[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 24, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H4867-H4877]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2025
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obernolte). Pursuant to House Resolution
1370 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. 8998.
Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Self) kindly take the chair.
{time} 0939
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. 8998) making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2025, and for other purposes, with Mr. Self (Acting
Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
[[Page H4868]]
July 23, 2024, amendment No. 48, printed in part B of House Report 118-
602, offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson) had been
disposed of.
Amendment No. 56 Offered by Mr. McCormick
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 56
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
Mr. McCORMICK. 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:
Page 89, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $7,000,000)''.
Page 90, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1370, the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. McCormick) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment No. 56 to H.R.
8998, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2025.
Amendment No. 56 will reduce funding for the Environmental Protection
Agency by reducing the Environmental Programs and Management account by
$7 million.
My amendment will then reallocate $5 million in funding to the EPA's
Office of Inspector General for increased oversight of the EPA.
The EPA's role is to protect human health and the environment through
research and development. Yet, it seems the EPA is more often focused
on creating burdensome bureaucratic red tape than serving the American
people and businesses.
Stringent EPA regulations burden businesses with compliance costs
leading to job losses, higher consumer prices, and reduced economic
competitiveness, particularly in industries such as manufacturing,
energy, and agriculture. Tragically, these regulations often have
nothing to do with protecting the environment.
For example, in my district, the repaving of a key road has been
delayed for 18 months. This heavily trafficked road is in desperate
need of repair.
These delays are due to the EPA's requirement for an extensive
environmental impact study, even though the road is already paved, has
been around for over a decade, and it is a simple repaving project to
revitalize the community. It is going to cost $700,000 and a delay of
18 months to repave 1.5 miles of road. This is a ridiculous delay of
the inevitable.
The EPA needs to begin prioritizing our communities over bureaucratic
overreach and overbearing regulations with no benefit. That is why
proper oversight is critical to holding the EPA in check.
The EPA's Office of Inspector General has done incredible work with
the funding it receives. Their work proves additional funding is a
sound investment.
In May, it published its semiannual report to Congress which
summarized its work and accomplishments from October 1, 2023, through
March 31, 2024. During that 6-month reporting period, they identified
$120.1 million in total monetary benefits and provided the EPA and U.S.
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board with 55 recommendations
for improvement.
To further prove their worth, the EPA OIG is performing a critical
role in investigating and tracking the ridiculous spending from the
Inflation Reduction Act. That is important oversight work to prevent
fraud of Federal dollars.
I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 56 which will decrease
the EPA's overall funding account and reallocate a portion of those
funds to increase oversight, transparency, and accountability.
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.
{time} 0945
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, to be clear, I fully support all oversight
efforts and believe the mission of the inspectors general across
government is vital, but I disagree with the offset and the treatment
of the EPA in this bill generally.
In the base bill, the EPA is cut by nearly 20 percent. Almost every
single account is cut except for the Office of the Inspector General.
Quite frankly, the Inspector General's Office does pretty well under
this bill.
Cutting every single program at the EPA and seeking to increase
funding for only one office, which happens to be the oversight office,
is a clear attempt by the majority to politicize the Inspector General.
That is unacceptable.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McCORMICK. Mr. Chair, I love the environment. My favorite
President is Teddy Roosevelt, a great environmentalist, and my dad was
a forest ranger. I grew up with Woodsy Owl and Smokey the Bear. I
truly, truly, have a great love for the environment, and I want to make
sure we use our funds appropriately.
I just reiterate that my amendment reduces funding for the
overbearing EPA portion and really increases accountability, which I
think is the more important part at this point when we see the abuses
of the system. I think it is time for a more efficient and more
accountable government. That is what this bill is about.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCORMICK. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for this time
to talk about accountability and efficiency of government. I hope and
humbly request support for my amendment No. 56, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope that the gentleman from
Georgia is able to get his road paved. This is the wrong way to go
about doing it. 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. McCormick).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Illinois
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 57
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, 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 (Jake) Li, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Pesticide Programs, shall be reduced to $1.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1370, the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Mrs. Miller) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my
amendment that would reduce Deputy Secretary Jake Li's salary to $1.
Prior to joining the EPA under the Biden administration, Jake Li
spent over a decade of his career working for liberal nongovernmental
organizations who remain solvent by litigating entities, including the
EPA, for agricultural practices they disagree with, regardless of the
utility to America's farm families and consumers.
Despite Congress passing language requiring EPA to take USDA feedback
into account when developing mitigation measures, these proposals were
developed without EPA input, leading USDA to express substantial
concerns about the severe economic consequences for some farmers.
According to USDA estimates, the cost for all corn acres in Illinois,
Iowa, and Nebraska to comply with the herbicide strategy could be
upwards of $5.5 billion, and that estimate is for just one commodity
across three States.
This regulatory overreach is just another example of the burdensome
regulations EPA forces on our farm families and those living in rural
America just to cater to the demands of environmental extremists like
those Jake Li used to work with.
Frankly, even $1 is too much for the chief architect of these
wrongheaded and callous strategies that seek to put American farmers
and ranchers out of business.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H4869]]
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, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. I urge support of my amendment, Mr.
Chairman, and 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. 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 gentlewoman from Illinois
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Illinois
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 72
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee for the
gentleman from South Carolina, and 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 made available to the Environmental Protection Agency's
Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Workgroup.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1370, the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Mrs. Miller) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit
funding for the Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Workgroup
that advances the Biden administration's radical DEI agenda.
This workgroup's website links to a page of resources with hundreds
of woke documents.
From the military to corporations to Federal agencies, we have seen
time and time again that the DEI mission fosters division in the
workplace.
DEI undermines our shared American identity and distracts from the
missions of our Federal agencies. DEI hurts recruiting efforts and
erodes trust between all Federal employees and the government they
serve.
At a time when our growing national debt has surpassed $34 trillion,
we cannot continue to use taxpayer dollars to fund wasteful and
unnecessary woke programs.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and
prohibit funding for policies that advance the Biden administration's
radical diversity, equity, and inclusion agenda, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong 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, that 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.
This working group specifically looks for ways to foster an inclusive
and respectful culture as it relates to water quality monitoring and
assessment. Our success in achieving water quality goals depends on
learning from people of all backgrounds.
I oppose this amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same,
Mr. Chairman, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Our Nation was made great because we have
rewarded merit.
Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. 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. 73 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Illinois
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 73
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. 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 1370, the gentlewoman
from Illinois (Mrs. Miller) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, this amendment defunds a
costly and misguided EPA agency rule that requires heavy-duty vehicles
to comply with reduced emissions limits of nitrogen oxides and other
pollutants.
This rule applies to vehicles, including certain long- and short-haul
trucks, motor homes, school and transit buses, and commercial pickup
trucks and vans.
The EPA, the very agency that created this rule, estimates the
technology required to meet the new rule's standards will cost around
$8,000 per vehicle. This cost will be borne by consumers and the supply
chain.
The American people cannot afford the financial burdens of this
aggressive regulation that would further raise costs of any product
transported by trucks, including food, clothing, and building
materials.
This regulation's cost of compliance is so high, operators and owners
of trucks will be forced to leave the market.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and defund
a rule that places costly and burdensome emissions standards on
vehicles, 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, this amendment would block an EPA rule
that implements a program to further reduce air pollution, including
ozone and particulate matter from heavy-duty engines and vehicles
across the United States. Both of these pollutants have significant
negative impacts on human health.
Ozone is the main component in smog, and it has been scientifically
proven to aggravate lung diseases, increase the frequency and severity
of asthma attacks, and reduce lung function.
We have a responsibility to protect the millions of Americans
affected by ozone and particulate matter pollution. For that reason,
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Democrats to quit
complaining about inflation while they are fanning the flame through
excessive regulation.
Mr. Chair, I urge the support of this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. 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. 75 Offered by Mr. Obernolte
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 75
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
Mr. OBERNOLTE. 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 approve a waiver,
[[Page H4870]]
pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7543(e)), for the In-Use Locomotive Regulation adopted by the
California Air Resources Board on April 27, 2023.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1370, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Obernolte) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, last year the California Air Resources
Board proposed a new regulation that would have disastrous consequences
for my constituents, for the people of California, and for the people
of the United States.
This so-called in-use locomotive rule would phase out the use of
diesel-electric locomotives and require all locomotives entering the
State of California to do so in a zero-emission configuration within
just a few short years.
Mr. Chairman, there are several problems with this regulation. The
first and most obvious is that there are currently no electric
locomotives that can take the place of a diesel-electric freight
locomotive. In fact, the best electric locomotives that exist currently
are those so-called switch locomotives that are used to move cars back
and forth between trains within freight switchyards. There are no
locomotives that can take the place of a diesel-electric locomotive and
haul millions of pounds of freight from place to place over hundreds of
miles.
Mr. Chairman, the physics suggest there will be no locomotives that
can accomplish this any time in the near future.
Requiring this regulation would raise prices for every consumer in
California, a State, Mr. Chairman, which already suffers the worst
poverty of any State in the country.
Mr. Chairman, this would also have a disastrous effect on my
constituents. BNS Railways is currently constructing a $1.5 billion
project in the city of Barstow within my district, an intermodal
transfer facility that will allow freight from the Ports of Los Angeles
and Long Beach to be shipped by rail to Barstow and then transshipped
by rail or by truck to other places in the country. Currently, Mr.
Chairman, that freight leaves those ports on trucks.
{time} 1000
BNSF has said, quite reasonably, that if California will not let
their locomotives enter the State, they will abandon their plans for
that intermodal transfer facility.
Mr. Chairman, that will result in the loss of not just $1.5 billion
of investment in my community but over 20,000 jobs in the region of
California that I represent.
Mr. Chairman, the most nonsensical part of this legislation is that
it actually will be much worse for the environment. It is three times
more efficient to transfer freight by rail than it is by truck. That is
one-third the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.
If we force freight to be shipped by truck instead of by rail out of
the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, that will be far worse for the
environment than allowing it to be transported on the efficient diesel-
electric locomotives that we currently have.
That is why this amendment would deny the EPA the funding that they
need to grant a waiver to the State of California to implement this
nonsensical rule.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
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, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which
would effectively bar the EPA from approving a waiver of Federal
preemption for California's in-use locomotive rule.
Congress carefully crafted the Clean Air Act to recognize the diverse
air pollution challenges facing each State. Due to a history of severe
air quality problems, the EPA can grant California waivers to set
vehicle emissions standards that are more protective than those at the
Federal level, including for locomotives.
While the EPA retains the authority to promulgate emission standards
for new locomotives and locomotive engines, California is well within
its rights to request a waiver of Federal preemption for regulations
having to do with existing, or in-use, locomotives and locomotive
engines.
Legal technicalities aside, this rule is critical to the public
health and welfare of Californians and for residents of the States that
may choose to adopt these stronger standards in the future, thanks to
the flexibilities embedded in the Clean Air Act.
Diesel-powered locomotives emit dangerous air pollutants, including
particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and greenhouse gases. Exposure to
this toxic and harmful pollution has been linked to cancer, asthma,
cardiopulmonary illnesses, reproductive health harm, and premature
mortality. California's rule is expected to prevent 3,200 premature
deaths, 1,100 hospital admissions, and 1,500 emergency room visits and
deliver $32 billion in health savings. For California communities near
rail yards, this rule is projected to decrease cancer risk by over 90
percent.
This amendment is yet another Republican attack on EPA's authority to
protect public health from sources of dangerous pollution and simply
another item on their polluters over people agenda.
A ``no'' vote on this amendment is a vote for protecting public
health and preserving States' rights under the Clean Air Act. Mr.
Chair, I urge my colleagues to side with the law and with science.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Chair, I am very glad my colleague from Maine
brought up the Clean Air Act because the Clean Air Act explicitly says
that the right to set emissions requirements for locomotives is
preempted from the States.
Mr. Chairman, that makes complete sense because how on Earth can we
operate a national railway system if we allow each of the 50 States to
come up with their own rules about what locomotives can cross their
State lines? Mr. Chairman, that is a complete impossibility.
Mr. Chairman, to remind my colleague from Maine, the most nonsensical
part of this rule is that these replacement electric locomotives do not
exist, and they are not likely to exist anytime in the near future.
The current best battery technology that we possess can store about 5
megawatts of energy in the form factor of a locomotive. Mr. Chairman,
to replace an existing freight locomotive would require about 20 times
that amount of energy, about 100 megawatts of energy.
Mr. Chairman, this is a nonsensical rule. It is bad for the people of
California. It is bad for consumers in California. It is bad for the
people of the United States because this rule would result in more
greenhouse gas emissions, not less.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this commonsense amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 76 Offered by Mr. Ogles
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 76
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
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:
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 1370, 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 pertains to the Inflation
Reduction Act. In order to pay for what ended up being approximately
$1.2 trillion in green subsidies, the Biden-Harris administration chose
to raise the
[[Page H4871]]
royalty rate on onshore oil and gas leases from 12.5 to 16.66 percent
through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
Progressive Democrats also voted in unison to quintuple the minimum
bid amount from $2 an acre to $10 an acre. The minority voted to
increase the rental rate by a factor of 9 from $1.50 to eventually $15
an acre. At the time of the bill passage, estimates indicated that the
bill would impose a $6.5 billion hike on oil and gas development.
At a time when we need to get back to energy independence, when we
need to fight inflation by lowering the price of fuel, we have to peel
back these failed policies that hurt the economy and hurt the consumer.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
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. Chairman, we are here to protect the welfare of the
American public, and this provision prevents a fair return to the
American taxpayer from oil and gas leasing conducted on public lands.
By prohibiting the modernization of the Mineral Leasing Act, we are
catering to the oil and gas interests and enabling them to continue to
operate at rates that do not benefit the American people.
Fossil fuels accelerate the impacts of climate change, and this
amendment demonstrates my Republican colleagues would rather pay
billions for disaster relief than focus on clean energy. 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. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, what I find to be one of the more remarkable
things about the so-called Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is nowhere
in that bill do progressive Democrats identify any government program
worth cutting, not $1 of the $80 billion appropriated to the IRS to
audit middle-income Americans, not $1 of spending in Ukraine, and not
$1 of the billions given to advance tree equity.
This is absurd. We are spending ourselves into oblivion. We have to
give relief to the American consumer, and a $6.5 billion hike in the
cost of oil and gas to the consumer is real. The cost of groceries is
up 30 to 40 percent. Rents are up. It is impossible for some to buy a
home.
We have to recognize that the Biden-Harris administration is a
failure. People were better off under Donald Trump than they are under
Biden-Harris.
This is obvious. This isn't about pandering to oil and gas. This is
about working-class Americans seeing increased prices at the fuel pump.
Everything at the grocery store, everything at the big-box store, and
everything at the mall is touched by oil and gas. If the price of that
underlying commodity is increased, the price of everything else goes
up. This is simple math.
We have to get back to common sense. Quite frankly, our enemies
laugh. America produces the cleanest energy in the world. If we were
really serious about climate change, we would export our natural gas to
Europe because ours is better and cleaner than Russia's.
That is not my colleagues' objective. The minority's objective is
about control, wealth distribution, and hurting the middle class. I,
for one, stand for the middle class. I, for one, want to give relief to
the middle class and quit pandering.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this bill. We have the opportunity
to get back to energy independence, and we have the opportunity to give
relief to the middle-class consumer.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, my colleague on the other side of the
aisle says this is a measure to give relief to the American consumer
and is pro-middle class.
First off, I don't know how anyone with a straight face has a
giveaway to the oil and gas industry and says it is a relief to the
American consumer or a benefit to the middle class. There is nothing in
here that does anything good for the middle class, and there is nobody
in America who thinks that if the oil and gas industry is helped,
somehow consumers have gotten a personal benefit from that.
Mr. Chair, we all know climate change is real. We are very actively
engaged in trying to produce more renewable energy and reduce our
fossil fuel dependence. That is number one. That has to be our number
one goal as Members of Congress.
Second, this simply says that when we use public land for accessing
oil and gas, we ask those companies, which make billions in profits,
which everybody in America knows--they actually think that they should
get a break?
This actual fee has not changed since the 1920s. It is going from
12.5 percent to 16 percent when it has not changed since the 1920s.
Does anybody think we should continue to give the same incredible break
to the oil and gas industry that they have had since the 1920s?
It is a small modernization. It is money in the pocket of American
taxpayers for using American land to derive this resource.
Mr. Chair, I think it is ludicrous that anyone should block this
provision in law. It is about time we modernize the Mineral Leasing
Act, and this is a simple provision that just says to make the oil and
gas industry pay its fair share.
When my colleague on the other side of the aisle says that countries
around the world are laughing at us because we are not producing more
oil and gas, they might be laughing at us for giving away money to the
oil and gas industry.
As I said, no one thinks that they are hurting. No one thinks that if
we gave them a savings on this, they would somehow miraculously pass it
on to the consumer, and because they are such a benevolent industry,
the first thing that they want to do is take this little break that we
are giving them and say to give the consumers a break.
No one thinks that the price at the pumps or the price they are
paying goes down because we give them 12.5 percent instead of 16
percent. This is a ludicrous amendment. I can't believe that anyone
would propose this with a straight face.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to 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 Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mr. Ogles
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Palmer). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 77 printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
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 1370, 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 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 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 taxpayer $1.2 trillion. The 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 we can give out green subsidies to his donor base, I admit to my
colleagues that perhaps the EFAB has grown to be successful in that
endeavor. Let's take a look at eligible recipients for this boondoggle:
State-sponsored green
[[Page H4872]]
banks, nonprofit or quasi-government green banks, nonprofit energy
conservation funds, and nonprofit social impact funds.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1015
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, the Financial Advisory Board supports the
EPA's mission to lower the cost 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;
removes financial and programmatic barriers that raise costs; increases
public and private contribution in environmental facilities and
services; and builds State and local financial ability to meet
environmental laws.
This mission is critical if we want to ensure that the investments we
need to make to protect our country from climate change are sound and
achievable.
Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, if we look at the EFAB's charter, you will find
they provide recommendations on ways the EPA can implement funding from
the infrastructure law and Inflation Reduction Act to support
environmental justice and to tackle the climate crisis. The charter
goes on to say that the EFAB is focused on decarbonizing our Nation's
schoolbuses.
Let's put aside whether it is even the role and scope of the Federal
Government to address environmental justice or to work to decarbonize
schoolbuses.
The EFAB is singularly focused on weaponizing the power of the
Federal Government to distort market incentives and transform the
economy, all in the name of promoting what has been rightly
characterized as climate alarmism.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of 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 Tennessee (Mr. Ogles).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 78 Offered by Mr. Ogles
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 78
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
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 1370, 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. I know that is a mouthful, but this program coordinates with
13 different Federal departments and agencies. Its focus, as it relates
to the areas within the EPA's jurisdiction, is to conduct research on
climate change.
I think it is fair to say that the climate is changing, and perhaps
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 and more funding, lest the world end in 8 years is kind
of the mantra.
Mr. Chair, we have got to stop giving these handouts for alarmism. We
have got to get back to simple metrics. We have got to have things that
are truly measurable and not subjective. I do believe Al Gore predicted
the end of the world by now. Guess what? We are humming along just
fine.
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, 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.
As of July 9 of this year, the United States has experienced 15
confirmed weather-climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1
billion each. As we all know, Hurricane Beryl made landfall in Texas on
July 8, and we know more storms will follow this year. 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.
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 taxpayer.
Our economy, health, livelihoods, food security, and quality of life
all depend on healthy ecosystems.
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. OGLES. Mr. Chair, the alarmism that is coming from the
progressive Democrats ignores the fact that you have more and more
individuals moving into coastal areas where hurricanes have an impact.
You have more and more people and individuals moving into tornado alley
or into Nashville where we have tornadic activity on a regular basis.
Some of this is common sense. It is not that the climate is somehow
attacking us, maybe we are just moving in the way of the climate
because you have denser populations in areas that are affected by
weather.
Michael Shellenberger, a leading environmentalist, points out that
economic development and technological advances are important factors
that the left tends to exclude in its analysis on climate change.
Mr. Chairman, we have to get back to the metrics, get back to common
sense, and recognize that if we get out of the way of industry, they
want to advance. They want to be more efficient. They want to produce a
profit margin, but also a savings for their consumer.
There is competition between industry to be more green, to be more
environmentally friendly, and you see that playing out all over our
Nation. You don't have to have the Federal Government putting industry
in a choke hold and strangling innovation, and ultimately at a time
when the middle class is struggling, strangling the middle class.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, this is, again, a commonsense policy at a
time where the Biden-Harris administration has failed our country. Our
southern border is wide open. We have little girls being raped by
illegals. I have a family in critical condition because a drunk illegal
hit them head-on. Fentanyl is killing 300,000 people. We have a crisis,
and they want to talk about the climate.
Our inner cities are desperate. Mayors in Dallas, Chicago, and New
York are crying for help, and the Biden-Harris administration is
silent. They are too busy pushing their alarmist, progressive, woke
agenda on the middle class.
The Biden-Harris policies have failed our country, they failed
hardworking Americans, and this is a commonsense policy to inject
common sense into the Federal Government.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this is yet again another one of those
amendments proposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
that seeks to deny climate change and actively proposes that we do
nothing.
Once again, they use all kinds of terminology. They call this
alarmist. They call it a progressive, woke, democratic agenda. I don't
even know what all these words mean. What is a woke agenda on climate
change?
[[Page H4873]]
This is the majority of scientists in this world who tell us that we
have a crisis, not only a crisis coming, but a crisis that is already
upon us: flooding, extreme weather, extreme heat.
We are in the hottest summer on record. We are in the hottest month
on record. What does it take to convince people that it is our
responsibility to protect the American public, to protect American
industry and economy, and to protect the planet instead of
paying billions?
Did anyone hear that statistic I had before? As of July 9, the United
States has experienced 15 confirmed weather-climate disaster events
with losses exceeding $1 billion each.
It means we have already had 15 events totaling more than $1 billion,
and we are only in July. I do not understand the economics, the math of
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say, oh, no, we will
just think about this some other day. This is just a climate woke
agenda and we don't care if we pour out billions of dollars.
Has the gentleman had a climate disaster in his district? I had two
extreme storms in January that wiped away fishing wharves, wiped away
commercial businesses. He talks about getting out of the way of
businesses and how we have to be pro-business.
How would he feel if he was the owner of a small fishing pier, and it
was wiped away, and the climate disaster money wasn't there for him?
What if there wasn't some kind of fund that immediately rebuilt his
fishing pier? What is he doing this summer? Where would he put his
lobster traps? Where would he dock his boat?
How would he deal with this?
What about the small restaurant that was flooded twice in one month
by extreme storms, tides, tidal surge like we have never seen before?
We have had two 100-year storms in one month. We used to call them
100-year storms because they are only supposed to happen once in 100
years. Now they have some other category because we don't even know
what to call them anymore.
These are climate disasters that are real, yet my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle consistently keep making these amendments that
just deny the climate change, which say we shouldn't even spend any
money on it and say somehow this is pro-middle class.
My colleagues say: We are helping the American consumer. We are
helping the American taxpayer.
Are they really?
How does it help the taxpayer to spend billions in relief because
they won't even admit to the facts that we have to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, American oil, and fossil fuels. We have to
reduce that dependence.
We have to invest and continue to invest in renewable energy, which
actually has produced hundreds of thousands of green jobs. They talk
about innovation, getting out of the way of industry, yet they
consistently get in the way of renewable energy innovation because they
don't want to admit that this is real because they are all somehow
continuing to support the oil and gas, the fossil fuel industry.
This progressive, woke, democratic agenda, whatever they want to call
it, is just the facts. The fact is that climate change is upon us. This
extreme weather is here today, and somehow my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle want to waste American taxpayer dollars, want to not
make the investments that we need to make, want to continue to cut in
bills like this, and it is not helping the American public. It is not
good for the future of Americans. It is not good for our health.
I don't know if the gentleman has children or grandchildren, but I
worry about what the future will be for my children and my seven
grandchildren. I don't want them to come to me some day and say, hey,
grandma, what were you doing when we needed to do something about this?
What were you doing when we needed to prevent the climate change that
is upon us today?
Were you just sitting there with your eyes closed and pretending it
didn't exist? Were you using a bunch of jargon, quoting social media,
and some memes that you saw somewhere, or were you talking about
scientific facts and really doing things to invest in your children and
grandchildren's future because it is upon us.
Mr. Chair, I encourage everyone to oppose this, 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. 79 Offered by Mr. Palmer
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Ogles). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 79 printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
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 1370, 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. Chairman, each year the Environmental Protection
Agency 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 surprised to hear that.
According to the nonprofit group OpenTheBooks, the EPA has spent
millions of dollars over the years on things like 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, this
sounds like we are arming Delta Force. The difference is, Delta Force
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 my own State of Alabama. In
Alaska, EPA agents wearing flak jackets and carrying semiautomatic
rifles, shotguns, and sidearms showed up to review paperwork at a
family-owned mining operation.
In my own 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 of
all 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. These include the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Association, the Federal Reserve Board, the National
Institutes of Health, among others.
{time} 1030
At this time, 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.
Critics may claim my amendment would put the EPA personnel at risk of
harm. They 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 in our Federal agencies.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my 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 strongly oppose this amendment that would
cripple the EPA's ability to exercise its criminal enforcement function
by preventing EPA criminal enforcement from being able to issue
warrants, make arrests, or carry firearms.
[[Page H4874]]
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.
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.
The fact is the 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 to help the
regulated community understand and comply with the regulations.
EPA compliance monitoring then 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 a 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 and water and the 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 from 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 more harm to the public
health.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is interesting that my colleague
believes the EPA is now a law enforcement agency and wants them fully
funded, particularly in light of the fact that so many of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle were for defunding the local police,
disarming the local police.
Yet, they want the EPA to be able to have anti-tank weapons. They
want them to have unmanned aerial assets. This is like a military
operation, not a law enforcement operation.
Mr. Chairman, if someone is violating a regulation that the EPA has
imposed upon them, they can use Federal marshals if they need that, and
there is no prohibition against EPA agents being able to carry sidearms
or even rifles, if it is necessary.
I would like for someone to explain to me why the EPA needs anti-tank
weapons. Who do they think they are protecting the environment from?
I really appreciate the concerns of my colleague, and I wish they had
the same concerns about local law enforcement that they do about
militarizing Federal agencies.
I urge my colleagues to think long and hard about what is going on
with the Federal agencies, and I urge each one of them to support this
amendment. It is a sensible amendment, and it puts things in the right
priority.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote in support 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 Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
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 B of House Report
118-602 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 24 by Mr. Brecheen of Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 25 by Mr. Brecheen of Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 45 by Mrs. Harshbarger of Tennessee.
Amendment No. 57 by Mrs. Miller of Illinois.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Brecheen
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 24, printed in part B of House Report
118-602, offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Brecheen), 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 156,
noes 236, not voting 46, as follows:
[Roll No. 387]
AYES--156
Alford
Allen
Armstrong
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (TX)
Cline
Clyde
Collins
Crane
Crawford
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Huizenga
Hunt
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Lopez
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Mills
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Norman
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--236
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amo
Amodei
Auchincloss
Bacon
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Bucshon
Budzinski
Calvert
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (GA)
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Ciscomani
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crenshaw
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
D'Esposito
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Ellzey
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garbarino
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Issa
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
James
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kiggans (VA)
Kildee
Kiley
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
LaLota
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Lawler
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lucas
Lynch
Magaziner
Maloy
Manning
Mast
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
McHenry
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Miller (OH)
Miller-Meeks
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Nunn (IA)
Ocasio-Cortez
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
[[Page H4875]]
Peltola
Pence
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Ruiz
Rulli
Ryan
Sablan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stefanik
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Velazquez
Wagner
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Williams (NY)
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
NOT VOTING--46
Aderholt
Arrington
Blumenauer
Bowman
Bush
Castro (TX)
Cleaver
Cloud
Cole
Comer
Curtis
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Duarte
Evans
Foster
Garamendi
Gonzalez-Colon
Grijalva
Higgins (LA)
Hudson
Jackson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kim (CA)
Kuster
Larson (CT)
LaTurner
McCaul
Meeks
Molinaro
Moylan
Mrvan
Omar
Pascrell
Porter
Radewagen
Rodgers (WA)
Ruppersberger
Salazar
Sewell
Suozzi
Titus
Turner
Valadao
Veasey
Watson Coleman
{time} 1058
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chair, I missed a recorded vote. Had I been present,
on Roll Call No. 387, Brecheen Amendment No. 24 to H.R. 8998, the
Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, I would have voted No.
Moment of Silence in Memory of Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective
John M. Gibson
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Johnson of Louisiana). The Chair asks that the
body now observe a moment of silence in memory of Officer Jacob J.
Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson of the United States Capitol
Police, who were killed in the line of duty defending the Capitol on
July 24, 1998.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Brecheen
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 25, printed in part B of House Report
118-602, offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Brecheen), 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 211,
noes 202, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 388]
AYES--211
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
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
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
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Garbarino
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
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Lopez
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Maloy
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
Murphy
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
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
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--202
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amo
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
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
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Sablan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
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
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--25
Bush
Castro (TX)
Cleaver
Comer
Evans
Garamendi
Gonzalez-Colon
Grijalva
Higgins (LA)
Hudson
Kamlager-Dove
Larson (CT)
Lynch
Moylan
Nehls
Pascrell
Peters
Porter
Radewagen
Ruppersberger
Schiff
Suozzi
Turner
Watson Coleman
Williams (NY)
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. LaLota) (during the vote). There is 1 minute
remaining.
{time} 1103
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mrs. Harshbarger
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 45, printed in part B of House Report
118-602, offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger),
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 174,
noes 239, not voting 24, as follows:
[[Page H4876]]
[Roll No. 389]
AYES--174
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Cline
Clyde
Collins
Crane
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Houchin
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Lopez
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moran
Nehls
Norman
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Yakym
NOES--239
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amo
Amodei
Armstrong
Auchincloss
Bacon
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bice
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Calvert
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Ciscomani
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crawford
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
D'Esposito
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Ellzey
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Feenstra
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garbarino
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Mike
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Granger
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Hill
Himes
Hinson
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Huizenga
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
James
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kiley
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
LaLota
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
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
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Murphy
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Nunn (IA)
Ocasio-Cortez
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Sablan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
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)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Valadao
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wagner
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Womack
Zinke
NOT VOTING--24
Bush
Castro (TX)
Cleaver
Cloud
Comer
Duarte
Evans
Garamendi
Gonzalez-Colon
Grijalva
Higgins (LA)
Hudson
Kamlager-Dove
Larson (CT)
Moylan
Omar
Pascrell
Porter
Radewagen
Ruppersberger
Schiff
Suozzi
Turner
Watson Coleman
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1108
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 57 Offered by Mrs. Miller of Illinois
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 57, printed in part B of House Report
118-602, 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
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 148,
noes 267, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 390]
AYES--148
Alford
Allen
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Collins
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Hill
Houchin
Huizenga
Hunt
Jackson (TX)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Luna
Luttrell
Malliotakis
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Perry
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Scalise
Self
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--267
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allred
Amo
Amodei
Auchincloss
Bacon
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bice
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Bucshon
Budzinski
Calvert
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carey
Carson
Carter (LA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Chavez-DeRemer
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Ciscomani
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
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
Edwards
Ellzey
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flood
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garbarino
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Mike
Garcia, Robert
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (LA)
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Hinson
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Issa
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
James
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Joyce (OH)
Kaptur
Kean (NJ)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kiggans (VA)
Kildee
Kiley
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
[[Page H4877]]
Kuster
LaLota
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lopez
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lynch
Mace
Magaziner
Maloy
Mann
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McClintock
McCollum
McCormick
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Miller (OH)
Miller-Meeks
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Moran
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Norton
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Peltola
Pence
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pfluger
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Sablan
Salazar
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell
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
Underwood
Valadao
Van Orden
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wagner
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Williams (NY)
Wilson (FL)
Womack
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Griffith
NOT VOTING--21
Bush
Castro (TX)
Cleaver
Comer
Evans
Garamendi
Gonzalez-Colon
Grijalva
Higgins (LA)
Hudson
Kamlager-Dove
Larson (CT)
Moylan
Pascrell
Porter
Radewagen
Ruppersberger
Schiff
Suozzi
Turner
Watson Coleman
{time} 1111
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chair, I regrettably missed the following roll call
votes. Had I been present I would have voted: No on Roll Call Vote 387,
Brecheen Amendment No. 24; No on Roll Call Vote 388, Brecheen Amendment
No. 25; No on Roll Call Vote 389, Harshbarger Amendment No. 45; and No
on Roll Call Vote 390, Miller (IL) Amendment No. 57.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chair, due to unforeseen events, I was unfortunately
unable to cast my vote for legislation considered on the House floor
today. Had I been able to be present, I would have voted according to
the following: NO, Roll Call 388, on Amendment No. 25; NO, Roll Call
389, on Amendment No. 45; and NO, Roll Call 390, on Amendment No. 57.
personal explanation
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chair, had I been present for Roll
Call Vote 387, Brecheen Amendment 24, I would have voted No. Had I been
present for Roll Call Vote 388, Brecheen Amendment 25, I would have
voted No. Had I been present for Roll Call Vote 389, Harshbarger
Amendment 45, I would have voted No. Had I been present for Roll Call
Vote 390, Miller Amendment 57, I would have voted No.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Ms. PORTER. Mr. Chair, I was unable to be present to cast my vote on
Roll Call Nos. 387, 388, 389, and 390. Had I been present, I would have
voted NO on Roll Call Nos. 387, 388, 389, and 390.
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. Van
Drew) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaLota, 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. 8998)
making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment,
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, and
for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________