Eastern Band of Cherokee Historic Lands Reacquisition Act

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that utilizes the Holman rule to reduce the salary of EPA Administrator Michael Regan to $1.

On his watch, Administrator Regan has used the EPA to impose Green New Deal policies, such as electric appliance and EV mandates, power plant closures, strict regulations on American energy production, and environmental justice initiatives.

On Michael Regan's watch, the EPA has prioritized DEI over domestic energy, climate change over consumers, and EVs over our great economy.

In a hearing with the Oversight and Accountability Committee, he was unaware that the EPA has never formally been authorized by Congress, something that someone who oversees an agency should know. If the body of government who is directed to create such agencies has never authorized them, well, then we have a problem. However, this hasn't stopped him from jeopardizing American energy security, overloading America's power grid, and raising costs for all American consumers and businesses.

In fact, in March of last year, the EPA Twitter account posted, ``As a bicultural, bilingual, and bisexual woman, Iris deeply empathizes with communities at the intersection of overlapping crises of injustice, #climatechange, and environmental racism.''

We cannot have the head of the Environmental Protection Agency claiming that even the environment is racist.

This is another season of all the questions are made up and none of the points matter. The American people want their government to work for them, not against them. This administration's Green New Deal regulations are increasing regulatory costs at a rate of $617 billion per year of rulemaking. Is that clear? $617 billion in just rulemaking alone.

This isn't a bill that Congress is passing; it is just rulemaking by the agency itself. If they continue at the Obama administration's regulatory pace, this will cost American families $60,000. It is time to put an end to governing by the Green New Deal, which is very much a scam, and the first step is to get rid of Administrator Regan.

Madam Chair, I urge the passage of this important amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I appreciate my colleague, Mr. Simpson, here who is chair of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. I believe that we absolutely have the authority to exercise the Holman rule.

Congress, the House of Representatives, is a majority rule, self- governing body. We have rules that we vote on to put in place that allow us to govern and govern ourselves as Members of Congress. We have the Holman rule to have a check on unelected bureaucrats.

I agree with my colleague that elections do matter and that we do need to get out and vote for the best candidate. However, my constituents in Colorado do not have the opportunity to vote for these unelected bureaucrats who are happy to stay in their position and wait out a majority of their disliking, and it is very difficult to remove them.

My colleague is also correct in saying this is essentially a way of firing these unelected bureaucrats who are abusing their position, who are using their power, their job, and their position to hurt American citizens when they are creating rulemaking that is costing $617 billion per year and increasing the household costs of families by $60,000.

I don't care if that is technically illegal or legal. It is immoral, it is unjust, and it is unsustainable.

I stand by my amendment to reduce the salary of the EPA director, Mr. Reagan, to $1 and to exercise our House rule that we have voted on and that Mr. Simpson even voted on in the Rules package in January of 2023 and hold this unelected bureaucrat accountable.

I am here to represent my constituents and save the American taxpayers money. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I am going to exercise the rule of the House to offer the Holman rule amendment here in this appropriations bill, and I rise to offer my amendment that reduces the salary of Melissa Schwartz, Director of Communications of the Department of the Interior, to $1.

Melissa Schwartz is yet another horrendous and miserable use of taxpayer dollars. Look at this. She is a mask-wearing, quadruple-vaxxed Green New Deal extremist, and unfortunately, a liberal troll who has harassed me, even in committee hearing rooms.

She shouldn't be employed at the Department of the Interior. Melissa Schwartz belongs under a bridge. Melissa had the nerve and lack of respect to confront me in the Halls of Congress following a Department of the Interior meeting.

In this hearing, she had the audacity to come and personally attack a Member of Congress. This DEI hire made clear she doesn't work for the American people, and she is simply another misguided mouthpiece for liberal extremists that hates conservatives and people that disagree with her eccentric views.

Rather than focus on agency priorities or the American people's priorities, facts, and seeking to do what is best for America, Schwartz spends most of her taxpayer time tweeting nonsense and trying to promote the Biden regime's radical new deal scam.

Melissa and her colleagues believe that climate change is the ultimate threat to humanity. They are willing to kill American jobs and sacrifice the health of our economy at all costs as they pursue their extremist ideology.

I am committed to taking a stand against the Biden regime's attempt to cripple American energy and cater to radical extremists.

I urge my colleagues to exercise our voted-on House rule and implement the Holman rule and support my amendment that reduces the salary of Melissa Schwartz to $1.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment that utilizes the Holman rule to reduce the salary of Director of Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Elizabeth Klein to $1.

Ms. Klein is a radical environmentalist and a partisan hack comprised of special interests and mired in ethical conflicts. Her conflicts of interest were so severe that even Senator Manchin voted to block her nomination as Deputy Secretary of the Interior.

As deputy director of the New York University School of Law's State Energy and Environmental Impact Center, Klein placed and paid the salaries of legal fellows in State attorneys general offices to advance Michael Bloomberg's radical environmental agenda.

The use of private money to conduct public business is ethically flawed. Indiana's attorney general categorized Ms. Klein's program as an ``arrangement through which a private organization or individual can promote an overtly political agenda by paying the salaries of government employees.''

In just the first year of the program, SEEIC fellows participated in filing at least 130 regulatory, legal, and other challenges to President Trump's policies--successful policies, I might add. Now Ms. Klein is working for the Federal Government and on the other side of lawsuits that she helped file. Under President Biden's own ethics rules, she should be prohibited from participating in matters involving her former employer.

During her testimony in the House Committee on Natural Resources, I questioned Ms. Klein about her failed nomination to become Deputy Secretary of the Interior.

I asked if she had been provided with a recusal list and formally requested that she provide that list to the committee. Ms. Klein told the committee that she was happy to provide that list.

Shamefully, it took a letter from the committee and this aggressive committee questioning for Klein to send the committee a very delayed recusal list that should have been in place almost immediately after her hiring.

Ms. Klein spent several years funneling money from Michael Bloomberg to sue the Trump administration and pay for the Green New Deal scam lawyers she had placed in attorneys general offices across the country.

Given her myriad of Federal lawsuits and conflicts, there should be little to nothing that Ms. Klein is allowed to work on at any subagency within the Department of the Interior.

Senior Federal employees are required to be transparent in their ethical obligations and act impartially, placing their sole loyalty to the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.

Ms. Klein's history of infiltrating State governments with Michael Bloomberg's minions and supporting lawsuits against the Federal Government makes it impossible for her to meet the ethical obligations that her position of public trust requires.

Ms. Klein's continued employment as the director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has been riddled with a controversial and extensive history of ethical conflicts.

This is a stain on the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Radical partisan extremists have no place in the Federal Government, especially those in charge of our energy security.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to restore integrity to the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I care deeply about our environment. I want clean air. I want clean water. I want to be a good steward of the land that we have been gifted here in the United States of America.

I don't believe that pursuing these extremist Green New Deal scam policies is advancing that agenda that we have. I don't want to spend tax dollars on these initiatives and this purpose.

I want to do the work of the people, and I believe that my amendment gets us one step closer to that by reducing the salary of Ms. Klein to $1.

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

Madam Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that redirects $2 million to hazardous fuel reduction activities within the Bureau of Land Management to prevent catastrophic wildfires and save lives.

The year I was elected, Colorado suffered the worst fire season in Colorado history, with the three largest recorded wildfires we have ever had. Hundreds of homes were destroyed and evacuated, and Coloradans endured more than 100 days of fire.

The Cameron Peak fire burned more than 208,000 acres and more than 460 structures to the tune of $6 million in property losses. The East Troublesome fire on the border of my district killed two people. Coloradans also suffered severe health issues resulting from significant smoke from these fires.

Wildfire smoke causes serious disorders, including eye and respiratory tract infections, reduced lung function, bronchitis, exacerbation of asthma, and even premature death.

Catastrophic wildfires also cause significant damage to the environment. A few years ago, NASA concluded that one catastrophic wildfire can emit more carbon emissions in just a few days than all of the vehicle emissions in an entire State over the course of an entire year. Decades of mismanagement have left our Nation's Federal lands vulnerable to insects and disease, ripe for catastrophic wildfires.

The good news is, there is finally significant bipartisan support throughout the country to prevent wildfires, and the Forest Service is seeking to treat 20 million acres of national forest and grasslands and 30 million acres of State, local, Tribal, and private lands over the next 10 years.

However, we need to do more, as Federal agencies have stated that more than 1 billion acres throughout the country are currently at risk of catastrophic wildfires. Our Federal lands are overgrown and poorly managed, making them more susceptible to wildfire, disease, and even bark beetle attacks.

There are Federal lands in Colorado and the West where we once had 50 to 100 trees per acre, but now we see 500 to 1,000 trees per acre, proving the overgrowth of our forests. There are also 6 billion standing dead trees in the Western United States. Some people call that a problem. I call it a tinderbox waiting to ignite and burn.

Fuel treatments are effective, and Federal agencies have made clear ``over 90 percent of the fuel treatments were effective in changing fire behavior and/or helping with control of the wildfire.''

Let's put the lives of the American people first, take significant action to benefit our environment by passing my hazardous fuels reduction amendment and redirecting $2 million to these hazardous fuels reduction activities within the Bureau of Land Management.

Madam Chair, I encourage the adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am proud of my party's work in reducing taxpayer spending by $1.8 billion in this bill, and I also am encouraged to find even more offsets where we can redirect funding and put them to a more appropriate use for the taxpayer, showing that their best interest is what we are all here serving in Washington, D.C., on their behalf for.

Madam Chair, again, I support the adoption of my amendment that redirects $2 million for the fuels hazardous management in the Bureau of Land Management. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise to offer my commonsense amendment that redirects $2 million of the inspector general to combat waste, fraud, and abuse within the EPA.

As a proud member of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, I am a firm believer in increasing transparency of Federal programs and actions within the executive branch. Honest, hardworking Americans should be able to trust that their tax dollars are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes.

The EPA Office of Inspector General is charged with providing critical oversight over tens of billions of dollars that are spent by the EPA, U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, as well as more than $100 billion that is being doled out through the so-called Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the so-called Inflation Reduction Act that we all know did nothing to reduce inflation. Ask anyone you meet in the grocery store.

Unlike other inspector general offices, the EPA IG did not receive additional funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, expansion act, to carry out the additional oversight mandates associated with this law. Oversight by the IG is critical to ensure that the EPA, as well as its grantees and contractors, are responsible stewards of scarce American tax dollars. The IG also seeks to root out fraud, waste, and abuse, mismanagement, and misconduct within the agencies it provides oversight to.

Recently, the IG identified significant taxpayer risks and vulnerabilities that are associated with the administration's Clean School Bus Program. Sounds great, right? The inspector general pointed out: ``There is a high potential for, among other things, falsely substituting or duplicating requests from multiple Federal agencies for the same or very similar materials and associated labor.''

Ever since the passage of the Inspector General Act of 1978, inspectors general have uncovered billions of dollars of fraud and exposed numerous instances of criminal wrongdoing. The EPA IG is no exception. During the first half of the fiscal year of 2023, the EPA IG identified $135 million in wasted spending, fraud avoidance, and other monetary benefits to American taxpayers.

However, vigilance by the EPA inspector general is needed now more than ever for the more than $100 billion of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act that have been distributed and are still going out the door. Funding currently allocated in this bill for the EPA IG is significantly below the budget estimate, yet they are being asked to do significantly more.

My commonsense amendment will help ensure that the inspector general has the funding and resources they need to provide strict oversight of the EPA. I have found a pay-for, so this is not deficit spending. We are not wasting taxpayer dollars. We are redirecting these $2 million. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to redirect important resources to the inspector general.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

Madam Chair, I yield back.

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

Mr. Chair, from day one of this regime, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris declared an all-out war on American energy production and exploration. They have made very clear that they care more about appeasing radical climate change activists than protecting the millions of oil and gas workers and producers in America.

I was disappointed but not surprised when the Biden regime finalized the rule titled Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process, which mandates provisions from the partisan so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which increased the royalty rate for production on Federal lands while also increasing and creating new fees for domestic energy producers.

This new fluid mineral leasing rule is further proof that the Biden- Harris regime is using every tool in their administration to dismantle American energy production. It increases bonding levels for production on Federal lands, proposes ending nationwide bonding, and increasing the minimum bond amounts for individual lease bonds and statewide lease bonds from $10,000 to $150,000 and from $25,000 to $500,000, respectively.

This significant increase will tie up capital that would otherwise be put back into production and is unjustifiable as there are only 37 orphaned oil and gas wells on BLM-managed lands. These increases will impact smaller producers who can't afford to operate in the market. These additional fees will ultimately harm returns and reduce revenues to State and local governments by disincentivizing development on Federal lands.

The rule also introduces the idea of using preference criteria to inform the BLM selection of lands for lease sales. BLM's rationale for this change is to avoid conflict in areas ``with sensitive cultural, wildlife, and recreation resources.'' This means that BLM field offices could avoid leasing in all areas with endangered or threatened species, critical habitat, or nearby recreation areas, a move that would greatly limit leasing on our Federal lands.

With the wars happening in the Middle East and Europe, and with OPEC significantly lowering oil production, we cannot rely on other foreign nations to control our energy supply. America makes the cleanest energy in the world. We do it the most responsibly.

American innovation, in particular fracking, has allowed America to be the global leader in reducing emissions since the year 2000. We need to stop buying oil and gas from Russia; stop begging OPEC, Venezuela, and Iran to produce energy for us; and start producing more energy responsibly here in America.

I am ready to bring back the American roughneck and to drill, baby, drill because no one does it better than we do here in the United States of America. We must restore American energy dominance and produce clean, reliable energy right here in America.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson).

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that prohibits funds made available by this act to be used for the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Council at the Department of the Interior.

In February 2022, Secretary Haaland established the first-ever Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Council, through Secretary's Order 3406, to incorporate these practices into the Department's work across many bureaus.

Let's be honest here, the DEI agenda is a destructive ideology that breeds hatred and racial division. It has no place in our Federal Government or anywhere else in our society. DEI exists to be a jobs program for otherwise unemployable holders of gender studies degrees who ruin just about everything they touch.

Since taking office, the Biden-Harris regime has implemented DEI policies across virtually every agency in the Federal Government. DEI is focused on coddling unequipped and incompetent employees, and I think we have seen that by all the resignations from these DEI hires in this administration in just a few short years.

As we saw a mere 11 days ago, DEI hires and incompetency at the Secret Service were responsible for letting a deranged gunman come centimeters from killing President Trump. I am not talking about the folks who were there, the boots on the ground. I am talking

about the disgraced Director of the Secret Service who resigned today after scrutiny from both Republicans and Democrats and those all throughout our country.

Mr. Chair, we should no longer allow DEI in the Federal Government to continue to divide America and waste taxpayer money. It is absurd to fund these diverse policies, and it is time for Congress to put an end to them once and for all.

The Department of the Interior should be focused on restoring American energy dominance, not pandering to radical leftists. This is not about race, gender, or anything else included in the DEI agenda of the left. This is about having the best, most equipped, most qualified personnel in their positions, no matter their race or gender.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to abolish this demonizing DEI council, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chair, America is great, and we are going to make America even greater in the upcoming months and years.

America is diverse. America is the great melting pot of the world. We have some of the world's best and the world's finest.

It is amazing. All it took were people coming together to adopt the 19th Amendment to allow women to vote. It took people coming together and collaborating to hire women as police officers or firefighters or pilots. Heck, I have flown a plane, a little Husky 180. It was a great time enjoying the sights of Colorado and all of the mountainsides.

We have an economy right now that is failing because we have a party and an administration that is prioritizing DEI, something we didn't need to have women as police officers or firefighters or pilots or servicemembers, those who would offer up their own lives to serve in the honor of our great country, who would stand for our flag.

Because of DEI and this administration's woke agenda and their radical views, we have now been relegated into poverty. I remember a time also where women could, if they chose, stay home and raise their children. Now women are forced to work and have homes with two incomes because they cannot afford their groceries or their gasoline to get their children to school. It is all because of the policies of this radical agenda.

I am fine with diversity. America is known for being a welcoming country.

This DEI program isn't what makes America great, and we never needed it to be great. I am calling for it to come to an end.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment to prohibit funding for the Bicycle Subsidy Benefit Program at the Department of the Interior.

The DOI Bicycle Subsidy Benefit Program provides taxpayer dollars to DOI employees and paid student interns and/or unpaid student volunteers for the purchase, improvements, repair, storage, and/or maintenance of a nonmotorized bicycle that is used as a primary means of commuting to and from work, as well as a monthly stipend. Welcome to the Federal Government.

American taxpayers' hard-earned money is being wasted on covering bicycle commuting expenses such as bicycles, bicycle locks, bicycle parking, storage, bicycle safety equipment, bicycle improvements, or accessories, including reflective lights, racks, bicycle repairs and general maintenance, personal safety and protective equipment, including high-visibility safety apparel, headwear, and bicycle gloves and bicycle share memberships as well as getting paid to bike to work. Praise the Lord.

Coloradans across my district are struggling right now. They are hurting. The economy is bad. Inflation is high. The policies are ruining their lives that are brought by the Biden-Harris administration. They are struggling right now as they deal with the disastrous effects of Joe Biden's and Kamala Harris' destructive economic policies. We

must redirect our attention and their money to much more important things than subsidizing employees for riding bicycles.

The Biden administration has unleashed record inflation on Americans that has decimated our bank and retirement accounts, increased gas prices to record levels, raised utility bills, drove up grocery costs, and made it harder to live for the American people.

The primary root cause of this record-breaking inflation was trillions of dollars of wasteful Federal spending. This excessive spending has real-life consequences that the people I represent are experiencing every single day.

American families will pay an $8,581 inflation tax over the next year. They didn't vote for that, but unfortunately, too many elected officials did.

Currently, 20 million Americans cannot pay their electric bill. We have seen a 4.3 percent decline in real wages since Joe Biden and Kamala Harris entered the White House. Americans have lost more than $2 trillion in retirement savings, savings they have worked their lives for.

America is $35 trillion in debt, and Democrats want us to continue to print money and pay bureaucrats to bike to work when our Commander in Chief himself cannot even ride a bike.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to cut wasteful, silly, Federal spending by prohibiting funding for the Bicycle Subsidy Benefit Program at the Department of the Interior.

Mr. Chair, I sure do hope we can get this one through. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that prohibits the Bureau of Land Management from taking any action to finalize, implement, or enforce a draft resource management plan and draft supplemental environmental impact statement to end new oil leases on 1.6 million acres in Colorado.

Colorado's Western Slope used to have a booming energy production economy. I remember because the roughnecks used to come into my restaurant. They would patronize my business and the businesses all around us. I knew we were having a really good day by the amount of mud we had to clean up off the floor from their boots after working hard all day in the field to earn a living for their family and produce good, clean energy for us, not just in Colorado and America, but throughout the world.

There used to be 112 drilling rigs on the West Slope, but now we have four rigs. Now not-in-my-backyard extremists and job-killing Federal policies have driven away those good-paying jobs, those good-paying jobs that also supported local businesses.

The Bureau of Land Management draft resource management plan for the Colorado River Valley field office and Grand Junction field office is the latest fossil fuels attack.

This proposed land grab could remove over 1.6 million acres of public lands in Colorado from future oil and gas leasing and establish nine different areas of critical environmental concern on over 100,000 acres of BLM land. If this proposal is finalized, the United States will lose access to vital energy resources, many more than the 600 fewer wells projected by the agency to be lost by 2043.

The consequences will be felt far beyond the State of Colorado where residents will lose their livelihoods and see increased gas and energy prices, yes, even more than the increases we are seeing today. BLM is proposing to close all areas with no known, low, and moderate oil and gas development potential and is basing its analysis off the oil and gas potential on out-of-date information that does not take into consideration modern technology.

The Permian Basin was once thought to be low to medium, and now it is the highest producing oil field in the world. As a result, the Permian Basin would be closed if this proposal had been in place in New Mexico and Texas prior to the significant amount of production that is now occurring.

This proposed land grab is nothing short of partisan politics meant to further restrict access to the oil and natural gas development that could reinvigorate the economy of the West Slope of Colorado and help ensure energy security for all Americans.

There are already stringent standards and requirements in place for oil and gas producers that aim at reducing environmental and cultural impacts. This proposed rule is yet another blatant land grab disguised to dismantle the fossil fuel industry and force a green transition. Closing the door to over 1.6 million acres of vital public lands for energy development is not just an issue of economics. It is a threat to our Nation's energy independence and security.

This proposal goes beyond necessary environmental considerations and instead seeks to restrict access to promising resources, hindering the potential of economic growth and prosperity, particularly in the West Slope of Colorado where we have been regulated into poverty thanks to the Biden-Harris administration.

Rogue bureaucrats at the BLM shouldn't be unilaterally locking up more land in Colorado. It is urgent that we block this overreach and prioritize responsible energy production. That will help reduce gas prices during these challenging times.

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

Mr. Chair, on behalf of Coloradans, I am here to say: End the land grabs, bring back the American roughnecks, and drill, baby, drill.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that prohibits funds made available by this act from being used to declare a national monument with the use of the Antiquities Act in Montrose, Mesa, Montezuma, San Juan, and Dolores Counties in western Colorado.

Green new scam extremists in Colorado have been petitioning Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to use the Antiquities Act to designate a roughly 400,000-acre Dolores River Canyon County national monument.

The proposed designation of the Dolores River as a national monument threatens to impose severe economic hardships on the communities in western Colorado. This unilateral land grab will cancel all mining in the uranium-rich area, end hunting and cattle grazing, and curtail motorized travel. These are practices that have been part of the Western way of life for generations.

The Biden-Harris regime is no stranger to abusing the Antiquities Act. In little over 1 year ago, they locked up over 225,000 acres in Colorado with the stroke of a pen and prevented Colorado from using our public lands for activities that we want and need. This is a right of Coloradans and Americans just taken away.

Taking even more Federal lands off the table for multiple use is attacking American energy production, American jobs, American workers, and leaving American consumers to pay the tab.

This amendment ensures Joe Biden and Kamala Harris cannot lock up land by executive fiat and encourages the administration to look for stakeholder-supported solutions like my bipartisan, bicameral Dolores River National Conservation Area and Special Management Act.

This is something I worked on with my Colorado Senators. We found a way to compromise without compromising our principles. We came to a place of agreement.

The Dolores NCA seeks to designate the Dolores River Corridor for the best preservation, benefit, and access of the majority. It is the result of over a decade of community engagement between rafters, agriculture producers, outdoor enthusiasts, water rights stakeholders, conservationists, miners, loggers, businessowners, and all the impacted local governments and Tribes.

Disregarding the agreements achieved and the significant time vested in the Dolores NCA would be an absolute insult to citizens of southwest Colorado and would contradict DOI's own description of the Antiquities Act which states: ``The administration consistently strives to take into account the interests of this wide range of stakeholders.''

This proposed national monument designation has the potential to restrict access and land use in ways that threaten and subvert the will of the people in Colorado. I have constituents on the ground daily fighting this proposal, and I am here on their behalf to bring an end to it once and for all through the position they have elected me to, and I urge adoption of my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Maine recently said that it is her priority to focus on Maine and that I should focus on Colorado.

Well, here we are with an amendment related to my home State of Colorado, and I am here to protect my constituents and our land from another land grab from the Biden-Harris administration.

The gentlewoman from Maine has complained of concerns that she has with so-called climate changes and warming of the water. If that is the Maine concern, then perhaps the gentlewoman from Maine would like to partner with me from ending energy production in China who has the worst regulations and emits the most emissions of anyplace in the world and stop buying solar panels from China where they are using child and slave labor in mines in the Congo and work to partner with me for better American energy production.

It is more reliable, it is more efficient, it is cleaner, and we are creating jobs. In the meantime, I will stick right here on Colorado with this amendment, and the gentlewoman from Maine can focus on Maine as she said she would prefer to do.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment to prohibit funds from being used for the EPA's greenhouse gas reduction fund.

The Inflation Reduction Act, which should have been more accurately named the Green New Deal in disguise, established a taxpayer-funded $27 billion slush fund that sends taxpayer dollars to far-left political organizations and--their favorite--the Chinese Communist Party.

This green bank is nearly three times more than the EPA's entire fiscal year 2023 appropriated funds. Eliminating this slush fund will reduce the budget deficit, protect the government against corruption, and stop China from receiving our taxpayer dollars.

When asked during a committee hearing if the EPA could guarantee that none of the funds from this green bank slush fund would go to China, the EPA official in charge of overseeing how funds were spent literally stated that it is a little more complicated. He didn't say yes or no, but it is a little more complicated.

Over 20 million Americans are currently behind on their utility bills. The American people are not begging for more electric vehicles or solar panels. They are asking for lower energy costs.

In fact, the world is demanding it of us because we could literally export freedom to our allies across the globe if we were to export our liquefied natural gas rather than purchase energy from our enemies.

If Democrats wanted to do something about the current energy crisis rather than pandering to radical environmental extremists, the minority would unleash American energy instead of forcing us to use inadequate and unreliable green energy. These policies will not only fail to meet our economy's energy needs, but they will also make America reliant on wind turbines and solar panels that are made in China.

America is an energy superpower. We should use our vast resources to restore our economy's vitality, ensure our national security, and put hardworking Americans back to work.

Mr. Chair, I urge the passage of my commonsense amendment to put an end to the Biden-Harris regime's pandering to the CCP, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that utilizes the Holman rule to reduce the salary of Secretary Deb Haaland to $1.

Under Haaland's leadership, the Department of the Interior has shut down pipelines, delayed federally mandated onshore and offshore leases, repealed commonsense streamlining regulations, shuttered mining projects, failed to comply with numerous laws, and so much more.

She also has quite a history of conflicts of interest. Under Haaland's leadership, the Department of the Interior has cultivated close and potentially improper relationships with extreme environmental activist groups, many of which are working overtime to drive the Biden- Harris administration's social and environmental justice agenda.

Her daughter is a member of the Pueblo Action Alliance, which opposes all oil and gas production on Federal lands, advocates for the dismantling of America's economic and political system, and believes America is irredeemable because there is no ``opportunity to reform a system that isn't founded on good morals or values.''

Haaland's daughter even engaged in a violent protest with 100 or more protesters, breaking through police barriers and trying to get into the Department of the Interior's building. Did she just want to hug her mom, or was this a real act of violence with intent?

Despite multiple attempts from this institution to do its constitutional duty and provide congressional oversight, the Department of the Interior has failed to respond to 80 percent of the requests from Congress.

I would be remiss not to mention Haaland's all-out war on American energy production, from canceling the Keystone XL pipeline on day one, imposing new rules to block pipeline projects, canceling oil and gas leases on millions of acres in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, suspending oil drilling leases in a small sliver of ANWR even though Congress passed a law for this very purpose, imposing a moratorium on new Federal oil and gas leases throughout Federal lands, failing to meet the statutory deadlines for quarterly lease sales, and taking countless other anti-energy measures that have contributed to gas prices and inflation reaching record levels.

We need to make America energy dominant once and for all. It is time for us to have energy security, and it is clear that it won't happen with Haaland leading the Department of the Interior.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that utilizes the Holman rule to reduce the salary of BLM Director Tracy Stone- Manning to $1.

Mr. Chair, let's call a spade a spade. Tracy Stone-Manning is a terrorist, and her terrorist booby traps still threaten the lives of foresters and firefighters to this very day. Tree-spiking Tracy's abysmal record as BLM Director has included radical anti-energy activism, engagement in ecoterrorism, failure to carry out laws, and prioritization of climate initiatives and public land grabs over domestic energy production.

Tracy Stone-Manning is a radicalized environmental terrorist whose repugnant philosophy includes tenets such as ``we must breed fewer consuming humans,'' children are ``environmental hazards,'' ranchers are ``destroying the West,'' and the solution to houses threatened by wildfires is ``to let them burn.''

Her hateful language spilled over into ecoterrorism when she became involved in a tree-spiking attack, threatening the lives of wildland firefighters, foresters, and mill workers in Idaho.

Stone-Manning's extremist antigovernment, pro-population control, anti-law enforcement, pro-wildlife, tree-worshipping, antifarmer, and anti-responsible energy views should have been more than enough to prevent her from getting to this position, but her involvement in an ecoterrorist, tree-spiking attack, threatening the lives of wildland firefighters, loggers, and mill workers, is beyond the pale.

She also perjured herself to Congress when she lied twice to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The first lie was that she denied ever being investigated by U.S. special agents, and the second lie was that she denied participating in tree spiking. She belongs not in the Department of the Interior but in Federal prison.

Mr. Chair, Tracy Stone-Manning, tree-spiking Manning, has to go, and I urge the passage of this amendment, as lives are still at risk for her ecoterrorism today.

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

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

Madam Chair, first, I thank the chair of this committee. I appreciate the chance to work with him. We have a good working relationship, and I always enjoy the time that we spend together in the committee.

I also thank Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro for her tireless efforts on this committee and the chair of the committee and the staff on both sides of the aisle for the work that they have put into this bill.

As ranking member of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I am deeply concerned that the majority has once again put forward an Interior appropriations bill that debilitates America's ability to address the climate crisis, and it hobbles the agencies within its jurisdiction.

Climate change is a clear and present danger. Experts agree that we must take bold action to avoid a major, irreversible catastrophe. I am greatly disappointed and frustrated by the bill before us that completely disregards the reality of a warming planet and ignores the need for us to do more, not less.

As the ``Fifth National Climate Assessment'' confirms, the effects of human-caused climate change are already far-reaching and worsening across every region of the United States. With that understanding, cutting funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by $1.8 billion, or 20 percent, is irresponsible and severely impacts needed investments in environmental justice, enforcement, and climate change.

If we are going to preserve the health of our environment and our economic well-being, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase our efforts to respond to and mitigate against harmful climate impacts.

This bill also curtails the progress that has been made to ensure that all people are equally protected from environmental and health hazards. The bill abandons our most vulnerable groups that currently bear a disproportionate share of negative environmental impacts, which includes large swaths of rural communities that I and many of my colleagues across the aisle represent.

The bill also slashes funding for land management agencies. The National Park Service alone is cut by $210 million. This cut will mean fewer park rangers to protect and preserve the parks' natural and cultural resources and will negatively impact on the visitor experience.

Funding for cultural institutions, such as the Smithsonian and National Gallery of Art, is also significantly reduced, and the Smithsonian may be forced to consider reducing the number of hours or days each week that the museums are open to the public.

When our constituents bring their families to see our Nation's Capital, I think all Members in this room expect that they should have access to these museums, but this bill could take that away.

The arts have incredible value as a positive tool for economic development, education, and community building, and I will strenuously oppose these cuts in the final spending agreement.

There are areas of bipartisanship, though, and I commend Chairman Simpson's work on wildland fire. The bill includes authorizing language and funding necessary for the administration to carry out its permanent pay reforms for Federal wildland firefighters. This is something we agree on, and I am pleased the bill addresses this important issue.

I am also proud of our work to address treaty and trust obligations on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, though, once again, House Republicans have loaded up the bill with widely unpopular policy riders. This year, they have included a whopping 92 poison pill riders that cripple environmental protection, undermine climate change policies, and add to the national deficit.

A majority of Americans support the United States taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050, and they support taking responsibility for future generations. The austere and irresponsible cuts in this bill do not align with America's values. We need to rise to this challenge and not squander the opportunity to make the planet better for our children and grandchildren.

Madam Chair, I oppose the bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from

Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the distinguished ranking member of the Subcommittee on Defense.

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

I oppose this bill because it contains 92 poison pill riders that cripple environmental protection, undermine climate change policies, add to the national debt, and include discriminatory riders targeting millions of American citizens that have already proven so divisive in earlier markups.

For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment would strike these 92 poison pill riders.

The riders in this bill give an open invitation to exploitative oil, gas, and mineral leasing and block rules that protect our public lands and resources for our children and grandchildren.

It is our job as legislators to preserve pristine water and undisturbed arctic landscapes and save iconic species and apex predators, which maintain healthy ecosystems that benefit us all.

I am strongly opposed to any effort to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community or prevent flying a flag that is chosen to reflect the full history, culture, and people of this great country.

This bill is the latest in a string of appropriations bills that create divisions in our society instead of fostering collaboration to address challenges, like climate change, that impact all of us.

If my Republican colleagues hope to have a bill that is not dead on arrival in the Senate, they would strike these egregious riders.

Madam Chair, I include in the Record the text of the amendment.

Ms. Pingree moves to recommit the bill H.R. 8998 to the

Committee on Appropriations with the following amendment:

Strike sections 116, 117, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129,

130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141,

142, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155,

156, 157, 158, 159, 430, 431, 434, 435, 436, 440, 441, 443,

444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 458,

459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470,

472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 480, 481, 482, 483,

484, 485, 486, 487, 488, 490, 491, 492, 493, 494, 495, and

496.

Madam Chair, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.

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

Madam Chair, I support the en bloc amendment, I urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Kennedy).

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history, and more than 1 million species are currently threatened with extinction, many within decades.

This amendment seeks to legislate species status rather than providing species with the protections they are afforded under the Endangered Species Act, our principal conservation law, and it would potentially increase litigation regarding the government's responsibility to implement the statutory requirements of the Endangered Species Act.

Once again, my Republican colleagues are disregarding the law. The best available scientific and commercial information, not politics, should determine whether a species is listed as threatened or endangered.

This amendment circumvents the rigorous process that is in place to make these determinations as well as the role of public input. Human activities that are threatening and diminishing animal habitats, polluting nature, and accelerating global warming are driving species to extinction.

When we lose a species, impacts reverberate throughout ecosystems, and we all suffer because our economy, health, livelihoods, food security, and quality of life all depend on healthy ecosystems.

Defunding the service's ability to list species would work against the clear intent of the Endangered Species Act and would further litigation by outside groups on both sides. It would undercut the service's ability to work collaboratively with Tribes, other Federal agencies, States, local communities, and landowners to conserve the species.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and protect vulnerable species so that future generations benefit from a world with healthy ecosystems and robust biodiversity.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, the Interior appropriations bill we are considering today includes 92 poison pill riders in the base bill, and I object to the inclusion of any more.

We are here to protect the welfare of the American public, and we cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change, such as the drought, flooding, severe storm, and wildfire events we are experiencing.

As of July 9, the United States has experienced 15 confirmed weather and climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each. That is 15 events over $1 billion this year alone by July. As we all know, Hurricane Beryl made landfall in Texas on July 8, and we know more storms will follow this year.

This amendment seeks to block the Fish and Wildlife Service from working with willing sellers to expand conservation of the Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge through fee title and easement acquisitions. Investment in and expansion of the National Wildlife Refuge System follows on to the Service's work with partners to identify a conservation strategy and limited acquisition boundary that will support sandhill crane, pronghorn, and the lesser prairie-chicken, as well as a full suite of other wildlife that relies on grassland and wetland habitat types.

This plan is a critical step in protecting the future of the Southern High Plains region in New Mexico and Texas for iconic species. This area is also important to conserve for related benefits, like clean water filtration and carbon sequestration, which are essential to environmental and human well-being. Our economy, health, livelihoods, food security, and quality of life all depend on healthy ecosystems.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus instead on addressing climate change and making our Nation stronger.

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

Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funding for the establishment of any national monument in Malheur County.

The Antiquities Act provides the President with the authority to designate national monuments in order to protect objects of historic or scientific

interest. Both Republican and Democratic Presidents have used this authority to increase the protection of special Federal lands.

This amendment inappropriately restricts the President's ability to declare a national monument in specific parts of the country. It goes against 100 years of American tradition to protect the Nation's cultural and natural resources.

The Antiquities Act represents an important achievement in the progress of conservation and preservation efforts in the United States. Congress should not stand in the way of these achievements.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment, and I am sorry to tell my good friend from Oklahoma that I oppose her on this misguided amendment.

One of our greatest strengths as a Nation is our diversity. The American experience is not a singular experience, and diversity programs exist to recognize this. We should not defund or block the Smithsonian from holding LGBTQIA+ events and restricting program and content development when we know the Smithsonian is committed to broadly sharing information so parents can make decisions about what is appropriate content for their children.

Madam Chair, I oppose this amendment, I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I will remind the body, again, that I strongly oppose this amendment. One of our greatest strengths as a Nation is our diversity.

The events that my colleague on the other side of the aisle was referring to were all held during Pride Month. It is an extremely important activity during that month to talk about the importance of our diversity and that America is not a singular experience. We represent a whole variety of people.

I think that any kind of restriction on the content or programming of the art that goes on in the Smithsonian is a terrible, slippery slope. We have seen this happen at other times in our country. Some of us are either old enough or have a memory of Edwin Meese when he was the Attorney General and decided to drape the statues in the Capitol and spent thousands of dollars because he was deciding what was culturally appropriate or what should be going on.

The fact is these are all widely advertised programs that parents can make decisions about. I don't think we should do anything to restrict the content, the art, or the programming at the Smithsonian.

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

Madam Chair, this amendment is petty and punitive. Rather than pursuing grudges against public servants, my colleagues across the aisle should focus their energy on negotiating with the Senate on a bill to fund the government. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, this amendment, once again, is petty and punitive. I don't think this is the appropriate place to pursue grudges against hardworking public servants who we ask to do an extremely important job in Washington.

Let me just say this. This is a use of the Holman rule in a way to-- just talking about my colleague on the other side of the aisle--object to the work that is going on related to climate change.

This bill is going to be full of amendments from people who either don't believe in climate change, don't think we should invest in it, or aren't willing to think about the future.

It is our job to make sure that we are protecting the future of this planet, of this country, of our economy, of the people who live in the United States, and the future of our children and grandchildren.

We are going to hear a litany of opposition through amendments, amendments like these, from people who

don't believe that we are having the hottest summer on record, who aren't paying attention to the extreme floods and to the storms that are impacting us, to the damage it has already done to the economy, to the billions of dollars we are already spending, and who are going to use any means possible to block the work we are doing to fight climate change.

I oppose this amendment. I am going to continue to oppose these amendments that are really just another way to deny that climate changes exists and that we have a responsibility to work on it.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, once again, I will say that we are going to have a litany of amendments from people who don't believe in climate change no matter what they say, no matter how many times people on the other side of the aisle say, oh, no, no, I really want clean air and clean water, but I don't want to do the hard work that has to be done.

To call these policies extremist Green New Deal policies is just a way to dismiss that we have a serious problem before us.

We have serious work to do. It is our responsibility to protect the planet for future generations to make sure that we can continue to live and exist on this planet.

Madam Chair, I reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, the BLM drafted a proposed draft resource management plan and draft supplemental environmental impact statement for the Colorado River Valley field office and Grand Junction field office. This plan is an updated, comprehensive, and environmentally advocate framework for managing uses of these public lands and resources. Sadly, this amendment seeks to block that plan.

We are here to protect the welfare of the American public and preserve our public lands and resources for future generations. Once again, my Republican colleagues are disregarding the law and trying to circumvent the rigorous process that is in place to update resource management plans. The amendment also nullifies the public comments that have been collected by legislating the outcome.

We cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change we are experiencing as our economy, health, livelihoods, food security, and quality of life all depend on healthy ecosystems.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and to focus instead on addressing climate change and being good stewards of our public lands and resources for the benefit of future generations.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to say one thing about my colleague's amendment. She is making the case for the fact that we have to continue to drill for oil or natural gas in Colorado, and I understand the concerns that people have when the economy changes. I can imagine how difficult it is when people have to look at new opportunities as opposed to continuing the careers that they have always done.

However, the reason we are here addressing this and the reason any changes would be made at a Federal level are because we are facing catastrophic climate change. The scientists have told us we have no time left to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, and yet my colleague is talking about how we need to bring more fossil fuels back into our energy stream.

We have made incredible strides with solar power, wind power, and all of the renewable energy we are investing in today. She talks about her role to protect Colorado. Well, my role is to protect the State of Maine. I invite the gentlewoman to come and visit anytime. The ocean in Maine is warming at a rate 99 percent faster than the oceans around the world.

I talked to a fisherman this weekend when I was home, and I asked him how fishing was going this summer as the weather has warmed up and as the ocean has warmed up. We are seeing a serious depletion in the fishing stocks. They can't survive in warmer waters. They migrate to colder waters. They devastate the economy of our fishermen.

If the gentlewoman wants to preserve the economy in her State, then it is important to think about renewable energy and ways to make sure that we can support an energy future that works for all of us and not just for her own State's needs.

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

This amendment would prohibit the use of any Federal funds to create national monuments under the Antiquities Act of 1906 in Montrose, Mesa, Montezuma, San Juan, or Dolores Counties in Colorado.

The Antiquities Act provides the President with the authority to designate national monuments in order to protect objects of historic or scientific interest.

This amendment inappropriately restricts the President's ability to declare national monuments in specific parts of the country. Both Republican and Democratic Presidents have used this authority to increase the protection of special Federal lands. It goes against 100 years of American tradition to protect the Nation's cultural and natural resources.

The Antiquities Act represents an important achievement in the progress of conservation and preservation efforts in the United States. Congress should not stand in the way of these achievements.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I reiterate once again that climate change is a serious issue. It is something to be debated with facts and actual information, not just speculation or things heard on the internet.

One of the reasons we passed the Inflation Reduction Act is to bring some of the manufacturing for renewable energy back into the United States, and I strongly support that.

I support all countries making a serious effort to reduce their investment in fossil fuel and their dependence on fossil fuel. That is what we were debating in the last amendment.

This amendment is about national monuments. Again, I reiterate that national monuments and the designation of them has been an important tool for Presidents of both parties. We should not be doing anything that diminishes that opportunity for an administration.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment, again, is purely an anti- climate messaging amendment. It prohibits funds for section 134 of the Clean Air Act, which is better known as the greenhouse gas reduction fund.

The greenhouse gas reduction fund is a $27 billion investment to mobilize financing and private capital to address the climate crisis, ensure our country's economic competitiveness, and promote energy independence.

Mr. Chair, I note that all of that $27 billion is mandatory spending. This bill does not contain any funding for the greenhouse gas reduction fund. The effect of this amendment is nothing more than anti-climate rhetoric.

We are here to protect the welfare of the American public, and we cannot close our eyes to the impact of climate change. We need to make smart investments that will result in more resilient communities, mitigate the impacts of climate change, and protect our world for future generations.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

Mr. Chair, as my colleague well knows, the Federal Government has a special trust responsibility and legal obligation to provide quality healthcare to American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Unfortunately, we have fallen short of providing the funding that is required to overcome the staggering health disparities and address the health crisis in Indian Country.

Healthcare is provided to sovereign and independent nations, and we have no right to discriminate against or dictate the health services they choose to provide.

I am disappointed that my colleague would want to prohibit funding for any healthcare service to American Indians and Alaska Natives because of his own partisan agenda.

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

Mr. Chair, the National Endowment for the Arts is the Federal agency that funds, promotes, and strengthens the creative capacity of our communities by providing all Americans with diverse opportunities for arts participation. This small but mighty agency supports arts organizations and artists in every congressional district in the country and these investments yield enormous economic benefits.

This amendment would cut the NEA by nearly one-third. That would result in a reduction of an estimated 900 awards. These funds are one- to-one cost-share matched, which means that funding from 56 State and jurisdictional art agencies and 6 regional arts organizations would also be cut by nearly one-third. That would be a reduction of roughly $20 million. This means that there would be nearly one-third cuts across the board to each and every State art agency.

The arts have an incredible value as a positive tool for economic development, education, and community building, and deeply cutting this important agency would cause catastrophic harm.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is incredibly destructive. It would result in a cut to services for active military and veterans by nearly one-third. The NEA has recently expanded its Creative Forces program outside of clinical settings into communities across the country. This would be a huge setback.

In addition to expanding Creative Forces since FY19, the NEA has increased its engagement in rural communities through additional investment in Citizens' Institute on Rural Design, as well as Tribal communities and Tribes, and these would all suffer.

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

This misguided amendment would significantly hinder support for high-quality projects and programs that reach every State and territory and benefit millions of Americans.

The NEH is a unique source of funding for a wide range of local, nonprofit institutions and organizations across the country. These grants strengthen teaching and learning in schools and colleges; facilitate research and original scholarship; provide opportunities for lifelong learning; preserve and provide access to cultural and educational resources; and strengthen the institutional base of the humanities.

NEH grants are sound investments in our communities. These awards stimulate significant financial participation and commitment by local and private partners. We should be doing more for the NEH, not less.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), chairman of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for scholars is the official memorial to President Wilson and a nonpartisan forum for tackling global issues through independent research and open dialogue.

In a divisive world, we need more opportunities to listen to and have dialogue with others who may not share our point of view. The Wilson Center is a great resource for policymakers as they confront today's challenges.

I am disappointed my colleague would want to eliminate funding for this important institution.

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

Mr. Chair, one of our greatest strengths as a Nation is our diversity.

The American experience is not a singular experience, and diversity programs exist to recognize this. The fact is, and many business leaders agree, that having a diverse and inclusive culture in the workplace is critical to performance.

Attempting to defund or block the implementation of these efforts only takes us back in time where our Nation's diversity was not seen as an asset.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment, encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, we are here to protect the welfare of the American public, and we cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change, such as the drought, flooding, severe storm, and wildfire events we are experiencing.

Climate change has reached a crisis point, and we must take bold action to avoid a major irreversible catastrophe. We must invest in renewable energy if we are to tackle this problem.

This shortsighted amendment does not prepare this Nation to address climate change by prohibiting funds for updating a roadmap for solar energy development across the West that is designed to expand solar energy production and make renewable energy siting and permitting on America's public lands more efficient.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 8998 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Madam Chair, I am pleased to begin consideration of H.R. 8998, Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2025.

First, I commend Chairman Cole for his leadership of the Appropriations Committee and for his continued support of the Department of the Interior bill. I also thank Ranking Member Pingree for her partnership as well as Ranking Member DeLauro of the full committee and the subcommittee Members for their work on this bill.

H.R. 8998 provides $38.4 billion in new non-defense discretionary spending, which is $72 million below the fiscal year 2024 level and $4.4 billion below the President's budget request. The bill also rescinds $55 million provided to the Presidio Trust through the Inflation Reduction Act.

Cutting funding is never easy, but with the national debt of nearly $35 trillion and inflation at an unacceptable level, we had to make tough choices in this bill to rein in unnecessary discretionary spending.

This legislation prioritizes critical needs and addresses specific interests and concerns brought to our attention through more than 8,800 Member requests.

H.R. 8998 fully funds the payment in lieu of taxes program, estimated at $600 million, which includes over $330 million to permanently address Federal wildland firefighter pay and capacity. The permanent pay fix included in this bill would improve firefighter recruitment and retention and provide financial certainty to the men and women protecting our communities from catastrophic wildfires.

I will say that, last Wednesday, I was up at what is called the Bench fire in Idaho. I talked to the firefighters and the fire incident commanders up there and spent a day with them. I can tell you they do tremendous work at great risk to themselves. This is something that has to be done.

It also signals our commitment to upholding the Federal Government's trust and treaty responsibilities, providing $2.81 billion for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, a 14.5 percent increase,

and $1.7 billion for the Bureau of Indian Education, a 7.5 percent increase. This includes robust funding for the law enforcement programs, including an additional $13.5 million for the missing and murdered indigenous women initiative.

The bill also provides over $8.5 billion for the Indian Health Service, fully funds current services for key healthcare programs, and covers the estimated increased contract support costs resulting from the recent Supreme Court decision.

To address these priorities while right-sizing the agencies under our jurisdiction, the bill reduces funding for most other accounts in the bill. For example, the EPA is cut by 20 percent below the enacted level, with reductions targeted at operating programs and regulatory activities. The bill still includes community funding projects for clean drinking water infrastructure projects in 285 Members' districts.

The requested amount greatly exceeded the funds available for projects, but we did our best to provide some funding for all eligible projects, given the impact these dollars will have on communities across the country.

In terms of policy, the bill takes critical steps to reduce regulatory burdens imposed by the EPA and promote domestic energy production. Such efforts include halting heavy-handed, job-killing EPA regulations, limiting the abuse of the Endangered Species Act and ensuring continued access to our public lands, expanding access to hard-rock and critical minerals, and requiring oil and gas lease sales and limiting fees on producers. These policies will help boost our national security, reduce energy costs, and create American jobs.

Madam Chair, this bill permanently fixes wildland firefighter pay, helps manage our public lands wisely, upholds our commitments to Indian Country, and restores the fiscal responsibility necessary to get our country back on track.

Madam Chair, I urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Duarte).

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just have to respond a little bit. Cutting spending is never easy, and I did not hear from any of the people who spoke on the other side of the aisle that we have a $35 trillion deficit. That is what is endangering this country.

If we could just spend more money, I would love to address some of the problems that they say exist. They do exist. You have to make choices, and that is what we have done here. We have made choices to make sure that we fully fund PILT payments, to make sure that we fully fund our treaty responsibilities with our Native Americans, and that we take care of the wildfire pay issue that had to be done. Those are boosts in this bill. That means cuts had to come someplace else.

If you want to go find me another $20 billion to spend, we can do a lot of things. One thing we can't do by spending $20 billion more is address the $35 trillion debt that exists in this country today.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 1370, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Chair, this bipartisan en bloc was developed in coordination with our colleagues across the aisle. It contains noncontroversial amendments addressing important issues in this bill that have been agreed to by both sides.

For example, the amendments en bloc highlight the importance of the Rural Water Technical Assistance grants as well as the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds.

It emphasizes the support for Indian Health Services and national heritage areas and support for research to harmful algal blooms and provides assistance to the Holocaust Memorial Museum.

Madam Chair, I support its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have no more speakers on this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I don't have any further speakers if the gentlewoman is ready to yield back.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Chair, I see that we are going to have several Holman rules coming up.

When the Holman rule was originally put in place years ago, it was meant to identify people who had committed crimes and we have had some of those that have been fired. It wasn't meant to identify people who had policy differences.

Those are what elections are about. Anybody who suggested that on this side of the aisle we were going to elect the Biden administration, Biden-Harris administration, that the policies that they enacted were going to be things we supported, I think we are living in a different world.

They are enacting their policy. Instead of doing these types of amendments, and I have opposed every one of them except one, instead of doing these types of amendments, what we need to do is, if we oppose them, get out, and elect another President to get the job done.

This doesn't do anything. If you could tell me that they had committed some crime, something that they didn't have the authority to do, then maybe we would consider it, but I noticed on all of these things, there are an awful lot of Holman amendments.

I am only going to speak on one of them. The same message goes for all of them. Frankly, I don't think we have the authority to do it, even though the rule of the House says we do.

They are appointed and they are confirmed by the United States Senate, and this is essentially firing. When you reduce the salary to $1, you are firing the individual.

I don't think we have that authority. Unless you can show me that they have done something illegal, high crimes or misdemeanors, something like that, I think this is silly, but we are going to have more of them. That is okay. I just wanted to speak on one of them because I don't want to repeat myself over and over and over again.

It gives sponsors of these amendments the chance to complain about what the administration is doing and that is okay, but I oppose the amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in support of this amendment to provide additional funding for the EPA Office of Inspector General to conduct the important and necessary oversight agencies.

I have spoken with several of the inspectors general who have said that with all of the funding that went out last year, funding that went out to the EPA and to other things, they don't have enough money to do the oversight to make sure that the money that was spent in the Inflation Reduction Act, the infrastructure bill, and other things is properly spent, and so they asked us actually and several of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and Ms. Boebert and Mrs. Bice have also suggested that we need more money in the inspector general's accounts. I am supporting this amendment, and I hope my colleagues will also.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

This administration continues to put out rulemaking that seeks to attack American energy producers with burdensome costs and regulations. These new costs will ultimately be passed along to consumers, driving up energy costs for American families and further shifting production to countries that are not our friends.

We must utilize an all-of-the-above approach to energy production and stop hampering domestic energy production.

It would be interesting to note, in the year 2020, we were actually energy independent in this country. We are no longer. Yet, we have the energy here in this country, but we refuse to use it. Therefore, I support the gentlewoman's amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. When we reduce spending overall, we have to make decisions. We have to make priorities. One of the things that we have tried to protect to the extent possible, because it was such a small part of our overall bill, was the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities because I have seen what they do in communities all across Idaho and across this country. Through the NEA grants, Americans in communities that we represent have access to arts and art programs.

I am not worried about the arts in Washington or in New York or in Los Angeles, but I am worried about the arts in Shelley, Idaho, a small town, but they have an arts council, and they do a great job.

I continue to see the impact that funding has, and most of these grants go out, as the ranking member said, to small communities to help with their art councils and so forth.

While I appreciate my colleague's effort to rein in spending, I cannot support this deep cut of the National Endowment for the Arts, so I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment much like the one previous amendment with the arts.

I appreciate the gentleman's attempts to reduce Federal spending. When he says that this is a small portion of the overall budget, it is a third of the budget of this agency, so it is significant to them.

I have worked with the National Endowment for the Arts, I have worked with the National Endowment for the Humanities, and I have worked with the State Endowment for the Humanities.

The work that they have done has been incredible. They preserve history in the State of Idaho. They bring in speakers. They have book signings and authors that come in. They come into towns in Idaho that would have never had these types of opportunities. It is amazing, the turnout that people exhibit when they go to these authors' speeches and so forth.

They help support our museums and other historical sites. I think this is one of the really good things the government does, so I am going to oppose this amendment.

Madam Chair, I thank Ranking Member Pingree for the time, and I thank Chairman Simpson and the staff on both sides of the aisle for their work on the subcommittee, especially the work that they did on wildland fires and, when it comes to shared responsibilities to our Native-American brothers and sisters, for the great work done on the bill there.

As of today, I still have to strongly oppose the bill because it does not meet the needs of the American people.

This summer, our Nation has experienced dangerous levels of heat with records shattered across the West. We are seeing the impacts of a warming planet, increased severe weather events that cause devastating wildland fires, and extreme cycles of drought and floods, which I personally have witnessed in my district both on the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers.

This bill ignores reality. It fails to confront climate change, and in doing so, it fails our communities and our constituents.

The Republican majority has made unacceptable cuts in this bill to the arts and humanities, our national parks, public lands, and the Environmental Protection Agency in part because of the allocation. I do think the allocation was raised a little bit when we went to our full markup.

The 20 percent cut to the EPA will increase the risk to all of our constituents who rely on the agency to safeguard their air, their water, to clean up harmful pollution, to test chemicals and consumer products, and respond to emergencies like last year's train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, or when the EPA had to come out with their emergency team to clean up a disaster waiting to happen at a closed facility in my district. The MPCA and the St. Paul Fire Department were happy to have them there.

This also underscores harmful partisan riders in this bill. Most of these have nothing to do with the appropriations or even the jurisdiction of the committee. The Republican majority continues to use appropriations bills to advance discriminatory and harmful language and scores points with their extreme right political base, as we see in much of Project 2025. These riders promote the interests of corporate polluters. They target the rights of our fellow citizens, and they have no place in funding legislation.

Two of these poison pills are attempts to overturn protections put in

place for the watershed that flows through the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs National Park. I submitted two amendments to strike these harmful provisions from this legislation, but the Republican majority in the Rules Committee did not make them in order, denying a vote on protecting the most pristine, priceless watershed in the United States and even in North America, I would say.

My hope is that we can work together in conference to improve this bill. As of this moment, the deep cuts and the poison pill policy riders it currently contains makes my vote a ``no'' on this bill.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, I am very, very supportive of increasing funding in this important program, and I thank the chairman for his hard work, bipartisan work over the years in combating wildland fires.

However, I simply cannot support the offset proposed for this amendment. Funding for the EPA in the base bill was already cut $1.8 billion below the enacted level, and this reduction makes it impossible for the EPA to carry out its mission. We need the worker bees of the EPA to keep the EPA moving forward for the American public.

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

Madam Chair, to be clear, I fully support the oversight efforts and believe in the mission of the inspectors general offices across this government. It is vital.

When I was former chair of this committee, I supported their work. I supported their work as the former chair of the Defense Subcommittee and as ranking member, but I have to strongly disagree with the offset and the treatment of the EPA in this bill in general.

In the base bill, the EPA is cut by nearly 20 percent. Almost every single account is cut except for the Office of the Inspector General; so, quite frankly, the inspector general's office does pretty well under this bill being protected.

Cutting every single program at the EPA and seeking to increase funding for only one office, which happens to be the oversight office, is clearly an attempt by the majority to politicize the inspector general. That, to me, is just unacceptable, Madam Chair, so I oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, may I inquire how much time is remaining for both sides?

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate Chairman Simpson's remarks, but I would like to correct a point that was made earlier in the debate.

The bill already does include a provision to provide the IG with a percentage of funds from the IRA. It is on page 216, section 471.

The gentlewoman might want to double check before making such a broad statement, again, that it didn't include any funding that could be used from the IRA.

Mr. Chair, I still oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, first and foremost, I do not believe that the United States Government purchases oil from Russia. We have sanctions against them. We do not purchase oil from Iran.

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

The fluid mineral lease and leasing program rules haven't been updated for years, and it is our responsibility to make sure taxpayers get a good return on our natural resources when they are put out to lease.

What this tries to do is just update these outdated fiscal terms on the offshore oil and gas leasing program, including bonding requirements to protect taxpayers, royalty rates, and minimum bids to make sure that U.S. taxpayers receive a fair amount for their public lands when they are used as lease materials.

The rule aims to increase returns to the American taxpayers. I can't say this enough. It is to make sure that taxpayers are getting a fair shake, that they are assured of a fair return from the extraction of natural resources on public lands, and to discourage speculators and improve responsible stewardship as directed by Congress.

We are here to protect the cultural and natural resources of our public lands for future generations, and that means when they go out to bid, we make sure that the royalty rates and the minimum bids serve the taxpayers well and bonding requirements to protect taxpayers are put into place.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to state another fact for the record. When we extract oil and natural gas out of public lands, it is sold on a global market, so when it is sold, it is sold to other folks. If we are running into energy independence challenges as was pointed out, part of that is because it is sold on the global market.

I also want to point out for the record that it has been almost four decades since taxpayers have had bonding requirements, royalty rates, and minimum bids looked at to make sure they are protected.

Let me close with this: Once again, my Republican colleagues are disregarding the law and trying to circumvent the rigorous practices that are in place to update rules. Nullifying public comments also would happen with this amendment.

We can't close our eyes to the impacts of climate change that we are experiencing, as our economy, health, livelihoods, food security, and quality of life all depend upon a healthy ecosystem.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and focus instead on addressing climate change and being good stewards of our public lands and resources for the benefit of future generations. That means refreshing and updating almost 40-year-old oil, gas, and mineral leasing.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in the strongest opposition possible to this amendment.

One of our greatest strengths as a nation is we learn, we grow, and we change. That means diversity is a great strength in this country.

There was a time, Mr. Chair, when women couldn't vote. There was a time when juries were only men. There was a time when it was unthinkable for a woman to join a police department or a woman to be a doctor. Her place was to be a nurse. There was a time in our military in which women could be test pilots here at home during the war, but after the war, they were no longer allowed to be pilots in the sky flying commercially.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion is DEI. The American experience is not a singular experience, and diversity programs exist to recognize this.

I am going to give another example, Mr. Chair. When I was in the State legislature in Minnesota, we had a vibrant Hmong community that came here after the Lao war in Vietnam. It was a secret war in Laos. The Hmong people came here, and there were very outdoors people.

In understanding and making sure that they understood our natural resource laws, we decided we wanted to reach out and include that diversity. I was part of the legislation that was written. We asked our natural resources department to look for qualified people to hire--from Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia--to work with our wonderful diverse community in the Twin Cities and have them feel included and wanted because we wanted them to experience the great outdoors of Minnesota.

We did that. They were well qualified and well respected. Just this year, I was surprised that one of the fathers came up to me when I was doing my recruitment and acceptance for going into the military academies. He said: You don't remember me, but because of you, I felt like I could do this job, and I did it well.

He retired from the State of Minnesota working for the Department of Natural Resources, and I appointed his son to go to one of our military academies. That is the beauty of our country.

The fact is also that business leaders agree that having a diverse and inclusive workforce is critical to their overall performance. I was in sales for years. If you are selling to somebody, you better understand their culture, and you better understand their needs and their wants. The business community embraces this.

The attempt to defund or to block the implementation of these efforts only takes us back to a time in our Nation's diversity when women were not seen as an asset.

I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I am not going to speak on this any longer. This has been replayed over and over and over again. For me, it is hateful, it is hurtful, and it is harmful. We amended our Constitution numerous times to include diversity and inclusion.

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

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

Mr. Chair, the amendment would block the Department of the Interior's Bicycle Subsidy Benefit Program which encourages Federal employees to use bicycles to commute to the office.

We all know what the traffic is going to be like here tomorrow. Bikes would be handy.

The Department created this program in response to a 1993--this is not a new, President Biden-Vice President Harris program. It has been around since 1993. Congress authorized it, and Congress allowed each agency head to establish a program to encourage employees to use a means other than single-occupancy motor vehicles to commute to and from work. That could include taking the subway, taking the bus, or riding your bike.

This is a government-wide program, and the amendment unfairly targets the Department of the Interior employees. I urge my colleagues to treat all employees with fairness, and let's reject this amendment.

Let's also make sure that when we are talking about it, we have our facts accurate. In 1993, Congress made a law which authorized each agency to establish this program.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the IHS, Indian Health Services, from providing sex change surgeries at their hospitals, clinics, or reimbursing providers who perform those sex change surgeries.

IHS is receiving $5.2 billion in appropriations from the bill we are debating. We cannot allow that money to go toward mutilation of individuals, turning them forever into patients of the pharmaceutical industry. If you don't believe this is happening, look no further than the main website for IHS. It has a host of resources for individuals seeking surgery and guidance for so-called care providers.

Their website tells you how to acquire surgery, how to pay for it, and

where to go on the day of surgery. The IHS has the gall to refer to this as ``gender-affirming care,'' which according to them, ``helps transgender and nonbinary people live as their true selves.''

Cutting off healthy body parts and furthering mental instability is not care.

In 2020, a Portland, Oregon, based affiliate of IHS developed a plan to provide sex change surgeries to its patients. It is publicly available online and you can read it. They stated unequivocally their right to provide sex change surgeries to Tribal citizens utilizing Indian Health Services.

As of fiscal year 2024, that group is on its second cohort of individuals being operated on. I am one of, I believe, two Republican Members that carry a CDIB card. I am a member of the Choctaw Nation. I find this practice abhorrent.

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

Mr. Chair, just in closing, this is not a historical practice as it relates to Tribal peoples.

This is a recent cultural fad that defies the face of hundreds of years of established norms. A dark cloud of confusion is gripping this country. It is over our Federal Government. It has led to IHS inflicting this harm on Tribal citizens.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment reduces funding for the National Endowment for the Arts back to 2019 levels. It is a modest cut at $49 million, an overall cut of less than 0.13 percent of the entire bill.

This leaves $155 million for the program on which to operate. There is nothing inherently wrong with artistic programs, but there is something wrong about continuing to increase Washington's deficit spending on unnecessary programs when our national debt is at $35 trillion and climbing.

This commonsense amendment simply returns us back to pre-COVID spending levels. To help my colleagues understand how bad Washington's spending problem is, the CBO projects a deficit of $1.9 trillion for fiscal year 2025. That will grow to $2.9 trillion in another 10 years by 2034.

This excessive spending is going to drive our national debt to record levels. It is going to exacerbate the inflation crisis that all Americans are feeling. We all know the average family of four is struggling to afford the same goods and services as compared to January 2021, spending $1,300 per month more to afford those goods because of devaluation of their currency. That is $16,000 over the course of a year.

According to Zillow, Americans are also now having to earn $106,000 in order to comfortably afford a home. That is an 80 percent increase from the suggested income of $59,000 just in 2020.

How can we, in good conscience, continue to contribute to the economic crisis being felt around the country because of deficit spending and currency devaluation driving inflation? I ask my colleagues, can we not go back to 2019 spending levels? Was that not enough government?

If Republicans are truly going to be fiscally responsible, each one of us has to check our conscience on what we say and support commonsense amendments that are truly in line with fiscal sanity.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment reduces funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities back to 2019 levels. Just as with the previous amendment, this is a modest cut of $49 million that represents 0.13 percent of the entire bill, leaving $155 million for the program to operate.

Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with humanities programs, but Congress can't continue to steadily increase programs year after year as we watch our national debt continue to climb.

While this is a small cut, Congress must start cutting. If we are going to fight to make sure that the blessing of liberty is preserved for the next generation, we are going to have to get serious about the things that are absolutely necessary, compared to those things that we have a choice over. If we had taken the time to look at what is happening to us as a country, we have gone from a country that was ascribing to 18 enumerated powers when this grand experiment in self- governance was setup. Those 18 enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 list out those things that Congress is supposed to be responsible for, and yet it leaves the States programs like this. So as much as I philosophically believe that we are in violation of the 10th Amendment that leaves all these authorities back to the States, I am not going that far.

My hope is to have a tug of war, to pull my colleagues along to my line of thinking to say, if we can't make a determination that our Founders ever intended for the Federal Government to be doing this type of operation, can we at least agree that we can go back to the government that we had in 2019 which since then we have increased total discretionary spending by 30 percent?

We increased discretionary spending by 30 percent during COVID. We increased it with the thought we needed to spend more as a Band-Aid to get through it, but we never returned back to normal. We have a $2 trillion deficit ahead of us.

I am asking, on programs that our Founders listed out and said these are the things you can do, 18 listed, everything else is left to the States--can we not go back to 2019 spending levels?

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment defunds the self-reported nonpartisan Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. I purposely am using the air quotes for ``nonpartisan'' given what I am about to relay.

This think tank publishes articles and hosts events centered around foreign policy to advise policymakers on how to best tackle global issues. However, the Wilson Center is not nonpartisan. It is a far-left organization dedicated, much like President Wilson, to far-left values around the world.

What do I mean by that? In January 2019, the center hosted an event where they promoted ``safe abortion'' access around the world, claiming that denying abortion is violence.

In June 2021, at an event with White House Press Secretary Jean- Pierre, the center called for, again, ``those in power . . . to understand and advocate for the queer liberation necessary to achieve equity for all genders and sexual orientations.''

They publish articles like this from June 2024 that suggest Europe should accept unfettered mass immigration, claiming that blocking illegal immigration is ``far right.'' They say it is ``far right'' and ``perpetuating harmful stereotypes that are deeply ingrained in European consciousness, fostering fear and hostility.''

Apparently, the Wilson Center considers it to be, again, ``far right,'' their words, to believe in borders and not want your country filled with an infinite number of illegal aliens. The center advances radical ideas like its Maternal Health Initiative, which is dedicated to ensuring countries around the world have access to legal abortion.

This radical group receives $12 million in appropriations from the bill we are debating. Congress must not give to those who are using their nonpartisan purposes for very blatant partisan ends.

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

Mr. Chair, I will end by saying that this is a center that is utilizing taxpayer funds to push an agenda in a very partisan manner. It is very much in opposition to many of the things that many of us believe, and the power of the purse must speak.

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

Mr. Chair, diversity, equity, and inclusion is antimerit. It is designed to exclude people from opportunities they might otherwise receive through merit, but it is replaced by, through DEI, melanin percentage or sexual preference.

America promises equality of opportunity and fair treatment, but we have to ask ourselves: Are we betraying our values by encouraging discrimination against people who have a fairer complexion at the same time?

This amendment adds a commonsense DEI prohibition like others that we have seen in appropriation bills that we have advanced. Each of the departments and agencies we are funding, we see the DEI initiative and the involvement.

For instance, the Department of the Interior has a DEI office and DEI officers who train their staff on how to be racist toward White people. The National Endowment for the Arts has an equity officer, Nicole Phillips, whose job is dedicated to advancing racism. This shouldn't be.

Congress has the power of the purse under Article I, Section 9, Clause 7. We need to exercise it and stop blatant racism.

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