WATER for California

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, this amendment eliminates the funding for the Delaware River Basin Commission, the funding that is from the Federal Government.

Unfortunately, this bill provides nearly three quarters of a million dollars to the Delaware River Basin Commission, meaning that since 1998, the Federal Government has provided funding of some sort to this commission full of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats that have unilaterally, in this case, instituted a hydraulic fracturing ban for a portion of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, literally stripping away the property and mineral rights from Pennsylvanians in direct contravention of the will of the legislature.

These people aren't elected by anybody. They are not accountable to anybody. Most people have no idea who the people on this commission even are.

The result is a prohibition on the development of critical shale plays in eastern Pennsylvania that can bring desperately needed natural gas to the market and the unconstitutional taking of mineral rights of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Americans are having unelected bureaucrats take their rights away.

It is an attack on Pennsylvania energy and American energy. At a time when residential natural gas prices are near record highs, it creates significant inflation, cost-of-living increases for our constituents, and empowers our enemies abroad.

Now, instead of taking action to stop this unconstitutional seizure of State authority, as my other amendment that was not made in order would have done, or better yet, dissolving the compact altogether, this bill, as it currently exists, rewards the radical commissioners with money from the very taxpayers the Delaware River Basin Commission is attacking.

Providing funds to such an out-of-control, radical commission is a step in the wrong direction that incentivizes others like it to follow.

This amendment that I am offering would rescind this money and move it to the spending reduction account, ensuring that we do not further incentivize this commission to attack American energy and the rights of Pennsylvania while trying to pay off some of our $33 trillion of debt.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and send a message to these unelected bureaucrats by supporting this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague says that it costs mere pennies. These mere pennies add up to mere dollars. These mere dollars add up to thousands, eventually millions and eventually billions, which is where we are right now.

It talks about return on investments. It talks about it but it doesn't say what the return on investment is, because there isn't any return on investment.

It provides immense value, it is claimed. Yet, the value cannot be described. It cannot be quantified. No one knows what the value is.

Will the Delaware River Basin go away if the Commission were not there? Are you saying without the Commission there would be no safe drinking water?

The actions that this commission has taken are unfounded, unjustified, and are happening nowhere else. Yet, there is clean drinking water across the rest of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania without this commission banning public and private activity.

My colleague says it is necessary funding. Necessary for what? What are we getting for this? Somebody is getting something, but the people of Pennsylvania, they are getting the shaft.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would say I dispute the claim that they work in collaboration.

The Delaware River Basin Commission itself, in contravention of the Pennsylvania legislature, has banned the practice all over northern Pennsylvania. Hydraulic fracturing; banned it in contravention of the will and the wishes of the elected members of the Pennsylvania legislature.

I would say this as well: The Corps of Engineers can do this work whether there is a commission or not, or whether this money is here or not. The Corps of Engineers has wide latitude to do that work all across the country. They don't need our involvement.

Finally, the individual States involved in this compact, that is why they got into the compact. They charge people in the individual States all kinds of permit fees and regulatory fees to pay for this Commission. Yet, somehow the Commission can't survive without more money from the Federal Government. It is ridiculous, it is duplicative, it is costly, it is unaffordable, it is unnecessary, and it needs to end.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes $35 million in funding for the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations.

For those unfamiliar with this office, according to its website, it accelerates the market adoption of clean energy technologies and fills a critical innovation gap on the path to 100 percent clean energy by 2035 and net zero emissions by 2050.

I am going to characterize it a different way. Since the real market, the private market won't do it, you are going to pay for it under force by your taxes so that you can have less reliable energy as soon as possible, and we can be less energy independent. That is what it does, courtesy of your Federal Government.

It funds projects like long-duration energy storage and distributed energy systems to support the electric grid for electric vehicles, which are also being subsidized by your Federal Government under force of penalty of you not paying your taxes. It is astounding.

The Democrats continue to push this technology when the drawbacks of this so-called clean energy technology are clear.

The actual grid is being powered by solar and wind energy sources that are inherently unreliable and don't work when the Sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.

Battery technology storage is not there, and of course, all that stuff that I just talked about comes from China, and oh, by the way, built with slave labor, whether that is in Turkistan or whether that is in the Congo.

Your tax dollars are supporting it under penalty of law. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens then.

Vehicles powered by this grid are built largely using slave labor like I just talked about and our reliance on the Communist Party of China since they control all the necessary components in the mineral supply chains.

Not that we don't have them in America. They say they are rare earth minerals. Mr. Chairman, they are not rare.

We just can't mine them in America because the left doesn't allow that, so now we have got to buy them from China. That is another story.

Vehicles powered by this grid are built largely, like I said, using slave labor and the supply chains that go with them.

These vehicles have limited range. Their lithium batteries often catch fire. Those fires are more difficult to extinguish than traditional fires.

This office that I am talking about is also managing $2.5 billion for carbon capture facilities and greenhouse gas monitoring technology.

Mr. Chair, if these technologies were so great, why isn't the market already adopting and innovating without taxpayer-funded handouts?

My friends on the other side of the aisle will tell you these are critical investments, and they are not going to happen if the Federal Government doesn't do them. If we don't take your tax dollars and spend it on this, it ain't going to happen.

My goodness. Thank goodness that this country didn't become the greatest country on the planet without the Federal Government subsidizing all this stuff.

I don't know how Thomas Edison would have made it. I don't know how Ford Motor Company would have made it without the Federal Government. Somehow they did it, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that the chairman did not approve additional funds for these clean demonstration projects, but my amendment strikes all the funds for this office.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I certainly respect the good gentleman from Tennessee, and I thank him for the time.

I don't know. It seems like a lot of money still remaining for project management oversight. That doesn't seem to be billions of dollars' worth of spending to me; maybe millions, but not billions.

As far as advanced reactor research, I am proud to say that in the district that I represent, some of the fusion reactor research that is being done in France is being produced in the district I represent, which is awesome, but we don't need to be paying for it. France is paying for it, and we are providing some expertise and some material.

Oh, by the way, the good gentleman from Tennessee, much of the home of nuclear fission and nuclear energy is in the United States of America. God bless America. I think it is awesome. When have we built a nuclear reactor in the United States of America? I know the district that I represent just shut one down.

We are paying for all this research. Tell me where it is. What does it provide? What does it produce? It doesn't produce anything.

If it was building nuclear reactors, maybe I could see it, but it seems to me we are paying for it and putting the research on the shelf, or worse yet, giving it to France.

Mr. Chairman, I don't care what it costs. It ought to end. I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts $35 million from this bill for the Appalachian Regional Commission, lowering the funding level in this bill to $165 million.

The IIJA provided the Appalachian Regional Commission with an advanced appropriation of $200 million a year--the entirety of its authorization level for fiscal year 2022 through 2026, meaning every dollar provided under this bill is more than the authorization level. We authorize things here and then we pay for them. It is authorized at a lower level, and we are paying much more.

In other words, under this amendment the ARC would receive $365 million for the fiscal year rather than $400 million provided by this underlying bill. Even with this minimal cut under this amendment, the program funding is still extremely bloated, and its effectiveness remains unclear, as do all the regional commissions.

Moreover, this Commission's programs are duplicative of other Federal economic development programs and better addressed by State and local levels. In fact, the fiscal year 2018 budget justification identified that the Appalachian Regional Commission failed to show a strong link between grants and a positive impact on the communities they serve.

Worse, this year, the Commission's inspector general identified the massive increase in the Commission's funding over recent years as a threat to its variability to evaluate grant proposals, measure program performance, and conduct appropriate oversight.

When we were talking about the last one, we needed the money for oversight. This one, we have got so much money that they can't oversee it. This is your Federal Government at work here. The spike in funding threatens to worsen an already tenuous link between funding and success.

We simply must bring the funding level for the ARC, the Appalachian Regional Commission, down to ensure that it has the capacity to ensure it meets its mission.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it just so happens that I had a hearing about a week ago on the Appalachian Regional Commission and all the other commissions. It is interesting that this has been around since the 1960s. There was a map of the Appalachian region, of which the home that I reside in looks on the south mountain of the Appalachian mountain range. I live right in the center of this thing.

What was interesting to me of the map that I looked at provided by the Commission since the 1960s, showed counties that had reached attainment. Well, none of them had reached attainment. It has been around since the 1960s. All the ones that hadn't reached attainment in the 1960s still haven't reached attainment in 2023. We are spending all this money, and we are not getting anything for it. Well, we are getting some things for it. You might be able to get a theater in your community, reconstructed with the help of the Federal Government, or a trail, which is awesome. These are great programs, and I am not here to argue that they are not.

What I am arguing is two things. It is not the job of the Federal Government, number one. These are things done by local communities and States.

Two, this is above the authorization. This commission was authorized funding. I don't dispute that. However, we are spending money above the authorization, and I do dispute that because we are $30-some trillion in debt with nothing in sight except more debt.

People say that we can't cut anything, that there is nowhere to cut. Well, we authorized this. This body authorized this at a lower level, and then we appropriated at a higher level.

When you don't have any more money, when you are borrowing money to pay your bills, it seems to me that it would be easy to say that we will just pull back a little here, just a little, and we will go to what is authorized, which is still a lot, hundreds of millions of dollars. I guess that is going to be a problem here, though.

This has no Federal nexus whatsoever. I will tell you, there are nice people working here. They want to do great things for their community. However, this is a boondoggle. This is spending money where other money can be spent and is being spent. This is a duplication of services.

Sooner or later, this town is going to have to realize the taxpayer doesn't have any more money to be bled out of their pockets to spend on things that are spent elsewhere for the same projects, local, State, et cetera.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts the funding to the Delta Regional Authority by $6.1 million, back to the FY19 level.

In FY17, the Obama administration sought to cut funding for the Delta Regional Authority by $3 million. The FY18, FY19, FY20, and FY21 budgets all sought to eliminate funding for the Delta Regional Authority, identifying it as duplicative of other Federal economic development programs.

Mr. Chair, just like I said before on the last one, it is the same thing here. I just had a hearing on it. These folks sat in front of me and made the same arguments.

The FY21 budget pointed out that the Delta Regional Authority, like others, is set aside for special geographic designations rather than applied across the country based on objective criteria indicating local areas and levels of distress that, again, don't seem to ever be addressed even though we spend millions of dollars.

We are $33 trillion in the hole. I don't know if you looked at the economics and the financials of just the last couple of months, how much more we have gone into debt in just the last couple of months. Something has to shock the conscience of this Congress because it is shocking the conscience of the American people who can't afford groceries, gasoline, car payments, or credit card payments. Heaven forbid you have to buy a new car. Heaven forbid you try to buy a new home.

We simply can't continue to allow for the rapid growth of parochial commissions that duplicate, literally just duplicate, other Federal programs undeterred. Regardless of the duplication of the Federal programs, most of the stuff looks like it is local programs or State programs--again, worthy things. The question is, is there a Federal nexus here? There is not in many cases. There is poor oversight, and we don't have the money to do it.

Finally, this is not a partisan issue. Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents have all called for either the abolishment or the reduction of these commissions. Both have done it. It is not a partisan issue. It is a fiscal issue. It is a responsibility issue.

These things need to be dealt with. State and locals should do it if that is what they are. We don't have the money at the Federal level anymore for that.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, certainly, I congratulate the gentlewoman and her great State for the success of all the House of Representatives today and their contribution.

On this occasion, though, I must disagree. As I said, I just had a hearing with the Delta Regional Authority present, and she is right, it targets hundreds of communities, as do all of these commissions. They target hundreds of communities.

One of the things that was fascinating to me was I asked for the metrics by which anything is measured. What measure of success does anyone have? Is there some standard? Is there some way to know whether all of these millions of dollars that are being spent actually get us anywhere, actually fix anything, actually do anything other than: We made sure the grants all got out, and we helped with the grant writing. We fixed up the sidewalk. We fixed up the theater. We provided some healthcare.

Those are all awesome things that are all being provided by someone else, by the way.

What was the metric by which they measured their success? Close your eyes. What do you see? That is what I got back. Nothing. There is no measure of success here.

Mr. Chair, this is well intended. It is well meaning. However, it is unaffordable and unnecessary.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces funding for the Denali Commission by $2 million to the FY19 level.

The Denali Commission's mission for providing job training and other economic development services in rural Alaska can be better served by the 29 other Federal programs in which it duplicates the very same efforts.

The Obama administration sought to eliminate funding for the commission in FY12 because it was duplicative back then and did not select projects based on competition or merit. Say it ain't so, but it is so.

In 2013, the inspector general for the Denali Commission called for the elimination of the program. Some people say: Perry, you are just mean. You just don't understand. You just don't want to help poor people or rural people.

I came from a house with no running water, no electricity, and no plumbing. We had an outhouse out back. There was no insulation. There was no heat in it. The roads weren't paved. Somehow, I made it to Congress. It wasn't the Federal Government's job to fix my mom's house or get me to work.

In 2013, the inspector general for the commission called for the elimination of the program, like I said, stating that he recommended that Congress put its money elsewhere. I am happy to take his recommendation.

The Trump administration, likewise, sought to eliminate the commission in FY18, FY19, FY20, and FY21. It seems imprudent to continually fund yet another parochial commission in the face of two administrations--one Democratic, one Republican--and the inspector general's recommendation that we cease funding.

At a bare minimum, we should pass this amendment to keep the Denali Commission's funding flat at its pre-COVID-19 level and not allow for its continued growth. I am not asking to eliminate it. I am saying, oh my goodness, two administrations said it ought to be eliminated. The inspector general said it should be gone. I am not even taking their advice on that. I am just saying, let's save a little money here because we have this debt we can't afford.

Mr. Chairman, I have been to places where the country could no longer afford the debt that it had. You walk through shells of buildings just abandoned, walked away from by the workers who were there, that were once funded by their government. I have watched that in this town, right across the river at St. Elizabeth's, where they just shut the doors, couldn't afford it anymore, and walked away.

It is a tragic sight, but if we are going to keep going, it is not going to be just this place that does it. It is going to be all across the country. If we are going to be able to afford the things that we want, we are going to have to make some difficult choices.

We are taking in $5 trillion this year. We are spending $7.2 trillion. I am not a mathematician, but somehow that is not adding up to me.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will close quickly here. I sure appreciate the good gentleman from Tennessee. He has a lot to work with, and he has a lot of competing interests here. It is not easy. We certainly can appreciate that.

I want to point out that this is a regional commission, a regional commission like the other ones, like the Appalachian Regional Commission, like the Delta Regional Authority. Only this one exists in only one place, in Alaska. It is a wonderful place. Alaska is a great place, part of the United States of America, but tax dollars from across the country, including Pennsylvania, Tennessee, or Ohio, shouldn't go to pay for local projects that can be handled by State and local governments, especially when you are borrowing money to do it. We are out of money. We are out.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Mr. Norman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, apparently, I was the reasonable one in the room because this amendment offered by Mr. Norman would eliminate funding for the Denali Commission, and I can support that as well.

The Denali Commission is one of seven regional commissions that help direct Federal funds to State and local projects. However, unlike other commissions, the Denali Commission serves only one State--Alaska.

This has led some, including the Office of the Inspector General for the Denali Commission, to question the need for the commission since the Federal funds handled by the commission could easily be distributed to the State of Alaska and other local entities without going through the step of yet one more bureaucracy.

After all, State and local governments are more knowledgeable and better equipped than the Federal Government to address the needs of local communities. I think we all would recognize that.

Both the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office have raised concerns about the need for the Denali Commission, as have I.

Eliminating funding for the Denali Commission was also suggested, as you know, by the Obama administration and the Trump administration. At a time when our growing national debt has surpassed $33 trillion, we cannot continue to use taxpayer dollars to fund wasteful, unnecessary, and duplicative programs. With the Denali Commission's own OIG, Office of Inspector General, highlighting how wasteful the agency is, why don't we just listen and eliminate this unnecessary Federal agency.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the kind gentleman from Tennessee for averring or implying that I am the reasonable one in the debate here, and I would, on behalf of the gentleman from South Carolina, urge adoption.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer this amendment to reduce funding for the Northern Border Regional Commission, or the NBRC, to fiscal year 2019 levels.

Like other regional commissions, the NBRC provides economic development assistance to projects in various States, in this case, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont.

These commissions simply serve as a slush fund, though, for parochial and regional projects with little to no national nexus as described in the other ones.

Let's take a look at some of the funded programs taken from the 2022 annual report, which is the latest report available: 304,000 to purchase the sound system for an auditorium in New Hampshire; over 350,000 to expand rail yard capacity in upstate New York; and another $350,000 for a sailing center on Lake Champlain.

I am sure they are awesome projects. I am sure their communities love them. I just don't understand why people in Ohio, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Texas, California, Georgia--you name it--are paying for this, especially when they can't afford the bills they already have as evidenced by a $33 trillion debt and a $2.2 trillion deficit this year.

Furthermore, the Biden administration's aim to inject their misguided diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility, and climate-related goals into these projects are not only unaffordable, they are just completely unnecessary.

Instead of pandering to special interest groups, we must pare back these wasteful programs that only serve as a boondoggle for a limited slice of America. This amendment does not zero out the commission's funding; it simply reduces the funding to pre-COVID, pre-Biden spending levels, which everybody on this side of the aisle voted against last December.

If you were against them last December, we are getting pretty close to this December, but I don't think a whole lot has changed. If you were against them then, you should be against them now.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I agree with my good friend from Tennessee. I agree with the gentlewoman, my friend from Ohio. It does seek to create jobs. That is awesome.

It is not the role of the Federal Government, number one. Number two, it is unaffordable. Number three, we have no way to measure the success.

Do you know how I know? Because I asked the folks that run these things. I asked them. What metric do you use to measure the success by which you use this money and what do we get out of it?

I received blank stares, unfortunately.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer this amendment to reduce funding for the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, the SCRC, to fiscal year 2019.

I don't want to leave anybody out here. I listened to them all. Yet again, this commission serves as a duplicative slush fund for parochial interests for projects in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.

Literally, by the way, in counties bordering Washington, D.C. We are talking about distressed counties, right? Some of the richest counties in the country right here are included in this regional commission.

From FY 2010 to FY 2020, the SCRC received $250,000 annually, all without having an appointed Federal co-chair. Did anybody get that?

Nobody was in charge but to get money. It is awesome. I guess that only happens in the Federal Government.

Now, after a co-chair was appointed in December 2021--unfortunately, whether you like it or not, just conveniently related to an influential politician in this body--that number is now a whopping $20 million in this bill.

Now, I am sure there is no coincidence. I just want to rely on everybody's integrity here, but there is absolutely no reason for the dramatic increase in funding, especially when these projects fund both projects with no national nexus like electric vehicle charging stations.

If you want to have them in your community, God bless you. That is awesome. Go pay for them. It is not the Federal Government's job to pay for that any more than it is the Federal Government's job to pay for your local gas station.

How about stormwater management? It is an important issue. I come from Pennsylvania, we have got a lot of stormwater. I am not asking the Federal Government to deal with it. We should deal with that at home, as well as green infrastructure, according to the SCRC's 2023 through 2027 strategic plan.

Our constituents do not have money for these projects that have no impact on their lives and, in many cases, drive up inflationary spending.

Oh, sure, they have an impact where you live if you live in one of these places, but if you don't, you get to pay anyhow. This is why we have State governments. This is why we have local governments.

The Federal Government is supposed to be there, obviously, but it is not the job of the Federal Government. Again, I ask my colleagues to consider reducing, not ending, the funding for this regional commission.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I, again, say this commission includes Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. I have been to every one of them. Many of the residents of Pennsylvania are moving to those States because they are doing pretty well.

We lose population compared to these States every 10 years, which is why we lose a seat in Congress every 10 years. We are spending money in Pennsylvania on these States. We are not spending in Pennsylvania; we are spending in these States, so our residents then move to these States for all the great things.

When I asked the regional commissioner how much money has been spent in the counties surrounding Washington, D.C.--because, as you recall, Virginia is included--how much money is spent on the counties right around Washington, D.C., some of the most wealthy counties in the country? I couldn't get the answer to that either. I don't know if they don't have the answer or they don't want to give me the answer, but that is unacceptable. That is unacceptable. The counties around Washington, D.C., can afford the amenities they have and they don't have to ask all these other States to pay for them.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to leave anybody out. We are getting to the end here. This amendment would be to have the funding for the Southwest Border Regional Commission.

Now, this Commission, which only had its first chairman confirmed in 2022 and only was funded starting in fiscal year 2021, funds projects in the southern border regions of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.

Incidentally, the first chairman was previously the Director of Economic Development and Special Initiatives for Senator Martin Heinrich, who continues a theme of politically connected chairman of these regional commissions, just to let you know.

I know that folks on both sides of the aisle care about the border. I believe that. However, the answer to solving border problems is to actually enforce our Nation's immigration laws, not to give $5 million to a commission that has not published a strategic plan and does not even appear to have a website.

I would think they could afford to have a website with $5 million.

The Commission received $250,000 in FY21 but is now being funded at $5 million in this bill for FY24 for literally no results.

Now $250,000 is a lot of money where I come from, and $5 million is even more. I can see inflation; I could see the cost of living going up. The people that I represent, their grocery costs are 20 percent up; fuel costs, electricity costs, everything they pay for is up, but not $250,000 to $5 million. That is a little bit more of a jump than everybody is used to.

Again, this amendment simply strikes this figure in half to a still exorbitant $2.5 million.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate my good friend from Arizona. We are sure happy to have him here, as well as the gentleman from Tennessee, and the work that they have done in collaboration with my friends across the aisle. None of this is easy, but only in Washington can you go from $250,000 to $2.5 million and still call it a cut because you didn't go to $5 million, which is what we are talking about.

I am not saying $250,000 is too much, but I am saying $5 million is too much, and saying we should spend $2.5 million, which quite honestly for me is too much, but I get it.

To the gentleman from Arizona's point, he is absolutely right, their States are being ravaged and destroyed by the Federal Government's refusal and obstinance to follow the law and allowing people to flow across the border illegally into their communities and destroy their communities.

This cannot be afforded. It can't be afforded by them and it can't be afforded by anybody else. The solution is not to spend more money there, to provide more services and encourage more people to come in illegally while this administration refuses to enforce the law.

I think the gentleman would probably agree with at least that sentiment at some point. I understand he is trying to do right by his citizens, and he should. The best way to do right by his citizens, and he has no control of this, neither does anybody in this body at this moment, is to actually enforce the law. The President can do that and clear up this whole disagreement on this side of the aisle and on that side of the aisle, but that is not going to happen any time soon.

You know what else is not going to happen any time soon, Mr. Chairman? We are not going to quit putting our country in debt and bankrupting it. We are taking in $5 trillion in revenue this year but we are going to spend $7.2.

While my good friend says this will have no impact on the overall cost of the bill, where I come from, $250,000 is a lot of money, $2.5 million is a huge amount of money, and $5 million is an obscene amount of money that most people don't have. While it might have a little impact in this town, it has a huge impact in my town.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to leave anybody out here on the abuse and the waste, and I know I am going to sound like a broken record so I will try and keep it short.

First, the Great Lakes Authority has only been authorized since 2022. It still does not have a Federal co-chair, it has no website, it has no programs funded. Yet strangely, it is still receiving Federal dollars to the tune of $5 million for projects supposedly in the watershed regions of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Yes, I said Pennsylvania, and I am from Pennsylvania, but when you can't afford things and you are wasting money, I don't care where you are from, you have to say something about it.

Mr. Chair, we have seen how the other commissions have gone. President Trump urged the elimination of three of them, and President Obama recommended cuts and elimination for the Denali Commission. With that level of bipartisan criticism of the existing commissions, I don't see why we need to dig ourselves even deeper with yet another one. I mean, there is not a lot we agree on in this town, but apparently there is some agreement on this. We ought to try and forge ahead with that agreement.

I know people in this building will scoff at the difference between $2.5 million and $5 million, but like I said, where I come from, $2.5 million or $5 million is a lot of money. It might not be to the President who buys beach homes with cash and all that stuff, but where I come from, that is a lot of money. That $2.5 million should not be going toward a commission that cannot even begin operations without a Senate-confirmed Federal co-chair. It shouldn't be going for that. There is nobody there to administer it.

Furthermore, all of us here know it is not going to stop at $5 million. This is just the beginning, Mr. Chairman. This Commission, like the rest, will balloon up to tens of millions of dollars if Congress, using the power of its purse, does not put its foot down. This won't be the only commission. I have been through them all tonight. Every other State and region is going to say, well, shoot, they have one. They have one over there. They have one down there. Why don't we have one? It is going to go.

Again, I would just remind everybody that we are just a little bit in debt--just a little bit--$2.2 trillion this year, $33 trillion overall.

Mr. Chair, somebody has to say no. Somebody has to say no.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I understand and recognize the good, intended efforts, the heartfelt efforts of the committee members and on both sides of the aisle, certainly the Members representing the States involved. I understand and I recognize that, and I think they mean to do well.

There is nobody there to administer this. There is nobody present, but we are going to give them the money anyhow. We don't have any money to give, Mr. Chairman. We are borrowing money to give to a program with nobody there to administer it on projects that we haven't even seen yet. I don't know about you, but that seems like, to borrow an old phrase, putting the cart before the horse, or something like that.

People are going to say, well, we have to have the money so we can set it up. Okay, fair enough. The problem is we don't have the money.

Again, I don't mean to be a broken record here--I know I sound like one--we don't have any money, number one.

Number two, these are State and local projects. If you are showing me one that crosses State lines, and building a highway between Pennsylvania and Ohio or something like that, then we have a conversation going.

Now, there are already agencies and administrations to do that--we talked about that before--multiple agencies doing the same things, not just a couple, a couple dozen, but if that is not enough for you, just go with the fact that your constituents, your bosses, my bosses, can't afford this.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate Chair Fleischmann very, very much for his serious attention to our complex bill and his cordiality and very constructive attitude throughout.

I begin by thanking our diligent staff for all their hard work on this bill. On the minority staff, I thank Scott McKee, Jocelyn Hunn, and Adam Wilson. On the majority staff, I thank Angie Giancarlo, Perry Yates, Nora Khalil, Richie O'Connell, Scott Prutting, and Janet Harrington. On my personal staff, I thank Margaret McInnis and Mayely Boyce.

As we work on this Energy and Water bill, I place in the Record how deeply saddened I am by the passing of our dear colleague in the other body, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who dedicated the best years of her life to our country.

As Energy and Water appropriators, Dianne and all of us worked closely over many years to protect the waters of the United States and to build a brighter, cleaner energy future and to assure America's nuclear capabilities are secure.

Her acute mastery of the energy, water, and security needs of our Nation had no comparison, and her dignified, noble public service is truly a great loss to our Nation.

There is not time during our bill's consideration today to fully express my thoughts, but I am so deeply saddened for California's loss, for our Nation's loss, and for all who grieve the loss of the longest- serving woman in Senate history.

All I or any of us can do is laud Senator Dianne Feinstein's productive career of exemplary effective public service. Rest in peace, my dear friend.

We consider this important measure at a moment in which the United States economy is growing at record rates, producing historic levels of job growth due to the laws enacted by the last Congress.

With historic job growth, revenues are now coming into the private sector and the Federal Government at much higher levels than before because post-pandemic, millions more people are working. Companies are earning money.

The American people again are doing what America does best: being productive and leaving our Nation to the future in better condition than we found it.

Indeed, this gross domestic product/debt chart clearly illustrates as a result of robust economic growth, our Nation has bent the debt curve as a percentage of GDP for the first time in modern history.

Here we go. It is going down. That is where we want it to go, yes. We are beginning to pay down our Nation's accumulated debt, largely amassed from the costs of past wars, the old debts that were not paid for by those that conducted them at the time.

Then we had the pandemic and, sadly, over several decades, the tax cuts that were enacted allowed the wealthiest and most productive powerful corporations in our country not to carry their fair share of the tax load. I think it is important that everyone share in our Nation's responsibilities.

In this context, I must offer that I am unable to concur with my able colleague, Chairman Fleischmann, on this particular appropriation bill. I prefer a more realistic energy and water allocation that meets the critical energy and water needs of our Nation, not just for today but for the energy independence and the water security for America in perpetuity. We are not out of the woods on this, we have got a lot of work to do.

Energy and water security are national security--think about it. Yet, the nondefense spending in this bill is $6.4 billion lower--25 percent lower--than last year's effective level. That is a radical, irresponsible reduction. It repeals over $5 billion for critical energy programs from the Inflation Reduction Act that would have helped American families save money on their monthly energy bills while simultaneously creating thousands of jobs, good-paying jobs, in new energy technologies.

For energy and water needs, it is not an overstatement to say people in our Nation live or die by decisions being made here in Congress.

Since World War II, America has paid a terrible price for its unconscious slide into foreign dependency on imported energy. While we have made strides toward energy independence after a half century of effort, starting in the late 1970s, we still haven't scored at the home plate of U.S. energy independence in perpetuity.

Recently, I read an article that said our country is going to import petroleum after 2040. Well, guess what? I am not voting for that. Our position must be to keep American energy and our people secure here at home. That is one of the major purposes of this bill.

Hasn't our Nation learned repeatedly the hard way that when gasoline prices top $4 a gallon, our economy is thrown into deep recession. It is pretty clear. It should be obvious why U.S. energy independence is so vital. No foreign power should ever again make America vulnerable.

Energy security is national security. We must ensure energy security within our own borders. We cannot depend on foreign sources in the event of energy disruptions that are natural or malignly concocted to do us harm.

Energy impacts every person's well-being. It allows our Nation to be free, and free of foreign malign influence. How well we know our Nation's fate can be impacted by events outside our borders.

News outlets are correctly reporting that Russia's unprovoked war on Ukraine is being waged on more than one front, surely including energy. Russia is known for manipulation of global oil and gas prices through reserves they control. In fact, global oil prices surged to nearly $100 per barrel in September after Saudi Arabia and Russia continued their curtailment of oil supplies.

The sharp escalation in geopolitical risk in the Middle East from the brutal Hamas terror attack in Israel has oil markets on edge. Check it out. Let us not forget that the Middle East accounts for more than one- third of the world's seaborne oil trade. Again, energy resources are intricately bound to the fate of liberty halfway around our world. Let us make our home front impenetrable.

Energy also allows our private sector and its workforce the ability to flourish in a modern economy with millions and millions upon millions of living wage jobs in energy production and conservation, across all sectors: natural gas, ethanol and biodiesel, nuclear, fossil fuels, thermal heat recovery, renewables, advancing sectors of hydrogen and fusion energy, and advanced nuclear platforms.

Meanwhile, imaginative energy conservation and other developing technologies are being created by America's amazing inventors in new building materials, solar and electrified windows, biofuels, geothermal and thermal heat recovery, wind and wave energy, to name but a few. America will never ever lose through power of invention because we are a free people.

Let me turn to our water responsibilities. New, major engineering challenges lie before America. Ask the citizens along the drought- stricken Mississippi and the Louisiana corridor as saltwater creeps north, or the flood victims in New York City.

Across our Nation, cities are having to manage water and wastewater loads for which they were not engineered. In rural America, farmers are losing crops because of increasing rainfall, an inability to manage water in their fields, and drainage systems that were built for another era. Frankly, a century or a century and a half ago. Well, times are changing.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation are needed now more than ever to handle regional approaches to new and changing water flows, whether it is down the Mississippi, along our coasts, in the Great Lakes, or the dry, irrigated West.

There is an old expression: ``Don't try to fool Mother Nature.'' I would say: Don't ignore Mother Nature. This is one such moment in American history. I must express the Energy and Water Appropriations bill before us is completely inadequate. It does not meet our country's needs in this new era of climate change.

If I need offer more proof, Americans and America are paying billions more in disaster relief. This country paid over $150 billion last year in disaster damage, significantly higher than the $60 billion average from the last 30 years. How about that--doubling and a half. Well, that is a big warning sign that one simply can't ignore.

We ought to be investing that money upfront to avoid those disasters by properly funding this bill. We must robustly meet the needs of the future, not flounder in the past.

In other areas of the bill, I continue to be troubled by the unsustainable spending in the Department of Energy's weapons programs. We know we have to keep a tight lid on them because they have a tendency to overspend when we don't watch.

Further, I am concerned how this bill cuts nuclear nonproliferation programs that reduce nuclear risks and counter the global challenge of nuclear proliferation.

Finally, the bill includes numerous controversial poison pill policy riders that sadly show extremist Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. America can and must do better on the new age frontiers of energy and water.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chair, I look forward to responding to my dear friend, former Chair Simpson. However, first, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, who does such a phenomenal job.

Mr. Chair, I wish to offer a few thoughts here regarding what our esteemed colleague, Mr. Simpson, said about the Federal balance sheet.

If you think of your own checkbook, when you work and earn money, you have an entry that is positive. You have a payroll check or earn interest on something. Then, if you have to pay a bill, you put a minus sign and subtract it, and you see what is left.

What is interesting about the arguments from the folks on the other side of the aisle is, they only talk about what is subtracted. They don't talk about what is being added. Both revenues and expenditures are a part of the Federal budget.

It is interesting to me. I have served in Congress for a while now, and the other side never talks about revenues. They only talk about expenditures. The interesting thing about revenues is when an economy is booming, you are bringing more revenue into the Federal Government. The Federal debt, as a percent of our economic prowess right now, is decreasing because we are growing the economy. What we are spending in this bill causes more economic growth. That is a good thing.

What the other side is not talking about is that there are a lot of free riders in our country, and they are not paying their fair share of revenues into the Treasury. We have to talk about that side of the budget, too. There are a lot of people who are what I call free riders. We are paying for them. Some of the richest people in this country and some of the biggest corporations aren't paying their fair share of the load. You have to look at both sides of the ledger.

I wanted to put that on the floor today in order to adopt the proper policies. It will be a most interesting discussion as we move forward with the new debt commission that has been formed. It will be interesting if they bring both pages in the ledger, both the revenues and the expenditures.

As our chart shows, the Federal debt, as a percent of GDP, is going down for the first time in modern history. We better not do anything that stops that because it is one of the answers, as well as getting those who are free riders to pay their fair share.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, Congress needs to write bills that meet our country's needs, and I reiterate my disappointment that the energy and water bill before us today does not adhere to the agreed to levels in the bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.

The American people are counting on us to work together, not draft partisan bills that will never become law.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment. I know it took a lot of effort on the part of the chair, and we appreciate your cooperation. The en bloc contains noncontroversial amendments from Members of both parties, and I have no objections. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

Let's be clear. This amendment reduces funding for the Army Corps of Engineers' investigations account by $715,000, with the amendment description's stated intent of eliminating funding for the Delaware River Basin Commission.

I will note that the actual bill language of the amendment only reduces funding for the account. It does not in any way eliminate funding for the Delaware River Basin Commission.

However, I vigorously oppose the stated intent behind this amendment, especially since the Delaware River Basin, which flows into the Delaware Bay and then into the Atlantic Ocean, covers over 13,000 square miles in four States.

As established by law through the Delaware River Basin Compact that went into effect in 1961, the Commission consists of the Army Corps of Engineers and the four basin State Governors. Those States include Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York.

The Corps of Engineers in these States work as equal partners for planning, development, and regulatory actions for the river basin. Frankly, all across the country we are facing issues that deal with very large watersheds and basins that in the past centuries and decades didn't face what we face today with water flows.

While the Commission's work could be further discussed, my strongest reason for opposition to this amendment is that the underlying bill provides $715,000 to the Delaware River Basin Commission as community project funding on behalf of two Members of this body. The community project funding process allows Members of Congress to request funding for their community to meet urgent needs that they identify. There is a rigorous process for vetting and inclusion of community project funding, including strict transparency and accountability rules. I am shocked that one Member would target another Member's community

project funding through an amendment on the floor.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank Congressman Neguse for yielding and compliment him on the hardworking representation of the people of Colorado.

There could not be a more complex water system than the one that his community is a part of, and most of America has no idea about the plumbing of the West, so I really compliment him.

I know that funding provided in this bill will help advance or complete projects to protect the Humpback Chub, Bonytail, Colorado Pikeminnow, and Razorback Sucker that are feeling the impacts of drought while allowing water development projects to proceed.

We know many reports, including one from the United Nations just a couple years ago, talked about the extinction of natural species across our country and world. We must combat these efforts to prevent biodiversity loss, particularly in areas like the Colorado River, which was diverted for the first time in American history recently. That is a showstopper by anyone's measure.

We need to provide the resources necessary to continue this collaborative work in the Upper Colorado and San Juan Basins.

I thank my colleague for his leadership on this. I also thank the chair of the subcommittee for his great effort to try to accommodate as many members as possible.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, first of all, I have great respect for the gentleman who offers this amendment, but I do find myself in the position of opposing it.

In step with the myriad amendments offered by Republicans to reduce leadership salaries, this amendment seeks to reduce funding for the Bureau of Reclamation's policy and administration account by $5 million, ostensibly to fund it at the fiscal year 2022 enacted level. However, in fiscal year 2022, $64.4 million was appropriated for policy and administration, so this amendment reduces this funding by $4.321 million below the fiscal year 2022 enacted level.

The Bureau of Reclamation brings water to 31 million people and is the second largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, producing enough electricity to serve 3.5 million homes. This account funds day-to-day Bureau of Reclamation management, administrative, and policy functions that are necessary to ensure effective and efficient implementation of all Bureau of Reclamation programs from which 31 million people receive water and 3.5 million homes receive electricity. That is a big job.

This account also funds the Office of the Commissioner and regional offices. This leadership is critical for ensuring that one in five Western farmers has irrigation water for 10 million acres of farmland that produce 60 percent of our Nation's vegetables and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts.

According to the United States Census Bureau, my colleague comes from a district of approximately 751,000 people, of which approximately 1.5 percent are in occupations related to farming, fishing, and forestry. I don't think the gentleman's amendment benefits his district.

With the West reeling from the historic megadrought, the worst in 1,200 years, where we have just had to divert the Colorado River for the first time in American history, why would any of my colleagues want to hamstring the Bureau of Reclamation's management and the direction and guidance necessary to achieve Reclamation-wide program and mission accomplishment? This is a moment in American history when we need to help them.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I hear what he is saying, but I think that we have to work harder together to embrace the future and not just depend on the past.

I agree with him on fossil fuels and rare earths. We visited the fossil fuel energy center in southwest Pennsylvania. I was fascinated by some of the work going on there. I think we need to fund it, and we are.

This amendment reduces funding for the Department of Energy's energy efficiency and renewable energy account by $1.2 billion, and I don't think that that places America in the position I want her to be in, which is number one in the world.

Now, that proposal is also on top of another $466 million reduction in the underlying bill itself and the $1 billion reduction incorporated by the manager's amendment.

This funding provides for clean, affordable, and secure energy and ensures American leadership in the transition to a global clean energy economy.

I will tell you, this past year in my region of the United States-- and it came here to Washington, ultimately--a very strange haze began floating down from Canada into the United States due to the forest fires up there and the changing nature of the environment. I have lived in the same place my whole life, and I never saw anything like that before. It ruined my rhododendron plant. All that gunk got all over it.

I was talking to a friend who came up from Florida, and he goes: Marcy, the winds took that all the way down to near the panhandle in Florida.

I said: Are you kidding me? It got down that far? The Earth's ecosystem is changing, and we have to catch up to Mother Nature.

The account being targeted funds the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of State and Community Energy Programs that supports important services like the Weatherization Assistance Program to save energy, the Office of Manufacturing and Energy Supply Chains, and the Federal Energy Management Program itself.

Those programs focus on energy technology ranging from biofuels--the first biofueled F-16 flew out of the 180th Fighter Wing in my district. That was a great moment. That was almost 15 years ago.

Biofuels have now become such an important part of our economy, as well as hydrogen, solar, wind, and a whole broad range of energy technologies to make America energy independent in perpetuity-- geothermal, what we are learning on that; advanced manufacturing; building efficiency and weatherization; and the list goes on.

Without these programs, we are jeopardizing U.S. leadership across a range of possibilities. The world is set to invest a record $1.8 trillion in clean energy in 2023, and that is expected to climb to $4.5 trillion by the year 2030. We want to be a leader. With $4.5 trillion per year on the line, we have the choice to embrace American leadership and invention.

Let me just mention that if the Department of Energy's goals are achieved, the hydrogen industry will produce $140 billion in revenue and over 700,000 jobs by 2030.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, but I am very happy to continue to work with the gentleman to find ways that we can reach accommodation.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding and rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

The underlying bill already cuts the energy efficiency and renewable energy program by $1.5 billion or 42 percent below last year.

Now, there are a lot of people that are complaining about that, and I would be the first one to say that our country should not cede any new markets or capitulate to global competitors in the field of energy.

I think that we have to keep our foot on the accelerator in many energy sectors. The gentleman is right. Texas has been a leader in so many ways; certainly in wind energy, but not just that.

In terms of the solar industry and how do we pay down the debts that prior Congresses and administrations racked up? We grow our economy.

By growing our economy, more revenues come in, and they are. They are coming into the private sector. They are coming into the government.

A whole lot more people who aren't paying their fair share of taxes should be, and that would help. The way we balance budgets is not to kill economic growth.

One of the areas we grow in is energy. These are jobs that are good jobs, and they create wealth for the Nation.

We have to keep up our dominance in this country. For the solar industry, which is something I am terribly interested in, I represent the most important domestic manufacturer of solar in our country.

Overall, the whole industry across our Nation supports 333,000 jobs now. Mr. Chair, 20 years ago, they were in a very different position, and 40 years ago, they almost didn't exist.

America is now creating utility scale solar, and the invention of the American people is unstoppable. We can't give a signal that we are going to capitulate to anybody, but we have got to develop these new energy sectors.

The gentleman is right about the grid. The grid is worn out all over this country. Ask anybody in Ohio about that. It has been underinvested.

We will find a way by growing the economy, and some of the new bills we have passed for infrastructure have allowed us to modernize the grid.

Well, let's connect the dots. We can choose to give up American leadership in these technologies, or we can actually put our foot on the accelerator.

I really think that the gentleman's amendment, though he believes it is well intentioned, does move America backward, and I cannot support it, and therefore, I oppose it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I am sure the gentleman offering it is well-intentioned.

I will say, in many of the energy technologies that I have observed, unlike the real estate industry, they always say real property, you can tangibly touch it, you can see that it is there, you can measure it. ARPA-E really focuses on that which is not yet measurable.

If you see the movie ``Oppenheimer'' and you look back at the history of our country and how we began to actually move into atomic energy, it was very experimental and very dangerous. The government got involved, and at that point in history we had to win a war. We learned a whole lot about nuclear energy at that point, but part of it was uncontrollable.

I was at an event yesterday with companies that are working on unbelievable technologies, which aren't quite solved yet, but where we can take metals like titanium and nickel and do things with them to carry current that we never were able to do before. They are working with research labs because it is so utterly complicated.

I would say to the gentleman, you know, sometimes private enterprise doesn't invest because the research has to occur through a longer period of time, and you need programs like ARPA-E who do the most amazing work. Our fracking technologies, our drilling technologies for natural gas, those came through not the private sector initially, they came through the Government of the United States because there wasn't any private sector company willing to invest.

I know in my own district, where we are known for the glass industry, some of the research that has been necessary to thinly layer different types of material in order to produce more efficient solar panels actually had to be assisted with government help because there were no angel investors in my part of the country. So the Department of Energy, through photovoltaic research, discovered inventors who were doing great things in America, and helped them to move their technology forward. Now we have the greatest domestic producer of solar in the middle part of the country--not California, not the East Coast, not the South, but in the Great Lakes region.

What I have seen out of ARPA-E is high-level basic research that most companies, frankly, aren't dedicated to. It is very different than the real estate industry, it is over a longer time horizon.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and in support of the Appalachian Regional Commission.

Let me say that the Commission itself is a partnership between the Federal Government and 13 State governments, focusing on 423 counties across the Appalachian region.

Residents in part of Pennsylvania--evidently the gentleman's area is not covered--are served by this Commission. Since 1965, the Appalachian region has been struggling, and they have made progress. They have made significant progress.

The number of high-poverty counties in Appalachia has been cut by 60 percent since 1960. It is a long road. The regional poverty rate has been cut by more than half. God bless them.

However, the region still lags behind the Nation and continues to encounter challenges such as the severe substance abuse crisis, as well as a downturn in the coal economy. This is the part of America that we have to lift up.

I have been very impressed with the work they are doing in terms of restoration of the natural environment and expanded tourism. They are working together collaboratively.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Let's help the American people who need it.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is one more controversial poison pill policy rider that sadly shows extremist Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.

Now, let's have a little math. In 2012, before the Bush tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office showed revenues exceeding primary spending for the next 65 years and that debt as a percentage of GDP, our gross domestic product, everything that we make in a year, would decline indefinitely. How about that. That was 2012.

Since then, tax cut extensions and the Trump tax cuts have added $10 trillion to the debt to date, and their cost will increase enough over time to account for the entire long-term growth in debt ratio. The Trump tax cuts are costing us $2 trillion per year. Just look at it. It is unbelievable. Remember, those benefits are disproportionately enjoyed by the most wealthy.

If we truly want to protect the American taxpayer, we should be marking up bills at levels agreed to between the President, Speaker McCarthy, and signed into law in the Fiscal Responsibility Act rather than bringing the government to the verge of a shutdown and now marking up bills that don't just break the deal but obliterate it by cutting critical domestic investments.

I can't wait for the Debt Commission to actually get the facts out there for the American people, because I have been listening to this all evening. It is very much off the mark. Let's get serious about passing bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this harmful amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, the Department of Energy is charged with implementing congressionally directed energy efficiency standards. When the gentleman blithely says he doesn't like unelected bureaucrats, the people who work in these departments are trained and actually help consumers.

Frankly, I think it is helpful for consumers to know, when they are going to buy a blouse, let's say, whether it is cotton or rayon. It is sort of nice to have the label on there. If you are driving a car, it is nice to know how many miles per gallon the car is going to get. You sort of get a sense of if you are going to buy this one or another one. With refrigerators, I think it is really great that you see how much energy it uses so you can buy a more efficient refrigerator, so you have your electricity bill go down.

I don't know why the gentleman is objecting to helping the American consumer make better choices. In accordance with the statutes that we have passed, the Department of Energy has published regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations--in other words, it is not by some whim-- for more than 60 categories of appliance and equipment types. That helps consumers make good choices.

The Department of Energy drafts the energy efficiency regulations with the full participation of equipment manufacturers and the public at large. The process includes thorough consideration of all comments and concerns.

In following the law, the Department of Energy has issued proposed or final standards for 24 product categories so far this year. Again, these actions are by congressional direction. They just don't pick them out of the air. Actually, it is a process of law. These actions result in direct energy savings while also improving the reliability and performance across household appliances and commercial and industrial equipment.

There is a quote from Daniel Webster in this House that tells us in our time and our generation, may we perform something worthy to be remembered. That is a really good quote to think about.

I think it is safe to assume that virtually all Americans, let alone all of the people in this room, have benefited from some of these types of efficiency standards over the course of their lifetimes.

The benefits are real. As a result of the Department of Energy's efficiency actions, cost savings for American families and businesses are projected to reach nearly $2 trillion by 2030. The Department of Energy estimates that this specific rule would slash household utility costs by $1.5 billion annually, which is something the American people want to do, and save consumers $24.8 billion on their energy bills over 30 years. That is a big deal.

Further, if Congress does not like these standards, that should be addressed by new laws through the Energy and Commerce Committee, not by funding prohibitions. I would suggest to the gentleman, he might want to go before that committee.

Stopping the Department of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing energy efficiency standards will only create uncertainty for manufacturers and consumers.

With respect to the energy efficiency standards for consumer furnaces, if my Republican colleagues are concerned about the rule's potential to increase costs for homeowners, then I would suggest that they should not be seeking in this bill to rescind the Inflation Reduction Act funding for home energy efficiency rebates, which will help many hardworking Americans afford energy efficient heating units that will actually save them money on their utility bills in the long term.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4394, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, it is my distinct honor to bring the fiscal year 2024 Energy and Water bill before you today. Before I go into the details, I recognize the hard work of Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member DeLauro on this bill and the entire appropriations process.

I also specifically thank my ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, for being a tremendous partner throughout this year's process.

At a total of $56.958 billion, the Energy and Water bill advances our national security, our energy security, and our economic competitiveness in a fiscally responsible manner.

The bill includes $24 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration. Within that, the bill fully funds all major weapons programs and infrastructure modernization activities, including the W93 warhead, the nuclear sea-launched cruise missile, the B83-1 sustainment efforts, and the restart of plutonium pit production capability. NNSA funding also supports naval reactors and defense nuclear nonproliferation.

Remaining a leader in nuclear energy technologies will ensure reliable energy here at home and will help allies across the globe.

The bill sustains the Department of Energy's nuclear energy base program and also redirects previously appropriated funds to higher priorities, specifically:

$2.4 billion to develop a domestic capability for producing low- enriched uranium, including high-assay low-enriched uranium that will be necessary for upcoming advanced reactors; and

$1.2 billion to support the ongoing advanced small modular reactor demonstration project.

To reduce our reliance on foreign sources of critical minerals, the bill provides more than $200 million for the full spectrum of production technologies.

The Army Corps of Engineers is funded at $9.57 billion, including full funding of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund activities and ongoing Inland Waterways Trust Fund construction projects. These investments will help ensure goods can be moved safely to and from global markets.

Funding for the Bureau of Reclamation totals $1.8 billion and prioritizes projects that increase water supply and support drought resiliency.

The bill continues strong funding for the Department of Energy Office of Science, including fusion energy science, to enhance America's role as the global leader of scientific discovery and to lay the foundation for future scientific breakthroughs.

In closing, I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for their hard work throughout this process. On the majority staff, Angie, Perry, Nora, Richie, Scott, and Janet. In my personal office, Ian and Daniel. On the minority staff, Scott, Jocelyn, and Adam.

This is a strong bill, and I urge Members to support it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), my friend.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the chair of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Murphy), my friend and also my colleague on the congressional baseball team.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), my very good friend and fellow member of the Italian caucus.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 756, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chair, this bipartisan en bloc amendment was developed in coordination with the minority. It contains noncontroversial amendments addressing important issues at the agency's funded in this bill that have been agreed to by both sides. I support its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman of Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River Endangered Species Program enjoys bipartisan support in the region, providing for a collaborative approach to species management, avoiding a heavy-handed ESA listing.

This program enables robust power production at Glen Canyon Dam, and I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition, although I do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chair, similar to my colleague's previous amendment, this program enjoys broad bipartisan support and enables robust hydropower production that provides electricity to benefit the entire region.

Mr. Chair, I support the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I share some of my colleagues' concerns about the excess spending at EERE, particularly in light of the billions in increased spending provided in past appropriations bills, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

EERE still has billions in unobligated funds, and that is exactly why this bill, the bill that we have before the House, includes a large reduction to this account.

However, in my view, respectfully, my colleague's amendment would go too far to practically eliminate the EERE account. This would impact the important work performed by the national labs and universities to implement the research and development goals of EERE. These goals include advancing energy efficiency solutions for the manufacturing of cement, steel, and iron; creating and improving battery technologies; and developing critical mineral alternatives.

While I am a supporter of EERE, I also recognize fossil fuels are going to be an important resource for many years to come. However, I don't believe these two accounts need to be at odds with each other.

I personally favor an all-of-the-above approach to meet the Nation's future

energy needs. That approach includes strategic reductions to EERE that prioritize research activities like the goals I mentioned earlier.

My distinguished colleague's amendment, in my view, upends that strategy and goes too far, respectfully. For these reasons, I must oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy) for filing this amendment, but I respectfully oppose the same.

I do share some of my colleague's concerns about the excess spending at EERE. I would also like to emphasize that EERE received over $16 billion from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and many of these dollars are still unobligated.

These reasons are exactly why the original bill reduced EERE by $466 million below the fiscal year 2023 level and why I offered further reductions in this bill of $1 billion.

In total, these reductions would bring EERE below the fiscal year 2016 level. However, my colleague's amendment goes too far in eliminating EERE.

I am a supporter of the EERE program and the work they do to advance research and development on renewable technologies, advanced manufacturing, and battery improvements. That includes essential work on critical minerals that will help lay the groundwork for technologies that will reduce our reliance on foreign supplies.

I think this is an issue that we all can support. I support strategic reduction to EERE, but I am not in favor of eliminating the account and walking away from its ongoing work.

For these reasons, I must respectfully oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the ranking member.

Mr. Chair, I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) for filing this, but I must respectfully oppose the amendment.

The Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations is primarily responsible for implementing and managing over $21 billion provided by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

I am keenly aware of the scale of that sum of money and the importance of our oversight responsibility to ensure taxpayer funds are correctly administered.

That is exactly why the House bill includes no funding--and I repeat no funding--for the office to conduct new demonstrations and instead, only includes funding for program direction for staff to provide project management oversight.

My colleague's amendment would eliminate that function, preventing the office from ensuring that our taxpayer dollars are being used effectively and efficiently.

That would directly impact the success of important programs within the office's jurisdiction like the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program.

The Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program enjoys strong bipartisan support. The program is essential to the deployment of advanced reactors, ensuring our Nation's energy security and regaining U.S. leadership in nuclear energy.

We can't abandon our oversight responsibilities and risk the success of programs like these. For these reasons, I must respectfully oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank my dear friend and colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) for filing this, but I must respectfully rise in strong opposition to the amendment.

My colleague's amendment would eliminate the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA-E. ARPA-E's mission is to fund projects that are not yet addressed in the private sector but can bring about transformational shifts in current energy technologies.

Nearly 75 percent of ARPA-E awards go to small businesses and academia. ARPA-E projects have led to over 1,000 patents being issued and have attracted more than $11.5 billion in follow-on funding from the private sector.

These projects push the envelope on what is possible in the energy sector and will continue to play an important role in maintaining U.S. leadership to develop the next generation of energy technologies. I believe these are goals that all of us can support.

I, therefore, must respectfully oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) for filing the amendment.

My great State of Tennessee, which I represent the Third District of Tennessee, our State and other States greatly benefit from the Appalachian Regional Commission.

This amendment would eliminate the Appalachian Regional Commission which provides funding for hundreds of cost-shared projects, partnering with private industry to bring needed jobs to this depressed region.

The energy and water bill maintains funding for the ARC at the fiscal year 2023 level of $200 million. These communities, and many of which I represent, cannot afford to lose millions of dollars in private investment this Commission leverages.

Mr. Chair, I respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, once again, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for filing this amendment, but I must strongly oppose it.

This bill provides $31.1 million for the Delta Regional Authority. This small investment targets hundreds of depressed communities in the Mississippi River Delta region. These communities cannot afford to lose the millions of dollars in private investments this commission leverages.

Mr. Chair, I respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Louisiana (Ms. Letlow). I congratulate the great State of Louisiana on the election of our Speaker. They also have our great majority leader, as well.

Ms. Letlow has been just a wonderful member of the Appropriations Committee, and it has been great to have her on the committee representing Louisiana.

Mr. Chairman, once again, my distinguished friend and colleague from Pennsylvania has been consistent in his opposition to these regional commissions, and I do appreciate the gentleman's positions on this. However, I respectfully disagree.

The amendment would reduce funding for the Denali Commission, which is funded at $17 million in this bill, the same as fiscal 2023. The regional commission helps distressed communities across Alaska with basic infrastructure, like water and sewage systems and power generation.

Mr. Chair, I respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, again, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for bringing this motion on behalf of my distinguished friend from South Carolina.

Like the previous amendment, although this one is a bit more draconian, I respectfully rise in opposition to it for the reasons I alluded to earlier, and I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this bill provides $40 million for the Northern Border Regional Commission, the same as last year.

This commission seeks to create jobs in distressed communities of the four-State northern region.

While the impact to overall spending in this bill would be small, the impact felt by these communities would be large.

Mr. Chair, I respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, once again, I thank my distinguished colleague and friend from Pennsylvania for being consistent and very thorough in all of his investigations, and I do really appreciate this.

This has been insightful, but once again, I must respectfully rise to oppose the amendment. The energy and water bill includes flat funding for the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission.

The amendment would reduce this amount by 99 percent, leaving only $250,000, not even enough to cover all administrative costs. This commission seeks to create jobs in some of the most poverty stricken areas of our Nation, and funding should not be decimated.

Mr. Chair, I respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania once again has been consistent in his opposition to these regional commissions.

This amendment seeks to cut funding for the Southwest Border Regional Commission in half. This Commission seeks to create jobs in some of the most poverty-stricken areas of our Nation. This bill provides $5 million equal to fiscal year 2023. This amount ensures this Commission can continue its work and cutting it in half would virtually do nothing compared to the overall spending in the bill.

Mr. Chair, I respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani), my dear friend and also a fellow member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, once again, I thank my distinguished friend from Pennsylvania and colleague for his very thoughtful work on this entire project. He has covered all of these regions.

Mr. Chair, this amendment seeks to cut funding for the Great Lakes Authority in half, and I strongly oppose it. This is a newly authorized regional commission intended to create jobs in communities that need it most.

As we crafted this bill, Mr. Chairman, we actually listened to Members and got Members' requests. This Commission, the Great Lakes Commission received a tremendous amount of bipartisan support for it. It is newly created, and that is one of the reasons that it has not had its funding. It has never had funding because it is brand-new.

Mr. Chair, in that regard, especially in terms of the strong bipartisan support for this bill and for this Commission, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4394--Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024. This bill needs to be revised to be truly bipartisan to serve the American people and Houston.

As with all the additional appropriation bills that have been up for consideration on the House Floor, I strongly oppose the passage of this bill for a myriad of reasons--including the following listed below.

The majority has put forth a bill that increases energy costs for American families, undermines the growth and modernization of our energy infrastructure, weakens our national security, and would yield the world's energy future to foes abroad.

With massive cuts that renege on the debt limit agreement that was just signed into law, the 2024 Energy and Water bill raises costs for families and weakens energy security and our ability to out-compete China.

The bill invests $55.2 billion, a decrease of $3.9 billion or 6.5 percent below 2023.

Further, the bill's domestic allocation is effectively 21.5 percent, $5.4 billion, below 2023 while its defense allocation is 3.5 percent, $1.1 billion, above 2023, creating a further disparity between domestic and defense programs.

This harmful legislation would have the following damaging impact on America:

Increases energy costs by cutting the Department of Energy's clean energy programs that lower American families' energy bills;

Jeopardizes energy security by enabling Russia to continue weaponizing energy to destabilize global markets;

Hurts U.S. competitiveness by allowing competitors like China to monopolize markets for new energy technology; and

Fails to confront the climate crisis and create better-paying, clean energy jobs.

The bill cuts the Department of Energy's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account by $466 million or 14 percent below 2023 ($1.8 billion or 38 percent below the President's budget request). This office is critical to developing manufacturing, building efficiency, clean energy like hydrogen and solar, and weatherization technologies that are critical to our Nation's growth and resilience.

The bill includes dangerous cuts that House Democrats have been sounding the alarm about for months.

With this bill, House Republicans irresponsibly:

Call for $5.7 billion in untenable repeals from the Department of Energy's Inflation Reduction Act programs, including:

$4.5 billion from the High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Program;

$1 billion from the Assistance for Latest and Zero Building Energy Code Adoption; and

$200 million from the State-Based Home Energy Efficiency Contractor Training Grants.

Repurpose critical Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) resources including:

$3.6 billion from the Department of Energy's IIJA Civil Nuclear Credit Program that help preserve the existing U.S. reactor fleet and save thousands of high-paying jobs across the country; and

$84 million from the Corps of Engineers' IIJA programs.

Revoke $15 billion in loan authority from the Department of Energy's Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program--an increasingly successful program that promotes climate-friendly innovation and American manufacturing.

Sadly, this bill exemplifies Republican misguided values: increasing costs for hardworking families, decreasing job opportunities, failing to confront the climate crisis, and allowing Russia and China to outcompete us.

In an attempt to provide some reasonable action in this unreasonable legislation, I offered an amendment for consideration by the Rules Committee that would help our Nation's government take seriously our ever-changing climate and the crises that ensue creating national and international instability at unprecedented levels and degree.

The Jackson Lee Amendment (Rules Committee No. 121) to H.R. 4394-- Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024, if adopted would have added the following language to this bill:

It is the sense of Congress that energy and water are emerging as paramount and critical issues, posing challenges not only to the United States' national security and economy but to the stability of the global community; and

As each nation grapples with climate change, which is evidenced by climatic events taking place in this nation and others over the last decade, where precipitation in all of its forms and extreme drought have triggered calamities that clearly inform decision makers that nations must be purposeful in preparing to meet these challenges to protect life and human advancement in all of its forms.

Temperatures are rising, snow and rainfall patterns are shifting, and more extreme climate events--like heavy rainstorms and record high temperatures--are becoming more common.

The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced changes-- oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea level is rising.

As these and other changes become more pronounced in the coming decades, they will

likely present challenges to our society and our environment, our country and our world.

This summer saw the hottest days in Earth's modern history as a climate-change fueled surge of heat shattered temperature records across the globe.

According to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York, the summer of 2023 was Earth's hottest since global records began in 1880.

The months of June, July, and August combined were 0.41 degrees Fahrenheit (0.23 degrees Celsius) warmer than any other summer in NASA's record, and 2.1 degrees F (1.2 C) warmer than the average summer between 1951 and 1980. August alone was 2.2 F (1.2 C) warmer than the average.

This new record comes as exceptional heat swept across much of the world, exacerbating deadly wildfires in Canada and Hawaii, and searing heat waves in South America, Japan, Europe, and the U.S., while likely contributing to severe rainfall in Italy, Greece, and Central Europe.

As backed up by NASA and global scientists and witnessed by everyone across the world, the Summer of 2023's record-setting temperatures are not just a set of numbers--they result in dire real-world consequences.

From sweltering temperatures in Arizona and across the country, to wildfires across Canada, extreme flooding in Europe, Asia, and Africa, as well as catastrophic earthquakes striking across the Middle East, extreme weather is threatening lives and livelihoods around the globe.

As we entered into the fall, September started with a typhoon that ripped through Hong Kong, uprooting trees and flooding the city.

It was the first of a slew of extreme weather events that hit ten countries and territories in just 12 days--the most catastrophic being the floods in Libya, which have killed more than 11,000 people according to the UN and left many thousands missing.

Scientists warn that these types of extreme weather events, affecting countries all over the world, may become increasingly common as the climate crisis accelerates, putting pressure on governments to prepare.

These real impacts of climate change are a threat to our planet and future generations that we must continue to confront and tackle head on.

The scientific evidence is overwhelming, and we will no doubt continue to see more climate records and more intense and frequent extreme weather events impacting society and ecosystems, until we come to acknowledge and accept the devastating impact of climate change and actively stop the harms that are contributing to the deadly and damaging climate crises of our time and inevitably forthcoming in our future.

Texans and the constituents in my home district of Houston are no strangers to the adverse impacts and dangers of climate change.

When Hurricane Harvey hit Houston in 2017, dumping over 50 inches of rain on Houston, it caused more than $125 billion in economic damage as my constituents' homes, workplaces, schools, and businesses flooded.

Yet, research has shown that climate change made Harvey's torrential rainfall much worse, roughly 15 percent to 38 percent greater rainfall than it would have been in a world that was not warming.

This difference is far from insignificant--up to 50 percent of the properties that flooded in Harris County might have escaped that fate in a world without climate change.

Houstonians are not the only ones to have faced harm from climate change fueled national disasters.

Since 1980, the US has sustained 341 weather and climate disasters, coasting over $2.4 trillion in all.

However, for Houstonians, Texans, and all of our constituents, the worst of the threat is far from over.

The US coastline is projected to rise 10 to 12 inches in the next 30 years, threatening the coastal states and vastly increasing the risk of flooding for those on either coast.

Average global temperatures will continue to rise, prompting a crop loss of 10 percent in the next 5 to 25 years, melting glaciers, and further driving the rise of sea levels.

It is estimated that climate change could cost from 30 to over 100 billion dollars per year, along with significant potential for economic and federal revenue losses.

The OMB has predicted that climate change could reduce the national GDP by as much as 10 percent by the end of the century, costing a $2 trillion loss in the federal budget.

Further, some of the most severe harms from climate change will fall disproportionately on socially vulnerable populations, including racial and ethnic minority communities.

Additionally, the GAO has highlighted that climate change further poses threats to national security, as rising sea levels and catastrophic storms threaten both military and civilian infrastructure and can even affect migration patterns.

There is no Planet B. We must address the existential threat of climate change now.

We are seeing the consequences of climate change at home and abroad.

However, Republicans continue to deny the scientific consensus of climate change.

Now more than ever before, we need to strengthen our energy security and diversify our energy sources, so we are not dependent on global adversaries--while also tackling the devastating global and economic policies impacting our climate.

And yet today, House Republicans are putting forth a bill that threatens to raise energy costs for more than 250,000 U.S. households and halt the creation of more than 50,000 new jobs, while failing to acknowledge and address energy policies that are decimating our global climates.

I call upon my fellow colleagues across the aisle to stand up against these harmful and dangerous policies offered in this appropriations bill.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote in opposition to H.R. 4394, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Act of 2024.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have here fully defunds the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

The FY23 omnibus gave this office $3.5 billion, and while the underlying bill and rule cut funding down to $2 billion, we believe we ought to defund it entirely.

That is particularly true coming on the heels of the $1.2 trillion, if you believe the media accounting and reports on the impact of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. We believe this is additional spending that the American people do not need.

Let the market do what the market is going to do. If people want to go out and get electronic vehicles, and people want to go out and spend their money on something, good for them, great.

This office continues to be funded to continue to perpetuate this when the office's mission is ``to equitably transition America to net- zero greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050,'' which is a fool's errand.

We are undermining our own national security and undermining our own economy in the process, making us beholden to China and undermining our ability to actually have a serious policy in the Middle East, by the way. Right now, we don't even have sanctions in place. We are allowing Iran to make billions of dollars, upward of $30 billion to $60 billion, depending on what reports you look at, on exporting oil to China. We have totally blown it with Saudi Arabia, which has created the environment that we are now dealing with in the Middle East, all while this administration, by the way, dumped the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, all of this while pursuing this foolish energy policy, which is undermining our own national security and economy.

Now, we are going to go ahead and say, sure, let's appropriate another, in this case, $2 billion for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. We don't need to be doing this. Let the American people go sort this out.

We say that we are going to subsidize wind and solar because it is supposedly enhanced reliability. Tell that to the people of Texas. Texas has more wind than any other State in the country.

Thumbs up. That is great. Say that to all the people who are wondering whether they are going to have power because the grid in Texas is getting dangerously close to not having the ability to sustain. The only reason we are able to sustain it is because Texas is trying to push and hold up the coal and the gas-fired plants that actually provide reliable energy.

We are subsidizing the unreliable energy at the expense of the reliable energy. Instead of building nuclear power, instead of making sure a gas-fired plant is sitting there ready to roll--there is no investment in any of the projects going on into Texas' gas-fired plants. American, Texas gas that we should, by the way, be exporting around the world, including to Europe. Instead, we are undermining our very grid, our own reliable energy, and we are undermining our ability to compete in the world.

I suggest that this money would be better spent, especially when, I don't know, the last time I checked we had $2 trillion in deficits.

What are we spending our money on? Seriously, how are we actually going to balance our budget and eliminate deficits when we keep spending money on projects like this?

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, while I thank my friend and colleague and I appreciate the fact that through his work and the work of Republicans, we did reduce it by $1.5 billion, but there remains another $2 billion of funding.

I say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: How are we going to ever balance the budget when we continue to fund things like this?

That is my question. Why don't we pay for this, then? Can we at least pay for this out of something? Why don't we pay for this out of the Inflation Reduction Act? Why don't we pay for it by eliminating some of the IRS agents that got expanded?

Tell me. Go to the American people and say, what would you like to give up to pay for that? That is what I would like to know. I would like to know for the American people: What would you give up in order to pay for $2 billion of more of this kind of subsidy?

By the way, in the Inflation Reduction Act, 90 percent of the subsidies go to corporations making over a billion dollars.

Mr. Chair, 78 percent of electric vehicle tax credits are claimed by Americans making over $100,000. Couples making up to $300,000 are still eligible.

These subsidies could make wind and solar account for nearly 60 percent of U.S. electricity generation by 2050, which might sound fine in unicorn land, but for the people who need reliable energy on a cloudy, windless day, we might actually want to have gas or coal or nuclear.

By the way, all of this subsidizes the heck out of China. We are talking about making us not reliant on foreign energy sources.

Well, what about China? China is the one producing most of these solar panels and a lot of the battery elements. Why are we continuing to do that?

I suggest that that is a waste of taxpayer money, it is unpaid for, and we shouldn't continue to perpetuate it.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.