[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 24, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H4881-H4891]
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. 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 South Carolina (Mr. Norman) kindly take the 
chair.

                              {time}  1555


                     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. Norman (Acting 
Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 57 printed in part B of House report 118-602 offered by 
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller) had been disposed of.


                 Amendment No. 80 Offered by Mr. Palmer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 80 
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 to implement, administer, or enforce the final rule 
     entitled ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
     Pollutants: Lime Manufacturing Plants Technology Review'' 
     published by the Environmental Protection Agency in the 
     Federal Register on July 16, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 57738).

  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, the Environmental Protection Agency 
recently finalized a $2 billion regulation on the lime industry that 
the EPA's own staff have found is completely unnecessary to protect 
public health and welfare.
  Lime plants not only supply products essential for the proper 
function of critical activities concerning construction, but lime also 
keeps our roadways from breaking down and helps keep our water clean.
  As recently as 2020, just 4 years ago, the EPA conducted a full risk 
assessment of hazardous air pollutants emitted by the lime 
manufacturing industry. The EPA found that risks from the source 
category are acceptable, the standards provide an ample margin of 
safety to protect public health, and more stringent standards are not 
necessary to prevent an adverse environmental effect. The EPA received 
no new data or other information during the public comment period that 
causes us to change that proposed determination. I emphasize that is 
the EPA's own staff and scientists.
  This was published in the Federal Register in July of 2020. What is 
interesting is that lime is used for pollution control to absorb sulfur 
oxides, which helps prevent acid rain and reduces emissions of 
hazardous air pollutants, including mercury.
  The only reason the Biden administration's EPA is issuing this 
expensive

[[Page H4882]]

and unnecessary rule is because of a 2-1 split decision where the 
District of Columbia circuit court sided with an environmental group 
suing to ignore the EPA's scientific findings in favor of their radical 
climate agenda.
  That case said that the EPA must set standards for all unregulated 
hazardous air pollutants when the agency conducts a technology review 
under the Clean Air Act. Congress intended that new, additional 
regulations should be added only if risk assessment demonstrated that 
risks are not acceptable with an ample margin of safety. Since the EPA 
has already found that emissions from the lime industry are already 
acceptable with an ample margin of safety, there is no need for these 
new, expensive regulations. I urge my colleagues to trust the science 
and support my 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, the Interior bill we are considering today 
includes 92 poison pill riders in the base bill that cripple 
environmental protection, undermine climate change policies, add to the 
national debt, and include discriminatory riders targeting millions of 
American citizens that have already proven so divisive in earlier 
markups. I object to the inclusion of any more.
  This amendment would block the EPA from implementing air pollution 
regulations for lime manufacturing plants. The EPA rule will reduce 
emissions of toxic air pollution by nearly 900 tons per year from 
hazardous air pollutants such as dioxin and mercury.
  EPA initiated this rulemaking as required by a court case to comply 
with their 8-year technology review timeline required under the Clean 
Air Act.
  As a result of the lawsuit and subsequent emissions data collection, 
EPA found four pollutants that were unregulated in proposed reasonable 
standards to achieve better air quality and public health.
  EPA worked closely with the Small Business Administration and 
included regulatory flexibilities to address small business concerns.
  EPA balanced industry concerns alongside their duty to protect public 
health and the environment in this rule, and they were statutorily 
required to update.

                              {time}  1600

  The rule is important to the people who live in communities next to 
these facilities, to the workers at these facilities, and it is 
critical that this rule go into effect and not be a political pawn in 
the appropriations process.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, this amendment would be a step toward 
returning power back to Congress, where it belongs. Instead of 
complying with the agenda of radical environmentalists, Congress should 
reject their efforts to ignore science. I remind my colleagues that the 
EPA's own scientists said this rule is not necessary.
  We have too many unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats making way too 
many laws in the form of regulations that are doing great harm to 
Americans struggling to pay their bills, struggling to put food on the 
table, and struggling to take care of their families.
  This lime rule is another example of the fake science that is doing 
unnecessary harm to our economy and to American households.
  I emphasize again, lime plants supply products essential to the 
proper functioning of critical activities to the national interest, 
including steel production, road construction, power generation, 
pollution abatement. As I pointed out, one of the things that my 
colleague mentioned was mercury. Lime is used to abate mercury in air.
  I worked for two international engineering companies, and we built 
pollution control devices, including devices that use lime to remove 
sulfur oxides from gases being emitted from production facilities. It 
is used in drinking water treatment. Lime helps keep our roadways, as I 
said, from breaking down. Lime helps keep our water clean, and lime 
improves soil quality.
  Unnecessary regulations like the lime rule add to the inflationary 
burden Americans are currently suffering under. The high price of 
building a new home, for instance, has placed home ownership out of 
reach of many Americans, and this lime rule will add to that cost. 
Funding this regulation would only make the high cost of living crisis 
worse.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALMER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  As I said, having worked for two international engineering companies 
and in a think tank, I have found during my time in Congress that there 
is a serious lack of scientific understanding, and we just pass a lot 
of rules out of Congress that we really have no idea what the impact 
will be.
  We also have, in many cases, a serious math problem. We don't 
understand how these things add up, pile up the cost of living on 
American households and the damage that it is doing to them. Right now, 
we are seeing grocery prices at levels we haven't seen in years. 
Cumulative inflation the last 3\1/2\ years of the Biden administration 
has been over 19 percent. Energy costs are up 40 percent. We just keep 
adding these things to the American people.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject the burdensome regulations, 
reject the radical environmental agenda, and support my amendment. I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close. I do want to assure my colleague on the other side of the aisle 
that I thoroughly understand the importance of lime in many 
manufacturing and agricultural processes. I actually have a cement 
manufacturing facility in my district, agricultural lime facility in my 
district, and I personally have spent many years as a farmer or 
gardener.
  Just last week, I spread lime on my soil to make it more alkaline 
because we have very acidic soils in much of Maine. I am not unaware of 
the importance of lime, but I am also aware of our role in Congress of 
making sure that we reduce pollution and that we make sure we keep our 
citizens safe. This is a perfectly appropriate rule.
  Mr. Chair, I encourage 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 Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 81 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 81 
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1370, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the EPA from using 
funds for actions pursuant to section 115 of the Clean Air Act.
  To be clear, section 115 of the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to 
mandate State emissions levels to whatever level the agency deems 
appropriate if they find U.S. emissions endanger a foreign nation and 
the endangered nation has a reciprocal agreement to prevent or control 
these emissions in their own nation, such as the Paris climate accord.
  This backdoor provision allows the EPA to vastly expand its 
regulatory authority and encroach on the right of the States to 
regulate their own energy sectors based on the actions solely of a 
foreign nation.
  It is irresponsible to allow unelected bureaucrats at the EPA to 
retain the ability to seize such expansive authority. If the U.S. 
Government wants to pursue such a policy, one that in my opinion is 
constitutionally suspect, it

[[Page H4883]]

should be done through an explicit congressional delegation of 
authority on a case-by-case basis.
  A similar amendment has passed the House during previous Interior and 
Environmental Appropriations packages. I urge adoption, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, section 115 of the Clean Air Act is 
essential. It enables the United States to work with other nations to 
address transboundary air pollution.
  As we saw last year, while Canada was experiencing historic 
wildfires, that pollution knows no boundaries and can travel anywhere, 
whether by air or water. We cannot address these environmental issues 
on our own, and we must work with other nations.
  Prohibiting the EPA from implementing section 115 of the Clean Air 
Act is shortsighted, and I oppose this amendment. I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree that we need to work with 
other nations and our neighbors, everybody around the globe. We are 
living on the same planet, breathing the same air, drinking the same 
water, but the United States is a sovereign nation, and we don't bow to 
any other sovereign, let alone take their word for it or have them 
impose regulations on us as they deem fit, as they see fit.
  That is what section 115 would allow. It allows a backdoor access to 
doing so through a reciprocal agreement, not even a treaty, such as the 
Paris climate accord. That is the issue here, an agreement that an 
administration may take, that not this body, not the body across the 
building, not the American people are signatories to. That is the 
purpose of this amendment.
  As I said, Mr. Chairman, in the past, this amendment has been 
accepted on this very bill, this very same amendment, and so I would 
urge adoption once again this time.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing, once again, this is just common sense. I 
don't know that back a long time ago when section 115 was written it 
was written with the idea that the Paris climate accord, not a treaty, 
but with the force of a treaty would occur, but in the case that it is 
and that that has now happened, we must make sure that we speak loudly 
and that any regulations and any regulatory authority come through the 
elected bodies of the United States of America, not through 
bureaucracies and certainly not through would-be treaties or agreements 
from foreign countries.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my 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 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  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 Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 82 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 82 
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the spending reduction 
     account), insert the following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Environmental Protection Agency to take any of 
     the actions described as a ``backstop'' in the December 29, 
     2009, letter from the Regional Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency to the States in the 
     Watershed and the District of Columbia in response to the 
     development or implementation of a State's watershed 
     implementation and referred to in enclosure B of such letter.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1370, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to 
take retaliatory actions against States that disagree with the EPA-
mandated pollutant reduction goals that have been imposed upon them by 
the EPA.
  Importantly, this amendment would not prevent the EPA from working 
with States to restore things like the Chesapeake Bay, which is what 
the EPA is supposed to be doing.
  In 1985, the States in the Chesapeake Bay region recognized the need 
to address pollutants in the Bay and through their own initiative came 
together to conduct cleanup efforts. These State-driven efforts were 
largely successful. Water quality improved almost 50 percent from 1985 
to 2010 without the EPA's involvement.
  However, in 2010, the EPA seized the States' authority to determine 
their own method of compliance and threatened to take over the water 
quality plants. This 2010 power grab, known as the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, 
total maximum daily load, directly contradicts the intent of the Clean 
Water Act.
  The Clean Water Act clearly acknowledges State authority in water 
quality and requires cooperation, which is happening through the 
Chesapeake Bay Commission rather than coercion between the States and 
the Federal Government.
  These coercive methods have been tried and have failed. Water quality 
improvement has slowed, and last year the EPA acknowledged the 2025 
goals likely cannot be met. The failures we have seen since 
Federalization of the bay cleanup efforts necessitate the reevaluation 
of this model and a return to the cooperative model that led to the 
early improvements and actual success.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment would allow those that pollute 
the Chesapeake Bay to ignore the Environmental Protection Agency's 
water quality standards.
  Restoring the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed continues to be a 
priority. The EPA established mandatory water quality standards, and 
Congress has appropriated over $1 billion for the Chesapeake Bay 
program to help States, localities, and businesses meet those 
standards. This amendment would jeopardize that funding and have 
devastating effects on the health of the bay.
  This amendment is not about the well-being of Virginia, Maryland, and 
the surrounding States. It is about the fact that some industrial 
operators don't think they should be responsible for controlling the 
pollution they dump into our rivers and streams across the country. The 
courts have sided with the EPA on this matter.
  For more than 35 years, the regional partnership created through the 
Chesapeake Bay program has sought to restore and protect the Nation's 
largest and most productive estuary. This amendment would undermine 
decades of work and have lasting damaging effects to the health of the 
bay and the economy that it supports.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, let me clarify, prohibits the use of funds to 
take retaliatory actions--retaliatory. We are already working together. 
We are working with the EPA. As was said, this is a regional 
partnership and has been a regional partnership.
  This isn't about industry getting a free pass to pollute anywhere. 
This is about the heavy-handed, coercive tactics of the EPA on States 
that want to do this, that got into this because this is what they 
wanted to do. We don't need the EPA.
  By the way, go to some of these treatment plants, and do you know 
what the EPA's requirements are, Mr. Chairman? Beyond the limits of 
technology. They have to treat the water to beyond the limits of 
technology. Think about what that statement says. It says they can't 
get there from here, but the EPA is still going to fine them if they 
can't get there from here while

[[Page H4884]]

acknowledging they can't get there from here.
  All we are saying is, don't spend money on the extortionary, 
retaliatory, coercive tactics. Spend the money, if you are going to 
spend it, on actually working together to clean up the bay.
  Mr. Chair, I don't know what else you need to hear. We are not 
against the EPA. We are not against cleaning up the bay. We are not 
against spending the money to clean up the bay. What we are against is 
the retaliatory actions that don't help clean up the bay and waste our 
money.
  By the way, since we are talking about it, while Pennsylvania 
continues to try to get beyond the limits of technology, that the EPA 
acknowledges, some of the other States in the compact aren't interested 
but aren't fined under these retaliatory practices. This is punishment 
to some States but not to others, which we see as unfair, as you might 
imagine.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine has the right to close.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I think I have made my point, and the fact that 
the gentlewoman is reserving means there is no other point to make, so 
I am happy to listen.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, any time I hear one of my colleagues across 
the aisle say we don't need the EPA or that the actions of the EPA are 
extortion or retaliatory, I don't know about the specific actions that 
he is talking about today, but I do know, as someone who represents a 
State with as much coastline as any State in the Nation with estuaries, 
with bays, with an extreme dependence on our shorelines, on our 
watersheds, on the ocean itself, I know that the Chesapeake Bay is an 
incredible resource to this country. The health of the bay has been a 
big concern for over 35 years, and the work that the EPA does to keep 
it clean is extremely important.
  This amendment that attempts to undermine those efforts, to undermine 
decades of work, is absolutely unnecessary and not anything that any of 
us should support. This has the likely impact of undermining the 
efforts of our fishermen, our residents of coastal communities, and the 
economy in the Chesapeake Bay, and it is a misguided amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  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 Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 83 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 83 
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 145, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 226, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1370, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this amendment strikes the funding for the 
Council on Environmental Quality.
  Now, it sounds lofty and awesome. The Council on Environmental 
Quality was created by the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969 to 
advance environmental policies and to meet requirements under NEPA. Of 
course, it is duplicative because now we have the EPA. We create a new 
agency, but we never get rid of the other agency, and they both do the 
same thing.
  This one is supercharged now. This administration has tasked the CEQ 
with developing policies on climate change, environmental justice, and 
Federal sustainability, all while creating more paperwork under NEPA 
that the previous administration actually worked to reverse.
  Mr. Chairman, these policies are what is holding America back. 
Onerous NEPA requirements and State-level laws like those in California 
are holding back countless programs and construction projects around 
the country. You can't get anything permitted. Things take years upon 
years. People say, why does it take so long? This is why.
  They are also part of the left's apparatus that aims to shift 
America's entire way of life by meeting unscientific emission goals. 
They are not scientific. They are political goals. They are not 
scientific goals.
  As written, the Department of Energy's own estimate for their gas 
stove rule shows that only 4 percent of gas stoves available on the 
market today meet the new standard, essentially forcing Americans to 
choose electric stoves without any--it is not based on science. They 
just want you to use electricity, not gas, and so they come up with the 
metrics.
  This is part of this Council on Environmental Quality. We don't need 
them. We have the EPA. We don't need the duplication.
  Mr. Chair, I urge support, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, this amendment eliminates funding for the 
Council on Environmental Quality.
  The office is responsible for coordinating the Federal Government's 
efforts to improve, preserve, and protect Americans' public health and 
environment. It also works to ensure that environmental reviews for 
infrastructure projects and Federal actions are thorough, efficient, 
and reflect the input of the public and local communities.
  This amendment would hobble the office and result in significant 
delays to infrastructure projects around the country.
  Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I don't know about significant delays. We are 
already experiencing significant delays. All these construction 
projects take decades to complete.
  If we are going to just keep doing the same thing, which apparently 
that is what the gentlewoman on the other side of aisle wants to do, we 
are going to continue to experience significant delays.
  Maybe this isn't the answer. I would be happy to hear what the answer 
is if it is not this, but doing the same thing isn't going to change 
anything. That is what we are looking to do, to make it more efficient.
  The EPA can do this work. The EPA should do this work. We don't need 
both these agencies at the same time duplicating each other's efforts 
and wasting American tax dollars.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, 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 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  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 Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 84 
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Pfluger).
  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:

[[Page H4885]]

  



       no designation of permian basin as nonattainment for ozone

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to designate or redesignate the Permian Basin (or any 
     portion thereof) as nonattainment for ozone under section 
     107(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1370, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, two summers ago, the EPA released a regulatory 
agenda which included the consideration of redesignation of ozone 
attainment in the Permian Basin.
  This wholly discretionary action would impose new regulatory burdens, 
new regulations on the U.S. oil and gas industry, which will only 
worsen the cost-of-living problems that we already have and the high 
energy problems that we are already experiencing.
  A nonattainment redesignation will have considerable, almost an 
unbelievable, negative local impacts that cannot be overstated. In 
rural America, the energy industry generates high-paying jobs for 
working families and is the driver of the Texas and New Mexico 
economies.
  Additionally, the industry annually contributes over $20 billion to 
State of Texas local coffers to fund public education, emergency 
responders, hospitals, conservation projects, and more. If the EPA 
finalizes this redesignation, most rural communities in this area will 
face substantial economic hardship. Somebody is going to have to make 
up that money.
  By the way, it is not just Texas and the Permian Basin. If you ever 
travel there, if you are in the airport, you will see people traveling 
to and from the Permian Basin because of the jobs there. They are going 
to the basin for the jobs. They are flying back to the East Coast. They 
will work a couple of weeks on and take a week off and go back to the 
East Coast, so it is not just the Permian Basin that is going to be 
affected. It is States like Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Georgia, where 
the men and women that I talked to when I was there in the airport were 
traveling to and from.
  In May of this year, Representative Pfluger hosted the Region 6 
Administrator to see the impacts of a potential redesignation and the 
actions producers are already taking to reduce emissions to record 
levels.
  During her visit, it was made clear that the EPA does not have 
monitors on the Texas side of the Permian Basin. They don't even have 
monitors there. All the data that is being used to build the case for 
the nonattainment redesignation is based on either modeling or monitors 
in some other State, not even in Texas.
  We have seen this before. That is why Representative Pfluger recently 
introduced the Show the Data Act, which mandates that any nonattainment 
redesignation by the EPA cannot be based on air quality monitor data 
from some other State, area, or counties being designated. They have to 
be in the county, in the State. That would be nice.
  The Permian Basin is proud of its environmental record. Their 
producers have led the world in emissions reduction, innovation, and 
sustainable practices. Permian Basin producers continue to reduce 
emissions of ozone precursors while increasing energy production.
  As a matter of fact, methane emissions intensity in the Permian Basin 
dropped by nearly 70 percent between 2011 and 2020 even as oil and gas 
production in the region rose by over 320 percent. They didn't need the 
Federal Government coming down there with monitors outside the area 
telling them how to do that.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. It is 
a legislative earmark to benefit oil and gas producers. It would tell 
the EPA to ignore potentially unhealthy air in the counties that make 
up the Permian Basin.
  For the past few years, air monitors located in the Permian Basin 
area have shown violations well above EPA's 2015 ozone standard. So it 
is more than reasonable for the EPA to evaluate conditions in the area, 
consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, but this 
amendment would prevent the EPA from redesignating the Permian Basin as 
being in nonattainment of the 2015 ozone standard.
  Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to set a national 
ambient air quality standard for contaminants, like ground-level ozone, 
that are adequate to protect public health, including the health of 
sensitive groups such as children and the elderly.
  These health-based standards, the NAAQS, must reflect recent 
scientific and medical data. Once the EPA sets or revises the NAAQS, 
EPA uses air monitoring data and recommendations from States to 
determine which areas meet the standards and those that do not, known 
as being in nonattainment.

                              {time}  1630

  States then go to work to develop plans using the most cost-effective 
strategies to bring nonattainment areas in compliance with the 
standard.
  Allowing a region that exceeds the standard to be considered in 
attainment doesn't do anything for the families and the workers living 
in those counties breathing the toxic air. It tells Americans that 
there is nothing to see here while they bear the brunt of the 
environmental hazards.
  Contrary to what polluters would have you believe, being designated 
as nonattainment does not shut down the economies. Businesses have and 
do continue to operate and expand in nonattainment areas. However, the 
designation ensures that States and businesses are taking measures to 
control air pollution and help communities to achieve cleaner, 
healthier air.
  The Interior bill we are considering today includes 92 poison pill 
riders in the base bill, and I object to the inclusion of any more.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I suspect that Representative Pfluger would be 
aghast at the claim that this is a legislative earmark. There is no 
money involved in this.
  By the way, the air quality has continued to improve. Since 1990, 
ozone concentration has decreased by 25 percent and emissions of ozone 
precursors like VOCs and nitrogen oxides have dropped by 47 percent and 
65 percent.
  Let me just tell you, Mr. Chairman: This is how this goes. The EPA 
sets a level through the Clean Air Act, they attain it, and then the 
EPA just keeps lowering it and lowering it and lowering it. It is used 
by the left by people who hate the oil and gas industry, hate 
civilization, and hate energy to say that you can no longer produce 
because you can't attain it. That's what they do.
  To say it is not going to have any effect if we put them in the 
nonattainment zone, it is not going to have any effect on the 
producers, on local businesses--if it is not going to have any effect, 
then why would you do it? It is going to have an effect.
  They are going to be out of jobs. That is the effect. It is a thinly 
veiled attempt to curb oil and gas production, and it will destroy 
local jobs, State revenues, and, more importantly, our national 
security.
  Do you think China or Russia, which country that is competing with us 
in the oil and gas industry, which country do you think is telling 
their producers that they are not meeting attainment? None of them. Do 
you think Iran is doing that?
  We are buying Venezuelan oil. We are buying Russian gas in the 
northeast. It is absurd. Congress must not allow this to move forward.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, my colleague on the other side of the aisle 
said that I hate oil and gas, I hate civilization, and I hate energy. 
Honestly, I don't hate oil and gas. I certainly don't hate 
civilization. In fact, I hope we can continue our civilization.
  I am deeply concerned that if we continue our dependence on oil and 
gas that we won't have a civilization, that our children and 
grandchildren won't have the opportunities that we had, that our small 
businesses and our communities won't be able to function.

[[Page H4886]]

  The whole reason we are talking about any of this is because we have 
the impending challenge of climate change that is already upon us 
today. In order to reduce the effects of climate change, we have to 
reduce our use of oil and gas, and we have to make sure that the 
pollution, as we are talking about in this bill, isn't impacting our 
communities.
  It is interesting, my colleague mentioned that in the airport he sees 
people traveling to and from work in this area. Is it possible that 
crowd of people don't want to live in this area because the pollution 
and the effects are too strong and they would prefer just to go to work 
and get home to breathe some clean air somewhere else?
  My colleague assumes that if we don't continue at the level we are 
operating on that we will be buying oil from Iran or China or Russia. 
He seems to forget that we have a booming industry going on in green 
energy. Whether it is renewable solar or wind or many of the other 
innovations that are taking place right now, they are far outpacing our 
use of oil and gas. In many States, the green energy jobs and the 
innovation are where all of the economic development and activity is.
  For him to say this is our only opportunity or this is all because 
some of us hate oil and gas or want to penalize people for this, it is 
absolutely wrong. We are merely trying to bring our country into this 
modern era and make sure that we are investing in energy. I don't hate 
energy. I believe in renewable energy, and I believe there are 
tremendous opportunities out there.
  I also want to make sure that communities that are impacted by the 
pollution, as we are talking about here, are protected, that those 
communities have the right to breathe clean air as we all hope we can 
do.
  I would ask 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 Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mr. Perry

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 85 
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Roy), 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:


                    environmental justice activities

       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for environmental justice activities.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1370, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits any of the funding 
from being used to carry out environmental justice activities.
  Let me explain this to you. Environmental justice is nothing more 
than the synthesis of divisive racial ideology and radical 
environmentalism in the same package. This entire ideology is based on 
the notion that Federal environmental funding should be allocated based 
on immutable characteristics.
  Biden's Justice40 Initiative directs 40 percent of Federal clean 
energy and energy efficiency spending based on ethnicity, migrant 
status, and income status.
  How is that fair in America? I don't hear anything about the fact 
that poor communities are hurt the hardest by this administration's 
inflationary energy policy.
  Just last year, the Census Bureau found that 36 percent of consumers 
say it has been somewhat to very difficult for them to pay their usual 
bills in the last 7 days. That is a 25 percent increase from the prior 
year. I hear it in my own district.
  Environmental justice is just another way for this administration to 
funnel dollars, your tax dollars, to radical leftwing groups, including 
anti-Israel groups. I think that is important to note today.
  In December of 2023, the Biden administration announced it would 
award $600 million in environmental justice funding. Fifty million 
dollars went to the Climate Justice Alliance, which organized anti-
Israel protests in the Capitol rotunda last year.
  What does any of that have to do with the environment?
  Climate Justice Alliance's website has a ``Free Palestine'' web page 
that states: ``The path to climate justice travels through a free 
Palestine. . . . ''
  I am sorry. I don't see the nexus.
  Will my Democrat colleagues vote to send money to these groups, 
Iran's useful idiots, by opposing this amendment on the day that the 
Prime Minister of Israel came and addressed a joint session? I sure 
hope not.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Maine is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chair, in recent years, Democrats have made historic 
investments in environmental justice, and the EPA has already put those 
dollars to good use.
  It is unfortunate that my colleagues across the aisle continue to 
attack good government programs. Environmental justice ensures that all 
Americans receive the same degree of protection from environmental and 
health hazards, which is particularly important in rural communities, 
many of which are in the very districts of my colleagues across the 
aisle and myself.
  Rural communities and low-income communities have long been targeted 
by corporations, regulatory agencies, and local planning and zoning 
boards when siting polluting facilities. This includes things like 
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.
  Why would my colleagues try to defund any effort to improve the lives 
of people in rural and low-income communities? It is yet another 
attempt to implement an extreme agenda, to attack minority groups at 
all costs, and to return the United States to a time when environmental 
discrimination was the norm.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support our rural and our low-
income communities by rejecting this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PERRY. Mr. Chair, I don't know about all Americans. As a matter 
of fact, many of the communities that I represent are lower income. 
They are struggling to pay their electricity bills, and I doubt that 
they have gotten $50 million or part of what the Climate Justice 
Alliance got.
  Most of my constituents don't have time to run around protesting with 
``Free Palestine'' signs the day that the Prime Minister of Israel was 
addressing Congress.
  I will tell you this. Justice should not be based on ethnicity, 
migrant status, or income status. Justice should be blind in America. 
Unfortunately, we have gotten away from that, and this is funding it.
  I suggest that we all vote in favor of this and have justice be blind 
and have all Americans and all citizens treated equally.
  Mr. Chair, 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 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
  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 Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 88 Offered by Mr. Stauber

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 88 
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H4887]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 120, line 11, strike ``wildfire'' and insert 
     ``wildfire, search and rescue,''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1370, 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, amendment No. 88 to H.R. 8998 will ensure 
States and other cooperating entities that provide search-and-rescue 
services on Federal lands can receive reimbursement.
  In northern Minnesota, the St. Louis County Rescue Squad assists 
people lost or injured in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, which is 
Federal land in my district.
  According to a Duluth News Tribune article, the squad's reported 
budget is about $450,000 per year. However, with the roughly 30,000 
hours volunteer members dedicate to the cause each year, it is 
estimated that the squad provides about $3.5 million in free labor 
annually.
  Recently, tragedy struck the BWCA. Two canoeists, Jesse Haugen of 
Cambridge and Reis Grams of Lino Lakes, fell over Curtain Falls. The 
St. Louis County Rescue Squad spent over 2 weeks on a search-and-rescue 
mission looking for these two individuals before they located their 
bodies. May these two souls rest in peace.
  Of the 95 members of the St. Louis County Rescue Squad, 61 took part 
in the Curtain Falls mission. Combined, they worked almost 6,000 hours.
  During a recent meeting I had with Squad Captain Rick Slatten, he 
estimated that the cost of the mission was around $150,000, over a 
quarter of their annual budget on one call.
  As a former law enforcement officer, I know that rescue squads are 
critical to ensuring the safety of the constituencies and the many 
tourists that visit each year.
  During a search-and-rescue mission, every second counts, and we need 
these crews to have the resources necessary to stay on top of their 
game or at a minimum know that they have the backing of the Federal 
Government to do what they can to save lives.
  As the bill currently reads: The wildland fire management account can 
be used to reimburse States and other cooperating agencies for services 
provided in response to wildfire and other emergencies or disasters.
  This amendment simply clarifies that search and rescue is a part of 
that reimbursement category. This will ensure that our search-and-
rescue squads can continue to conduct these vital services in our 
communities.
  Search-and-rescue volunteer rescue squads from small townships and 
small cities across America enter our Federal lands to rescue people 
that are in our Federal lands for enjoyment. It costs a lot of money to 
keep up equipment. It costs a lot of time and training, and these 
dollars will recognize them by saying that their rescue efforts are 
important to all of us.
  Mr. Chair, I ask that this amendment be made in order, and I ask 
Members to be in support on the floor. I yield back the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  1645

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


                Amendment No. 89 Offered by Mr. Stauber

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 89 
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
  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 spending reduction 
     account), insert the following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to designate the Boundary Waters Canoe Area 
     Wilderness, or any portion thereof, as a national monument 
     under chapter 3203 of title 54, United States Code (commonly 
     referred to as the ``Antiquities Act of 1906'').

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1370, 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 designate the Boundary Waters Canoe Area 
Wilderness located within the Superior National Forest in northern 
Minnesota as a national monument under the Antiquities Act.
  The Superior National Forest is a working industrial forest, and it 
should always remain one. Responsible mining and responsible timber 
harvesting are desired traits of the forest. Mining and timber 
harvesting are part of our way of life in northern Minnesota, and they 
exist hand in hand with recreation and conservation.
  This amendment protects our way of life and protects against an 
activist administration here in Washington taking steps to change it. 
In December 2016, while they were on their way out of office, the 
Obama-Biden administration made a last-minute Antiquities Act 
designation for Bears Ears in southeastern Utah. The amendment before 
you today is an insurance policy to ensure that the Biden-Harris 
administration doesn't make a last-ditch effort to do the same and 
designate a new monument in northern Minnesota which would jeopardize 
desired responsible use of the Superior National Forest, again, a 
working industrial forest.
  Contrary to what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
likely argue, this amendment will not jeopardize any existing 
protections that the wilderness area already enjoys. This amendment 
does not expand mining or timber harvesting into the Boundary Waters. 
This amendment ensures we can continue to mine and harvest timber 
outside of the Boundary Waters.
  Let me be clear. Mining will never take place in the Boundary Waters 
Canoe Area Wilderness. That has been settled since 1978 when Congress 
passed the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act. Back in 1978, my 
predecessor, then-Representative of the Eighth Congressional District, 
Democrat Jim Oberstar, stood here on the House floor and argued that 
our ability to responsibly mine and harvest timber in the Superior 
National Forest shall never be infringed.
  This amendment is quite simple. It simply reaffirms Congress' intent 
when the 1978 wilderness act was passed. It simply protects against 
overreach from the executive branch, and, most importantly, it protects 
our way of life in northern Minnesota.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Smith of Nebraska). The gentlewoman from 
Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, unfortunately, my colleague from Minnesota 
has offered an amendment which doesn't make sense. I will explain why, 
Mr. Chairman. The amendment is directed at the Boundary Waters Canoe 
Area Wilderness, but there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is 
wilderness and how it is designated, what happens in the Superior 
National Forest, and the way this amendment is drafted.
  First, the amendment would prohibit the administration from 
designating the BWCA as a national monument. When the Antiquities Act 
was passed by Congress to give the President the ability to protect 
vulnerable lands that contain valuable scientific, cultural, and 
historic resources, the BWCA was already protected.
  Wilderness, Mr. Chair, is the most protected and restricted 
designation we have for public lands. The level of wilderness that it 
affords far exceeds what the national monument designation offer is. 
What I think the Member is attempting to do, and I might disagree with 
him but he has the right to do it, would be to leave out the Boundary 
Waters Canoe Wilderness Area and just talk about the Superior National 
Forest which is not part of that wilderness area, and then his 
amendment would make sense. I wouldn't support it, but his amendment 
would make sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend and colleague 
from Minnesota's comments. I will tell

[[Page H4888]]

you that in 2016 on their way out the Obama-Biden administration, for 
purely political reasons, pulled mining leases for a company that 
wanted to mine critical minerals in northeastern Minnesota. The Biden-
Harris administration went against the Supreme Court when the Supreme 
Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to pay off student loans, and 
they still did it.
  What this says, Mr. Chair, is as the Biden-Harris administration is 
in their waning days here, they can't diminish our opportunities in 
northeastern Minnesota, period.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, as I said, the gentleman from Minnesota from 
the Eighth Congressional District and I might disagree on some of those 
things. I can't, in good conscience, support this amendment because it 
is not drafted in a way that would even do what the gentleman would 
like to do. It is just written wrong.
  The Boundary Waters Wilderness Canoe Area is protected. It is 
wilderness. Any portion thereafter that is in the amendment would be 
parts that are not part of the Boundary Waters Wilderness Canoe Area. 
So by having that in the amendment, the amendment is not drafted 
properly.
  For that and other reasons, I just close with this: I would urge my 
colleagues to vote against this amendment. We look forward to, in the 
future, having this discussion maybe next year with an amendment which 
the gentleman and I could disagree on the principle and not the way it 
is drafted.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chairman, again, I do not trust the Biden-Harris 
administration on their way out. I do not trust them on their way out. 
This will ensure that the Superior National Forest and the Boundary 
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness remains as it is and there are no 
antiquities put forth. I do not trust the Biden-Harris administration 
when it comes to mining. They are the most anti-mining administration 
in the history of the United States of America. They haven't opened one 
mine.
  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. 90 Offered by Mr. Stauber

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 90 
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
  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 expand the area designated as the Boundary Waters 
     Canoe Area Wilderness by section 3 of Public Law 95-495.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1370, 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. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment that 
prohibits any funds from being used to expand the Boundary Waters Canoe 
Wilderness Area within the Superior National Forest in northern 
Minnesota.
  Mining and timber harvesting have played a significant role in the 
culture and the economy of northern Minnesota for well over a century. 
Mining and timber harvesting are our past, our present, and our future 
in northern Minnesota. We have proven we can mine and harvest timber 
responsibly all while still protecting and enjoying the beautiful area 
that we call home.
  Antimining and antiforestry activists in this administration have 
taken step after step to attack our way of life in Minnesota. As my 
colleagues in this Chamber have heard me discuss time and time again, 
the Biden-Harris administration have used every tool to ban mining in 
northern Minnesota. They pulled the long-held leases for the Twin 
Metals project where copper was to be mined responsibly. Then they went 
even further and put into place a 20-year mineral withdrawal banning 
mining on 225,504 acres in the working industrial Superior National 
Forest.
  What is next, Mr. Chairman?
  What will they do next to attack our way of life and further stop 
mining in northern Minnesota?
  My amendment will prevent the Biden-Harris administration from 
expanding the wilderness area while they are on their way out of the 
door later this year.
  Just like my last amendment, this amendment does nothing to 
jeopardize existing protections for the Boundary Waters. This amendment 
does not expand mining or timber harvesting into the Boundary Waters. 
It simply ensures our ability to responsibly mine and harvest timber 
outside of the Boundary Waters. This amendment simply ensures this 
administration or any future administration cannot further attack our 
way of life in northeastern Minnesota.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, again, this amendment, unfortunately, 
like the last one, is flawed. In fact, in my opinion, it is not even 
relevant. It prohibits the administration from using funds to expand 
the Boundary Waters wilderness.
  I want to be clear. The executive branch cannot expand wilderness, 
period. They can't. Only an act of Congress, only we can expand 
wilderness. Unless Republican House leadership is planning on bringing 
a bill to the floor to expand the BWCA wilderness boundaries or a bill 
allowing the administration to unilaterally designate public lands as 
wilderness area, this amendment makes no sense.
  Like the past amendment, this amendment is directed at the Boundary 
Waters Wilderness Canoe Area. Unfortunately, they betray a fundamental 
understanding of what wilderness is and how it is designated.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chair, we have to remember that as we speak, the 
U.S. Forest Service is looking to purchase 70,000 acres of the 
wilderness from the school trust fund. They are looking to expand the 
wilderness as we speak.
  Again, what this does is it ensures that the Biden-Harris 
administration on their way out doesn't do anything to expand the 
wilderness area.
  My good friend and colleague from Minnesota says that the executive 
branch can't. They will try, and what this does, Mr. Chairman, is it 
ensures them not even considering it because it is part of legislation 
now.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chair, the school public trust lands that are being 
purchased are not being purchased to be put into wilderness. They can't 
be. The Forest Service can purchase them, and the county can purchase 
them if they are up for sale. The State of Minnesota has a say in it. I 
served in the State house. However, the Biden-Harris administration 
cannot--cannot--even if purchased designate them as wilderness unless 
we, as the Congress, the House and Senate, vote affirmatively to do so 
and then send a bill to the President's desk.
  I understand the passion. It is clear that my colleague, the 
gentleman from the Eighth Congressional District, and I have different 
points of view on the BWCA and its protection of this pristine water up 
there, but these two amendments just bring the Boundary Waters Canoe 
Wilderness Area into a political fight that it doesn't belong in 
because the amendments are not drafted properly.
  Mr. Chair, I am probably ready to close, but I am going to reserve 
the balance of my time for now.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I offered three amendments. In 
the last two, I think I have said maybe three or four times now that as 
the Biden-Harris administration exits at the end of this year, I don't 
trust what they are going to do to our wilderness area, our mining, and 
our timber harvesting. They have proven it. The Obama-Biden 
administration took a

[[Page H4889]]

run at northeastern Minnesota when they pulled the leases on their way 
out.
  What this does, Mr. Chair, is ensures that this blocks them from the 
attempt. This blocks them from the attempt to devastate northeastern 
Minnesota more so than they have already done.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, once again, I understand what the 
gentleman is attempting to do, but the way this is drafted doesn't do 
it.
  I want my colleagues to think hard about amendments that 
fundamentally represent the laws that govern wilderness areas, 
including the Boundary Waters.
  I hear you loud and clear that you don't agree with decisions made by 
this current administration, but the decisions that you are talking 
about into the future are not part of the Boundary Waters Wilderness 
Canoe Area.
  Mr. Chair, for that reason, I reject this amendment because it is 
technically flawed, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Members are reminded to direct their comments to 
the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 91 Offered by Ms. Tenney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 91 
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1370, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Tenney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment No. 91 to 
reduce the salary of Council on Environmental Quality, CEQ, Chair 
Brenda Mallory to $1.
  Mr. Chair, I have spoken numerous times on this floor about the 
dangerous rule proposed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council, 
the FAR Council, titled: ``Federal Acquisition Regulation: Disclosure 
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate-Related Financial Risk.''
  This disastrous rule proposed by the FAR Council has numerous 
constitutional, national security, and practical concerns, none of 
which have been adequately addressed by the FAR Council. However, as 
part of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee's ongoing 
investigation into the basis for this rule, it was uncovered that the 
CEQ, which does not possess rulemaking abilities, pushed the FAR 
Council to implement its radical agenda and publish this rule.
  First and foremost, this rule requires that all Federal contractors 
that do business worth more than $50 million with the Federal 
Government must disclose scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions.
  This rule also seeks to require major Federal contractors to comply 
with the Paris climate accords, which have never even been ratified by 
the Senate.
  The most objectionable part of this rule is the requirement that 
companies set climate targets and then have them validated by one 
specifically named company called Science Based Targets initiative, or 
SBTi. SBTi is a non-American, foreign, London-based company, which 
inherently carries national security concerns.
  Under this rule, every major Federal contractor, including companies 
critical to our national security and our defense industrial base, 
would have to provide this foreign-owned company with information about 
all of their scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions and then strategize on how to 
reduce them.
  Despite the existence of numerous American-based companies that could 
fill the same role, the FAR Council and CEQ chose a foreign company as 
the sole source provider because SBTi is nothing but a front for 
Democratic donors and advocacy groups.
  SBTi is owned by the We Mean Business Coalition, which is a project 
of the New Venture Fund, which is managed by the dark-money super-PAC 
known as Arabella Advisors. Arabella Advisors, for those who don't 
know, is the George Soros-funded leftwing advocacy group that funnels 
dark money into leftwing causes and candidates.
  To summarize, the Biden administration has named a subsidiary of one 
of their top donors, a leftwing, dark-money organization, as the sole 
source provider for all climate target validating for all major Federal 
Government contractors.
  During a hearing in the Science, Space, and Technology Committee on 
this rule, even the Democratic witness said that SBTi was a poor choice 
for this role, yet CEQ and the FAR Council forged ahead anyway.
  No Federal bureaucrat should be mandating that companies funnel money 
into the Democrats' dark-money operations. This is the very definition 
of corruption.
  As the head of CEQ, Brenda Mallory played an integral role in pushing 
for this rule. Her salary must be defunded.
  I look forward to working with Chairman Lucas, Chairman Obernolte, 
and all of my colleagues on the Science, Space, and Technology 
Committee to expose the corruption behind this proposed rule and halt 
its finalization and implementation.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support 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 oppose this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).
  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 New York 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 92 Offered by Ms. Tenney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 92 
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out Executive Order 14019 (863 Fed. Reg. 
     13623; relating to promoting access to voting), except for 
     sections 7, 8, and 10 of such Order.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1370, the gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Tenney) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment No. 92 to the 
Interior appropriations bill to prohibit funding for President Biden's 
Executive Order No. 14019, titled: ``Executive Order on Promoting 
Access to Voting.''
  This order requires Federal agencies to use their power, influence, 
resources, and Federal funding to enter into agreements with 
nongovernmental organizations to conduct voter registration and other 
mobilization activities.
  Mr. Chair, this executive order is nothing but a blatant attempt to 
transform the Federal Government into a partisan get-out-the-vote 
machine for Democrats. The Department of the Interior and the 
Environmental Protection Agency should be completely nonpartisan and 
should not be using taxpayer funds and resources to actively engage in 
get-out-the-vote operations that have nothing to do with the 
departments' core missions, not to mention the obvious mission creep 
and Hatch Act violations that this activity triggers.
  Mr. Chair, President Biden should not be weaponizing Federal agencies

[[Page H4890]]

and the Federal Government, using American taxpayer dollars to 
manipulate and steer our elections in a partisan manner.
  Let me be clear. The Department of the Interior is actively carrying 
out Executive Order No. 14019. The Heritage Foundation has subpoenaed 
numerous documents and emails related to the Department of the 
Interior's implementation of this radical executive order, including 
this interim plan, which, for the record, is fully redacted. Mr. Chair, 
I wonder why the Department would fully redact this plan if it had 
nothing to hide.
  As the cofounder and chair of the Election Integrity Caucus, it is my 
privilege to introduce this amendment to restore transparency and 
confidence in our democratic process while keeping partisan Federal 
bureaucrats and the swamp, literally, from deliberately tipping the 
balance at the ballot box.
  I stand firmly behind the concept of one citizen, one vote, as 
enshrined in our Constitution. However, I do not support this blatantly 
partisan mobilization of the Federal Government for political purposes.
  The funds appropriated in this bill should be used as intended, such 
as to protect public lands for hunting and fishing, not implementing a 
partisan get-out-the-vote initiative using Federal dollars and Federal 
employees.
  Mr. Chair, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment, 
which will preserve election integrity and stop the Biden 
administration from transforming the Department of the Interior into a 
get-out-the-vote, partisan machine for the Democrats.
  Let's make voting great again.
  Mr. Chair, 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.
  Mr. Chair, the right to vote is a foundation of American democracy. 
Free and fair elections are a hallmark of our country, and all 
Americans should have the opportunity to exercise their right to vote 
without confronting obstacles.
  The laws of the United States prohibit racial discrimination, but we 
are aware of instances where Americans in certain communities are 
confronted with long lines at the polls or barriers to their 
participation. I am disappointed that my colleague would want to 
restrict funding for this executive order that strives to make voter 
registration easier, expand access to information, and make voting more 
accessible.
  My colleagues across the aisle talk about protecting First Amendment 
and Second Amendment rights, yet Republicans would prohibit funding for 
efforts to ensure the basic democratic right for every American to 
vote.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Chair, I respectfully disagree with my colleague's 
interpretation of this bill.
  I can't think of anything worse than having people who are on an 
important mission working in the Department of the Interior or other 
agencies engage in partisan get-out-the-vote efforts, being at the 
polls, and helping people vote.
  That is not their job. That is the job of the States. Each one of the 
States is required under law to make sure to administer our elections, 
to be sure that we have one citizen, one vote, and that we have free 
and fair elections and access to voting. That is not the job of the 
Federal Government. In fact, Federal employees are prohibited from this 
kind of illegal activity under the Hatch Act.
  For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and 
prohibit our dollars and our employees from being forced to engage in 
partisanship at the ballot box instead of working on keeping our 
communities safe and keeping our environment free from some of the 
interference that we are seeing from the Biden administration.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 93 Offered by Mr. Tiffany

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 93 
printed in part B of House Report 118-602.
  Mr. TIFFANY. 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:

       On page 117, beginning on line 14, strike ``roads that are 
     no longer needed, including''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 1370, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Chair, my amendment strikes funding in the bill to 
close existing Forest Service roads. Maintaining and expanding access 
to our public lands has been a priority for me and many of my 
colleagues on the Natural Resources Committee this Congress.
  Another lesser-known but equally important threat to access is the 
closure and decommissioning of roads and trails. Since 1991, the Forest 
Service has decommissioned an average of 2,000 miles of roads per year. 
Public lands across the Nation are under threat from big-city 
environmental groups that are hellbent on restricting public access to 
our shared public lands.
  Shutting down these avenues for access doesn't just limit 
opportunities for recreational opportunities, like hunting, fishing, 
and ATVing, but it also makes responsible management efforts more 
difficult and expensive. That is exactly their goal.
  My subcommittee saw these road closures firsthand in the Chequamegon-
Nicolet National Forest in my district during a field hearing in May. 
It is not a coincidence that many of these local road closures 
correlate with the decline in the local forest products industry, the 
same industry that helps keep our forests and the communities that 
depend on them healthy and vibrant.
  Forest Service roads can also act as an important firebreak for 
wildfires and allow quicker access for fighting them.
  The language of decommissioning roads that are no longer needed is 
quite vague. In my experience, the Forest Service has not been very 
good about coordinating with local communities before closing roads 
that many people use.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. Chair, why are we spending tax dollars to close roads we spent 
tax money to build?
  It makes no sense.
  Let's make a U-turn on the harmful policy and stop throwing up 
roadblocks that make it more difficult for Americans to visit these 
special places. I ask for a ``yes'' vote on the 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, this amendment would be detrimental to the 
Forest Service's ability to maintain quality fisheries and safe public 
drinking water.
  Decommissioning of roads is a critical tool in the management of the 
National Forest System that allows the service to remove roads that are 
no longer necessary and are likely to cause resource damages to the 
local watershed affecting fish habitat and water quality.
  Decommissioning is used judiciously within the National Forest 
System, and it is necessary for the Forest Service to ensure that the 
removal of the road will have little to no impact to public access or 
fire suppression. Often, when one road is decommissioned, another 
existing road is identified as the alternative access to the local area 
which allows access to be maintained. This is an unnecessary amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose it, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Chair, I wish the gentlewoman would have been with 
us on our tour in May in northern Wisconsin. She would have heard from 
local people, local elected officials, State elected officials, and 
others who are harmed by these road closures that are happening.
  The waste of tax dollars is very significant. We saw perfectly fine 
roads

[[Page H4891]]

that had been constructed to do logging projects and then they were 
removed.
  We heard from a couple of elderly ladies who are berry pickers, which 
is a favorite pastime of many people up in northern Wisconsin at this 
time of year. They used to go out there and be able to pick berries now 
and then. They can no longer do that.
  This is denying access to the very people who want to use our public 
lands that are taken care of with their tax dollars. There is no reason 
to close these roads. These roads have been active, oftentimes for 
decades, with no problems, and it is not rational to use the argument 
that this is going to harm the watershed.
  If you come to some of the areas that we toured on our trip in May, 
you will see some of the finest waters that you will find in northern 
Wisconsin, and they were that way when these roads were active. There 
is no reason that we should be closing and decommissioning these roads.
  Mr. Chair, 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 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Kelly of Pennsylvania) having assumed the chair, Mr. Smith of Nebraska, 
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.

                          ____________________