block that strategy.
Coastlines are home to approximately 40 percent of the United States
population. Unfortunately, coastal communities do not share equitably
in the benefits provided by the ocean or equitably bear the burden of
the negative impacts of human activities associated with the ocean,
such as climate change, coastal flooding, and other threats.
Environmental justice ensures that all Americans receive the same
degree of protection from environmental and health hazards. This
amendment is just another way to attack minority groups at all costs
and return the United States to a time when environmental
discrimination was the norm.
Mr. Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, the Ocean Policy Committee should focus on
addressing the issues that it was actually created to address--most
importantly, streamlining Federal coordination.
This administration's push of this ocean justice strategy is just
another example of unchecked bureaucrats forcing their agenda on
Americans and increasing red tape.
My amendment stops them from moving forward. Our ocean economy is as
diverse as the ocean itself, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach
to managing it. The problem we have with Federal programs is they take
a different course from how Congress intended for them to go. This
isn't cutting funds from the Ocean Policy Committee. It is just forcing
the Ocean Policy Committee to do the job that they were established to
do without adding unnecessary burdens to their work.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, once again, I am kind of caught in this
challenge of not understanding exactly what it is that my colleagues
don't like about the term ``environmental justice,'' or in this case,
``ocean justice.''
It seems like ``justice'' is a word that we are very comfortable with
in a patriotic way that everyone understands. Justice is important in
this country.
As a Member who represents as much coastline as anybody in here that
is extremely impacted by the challenges that are going on in the ocean,
such as sea level rise and extreme storms, I have to deal with these
questions. I think it is totally appropriate to have a justice strategy
in making sure that we have equitability in how we take care of people.
If you live in a community where it is underresourced and are
impacted by these ocean storms that come at us with total surprise--for
example, a winter storm or nor'easter, as we call them, or a hurricane
in the southern part of the country, and there aren't resources to
rebuild. Perhaps sea level rise is making it so that your community
needs to be moved.
I was talking last night about the 31 Native communities in Alaska
that have to be moved because of sea level rise. If you don't have a
justice lens, somebody might turn around and just say: I am sorry. This
community isn't valuable enough. You don't have the resources, and your
people can't move their own homes. You can't deal with rebuilding the
coastal protections, so the money is going somewhere else, to a
wealthier community, to someplace where we think people matter more.

Those decisions are critical decisions about how we spend our Federal
funds, about how we make sure the work we do is equitable. Climate
change is having a huge impact on life on the ocean.
I do not want to criticize my colleague. I am sure he has put this
forward in good faith, but the last I saw, Arkansas doesn't have an
ocean, and my colleague is trying to make policy for those of us who
represent ocean communities in the East, West, and South throughout
this country, the 40 percent of the United States population that lives
on the ocean. These are critical strategies for us.
We don't need to make the same mistakes that we made in the past with
not having a lens of environmental justice. Why in the world would we
want to turn back and have discrimination and make bad policy? Why in
the world when we are facing some of the most severe crises we have
ever seen? We have hurricanes that come on us with no warning, extreme
storms in the winter, extreme storms at times of the year we never
expected them.
I can go on for much more time than I have to talk about what just
happened in my own State and the challenges people are worried about,
about sea level rise, about the ocean impact

[[Page H5390]]

of storms. This would take away the opportunity to look forward on that
and make sure that our funding is equitable, that all communities are
taken care of, that all parts of the country, particularly those rural
areas that probably my colleague represents and I represent that are
often underresourced are thought about, as well.
Again, this is a misguided amendment. People are going after a
language that either they just don't want to say or somehow don't
believe in or want to bring us back to a time when we had
discrimination in our Federal policy and how we spent our Federal
funds. It is a misguided amendment. It is a bad idea.
Mr. Chair, I oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. 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. 120 by Mr. Ogles of Tennessee.
Amendment No. 126 by Mr. Roy of Texas.
Amendment No. 127 by Mr. Roy of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 120 Offered by Mr. Ogles

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 120, 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

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 214,
noes 204, not voting 20, as follows:

[Roll No. 593]

AYES--214

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
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
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
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
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 (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
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--204

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
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
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
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
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Sablan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
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
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--20

Castro (TX)
Garbarino
Hoyle (OR)
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Kamlager-Dove
Kuster
LaHood
Lesko
Miller (OH)
Napolitano
Newhouse
Phillips
Plaskett
Radewagen
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Sewell
Underwood
Wexton

{time} 1039

Mrs. PELTOLA and Ms. BROWN changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. SCHWEIKERT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 126 Offered by Mr. Roy

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. LaLota). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on amendment No. 126, printed in part A of House
Report 118-261 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), 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 212,
noes 204, not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 594]

AYES--212

[[Page H5391]]

Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
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
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
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 (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
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--204

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
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
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)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
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
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Sablan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
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
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--22

Castro (TX)
Cline
Garbarino
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Kamlager-Dove
Kuster
LaHood
Lesko
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Napolitano
Newhouse
Phillips
Plaskett
Porter
Radewagen
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Sewell
Underwood
Wexton

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1044

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I was unable to reach a voting station from my
official meeting in the Capitol during the two-minute window. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 594.

Amendment No. 127 Offered by Mr. Roy

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 127, printed in part A of House Report
118-261 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), 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. 595]

AYES--208

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
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
Gonzalez-Colon
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
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 (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Moylan
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
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--207

[[Page H5392]]

McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Nunn (IA)
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Sablan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
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)
Trahan
Trone
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--24

Arrington
Castro (TX)
Garbarino
Gosar
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Kamlager-Dove
Kuster
LaHood
Lesko
Miller (OH)
Napolitano
Newhouse
Pettersen
Phillips
Plaskett
Radewagen
Rutherford
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Sewell
Torres (NY)
Underwood
Wexton

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1047

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Ms. PETTERSON. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted
``no'' on rollcall No. 595.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Steube). There being no further amendment,
under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaLota) having assumed the chair, Mr. Steube, 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, and, pursuant to House Resolution 838, he reported
the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted in the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. Leger Fernandez of New Mexico moves to recommit the
bill H.R. 4821 to the Committee on Appropriations.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute
vote on passage of the bill; and the motion to suspend the rules and
pass H.R. 3774.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 201,
nays 215, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 596]

YEAS--201

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
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
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
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)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
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
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
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
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NAYS--215

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
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
Fitzpatrick
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 (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
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

NOT VOTING--17

Castro (TX)
Garbarino
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Kamlager-Dove
Kuster
LaHood
Lesko
Miller (OH)
Napolitano
Newhouse
Phillips
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Sewell
Underwood
Wexton

[[Page H5393]]

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1056

Ms. WATERS and Mr. VEASEY changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 213,
nays 203, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 597]

YEAS--213

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
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
Gonzalez, Vicente
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 (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
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

NAYS--203

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
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
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)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawler
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
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
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
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
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--17

Castro (TX)
Garbarino
Jackson Lee
Joyce (OH)
Kamlager-Dove
Kuster
LaHood
Lesko
Miller (OH)
Napolitano
Newhouse
Phillips
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Sewell
Underwood
Wexton

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1103

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________