Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8997) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, and for other purposes, and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8998) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Chair, please let me begin by thanking our diligent committee staff for all of their hard work on this bill, including on both the majority and minority sides. They are a great group of Americans. I thank Scott McKee and Adam Wilson and, on my personal staff, Mayely Boyce and Margaret McInnis.

I also thank Representative Derek Kilmer for his diligent and honorable public service as we present what will be his last bill. Derek has been a stalwart, serious, and exemplary member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies for many years. His sincere dedication and constant commitment have improved our Nation for today and the tomorrows to come. We will miss him greatly. We all know he will find a way to keep fighting for a more perfect and greater Union, and we thank him for his public service and his meritorious efforts to meet the needs of the American people.

Energy and water undergird America's way of life. They are not optional. They are essential to sustaining life itself.

Our Nation is projected to grow to 400 million people by 2050, three times more people than following World War II. Our bill must catch up to the future, not backpedal.

Sadly, this Republican Energy-Water Development appropriations bill does not meet our Nation's imperative for the future. America must become energy independent in perpetuity. Their bill slow-walks our Nation's obligation to ensure modern, dependable, affordable energy and clean water for millions of our citizens. Thus, it fails to embrace a modern and more secure future.

We cannot behave as though it is 1950. This Energy-Water Development appropriations bill cuts $1.5 billion, or 43 percent, from the Department of Energy's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. They are essential to meeting our Nation's new challenges due to weather-related disasters, as we witness home and commercial business insurance rates rising all across our country.

This bill revokes $8 billion from the Department of Energy's loan programs. A cut of this size would immediately constrict the Department of Energy's ability to spur American manufacturing and innovation in this new climate age.

The bill also slashes the Weatherization Assistance Program, resulting in approximately 54,000 fewer low-income homes receiving weatherization services across our country.

Let me be clear. The cuts in this bill will absolutely jeopardize innovation to achieve American energy independence and security. These cuts will hurt. These cuts will increase energy costs for millions of our fellow citizens, including families and seniors struggling to make ends meet. This bill pushes our Nation backward.

While our Nation has made great strides toward energy independence after half a century of effort, we have not reached home plate and scored on U.S. energy independence in perpetuity.

For example, the United States is fulfilling more of its crude oil needs with domestic supplies than ever before. Thankfully, U.S. net crude oil imports are at the lowest they have been since 1972. Let Russia keep its own oil.

While decreased reliance on imports should give the U.S. more control over prices, consumers are not seeing the full benefits in the price they pay at the pump.

With an adversarial Russia weaponizing energy to destabilize global markets, it is clear that America needs more energy innovation and diversification to reduce our dependence on any form of imported, foreign energy supplies.

Further, we must not cede our solar and chip future to China. We know that China is more than willing to dump products and components to wipe out our domestic industries. We have witnessed this. We know this because it is happening in steel, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and automotive. It simply cannot happen in anything related to energy.

In this new century marked by extreme weather events and increased natural disasters, this bill endangers efforts to address the climate crisis. During 2023, there were 28 separate billion-dollar weather and climate disasters in this country. In 2024, we are already witnessing an escalation of events like heat waves across America. It is 115 degrees in Phoenix today as I talk. There is major flooding throughout the Midwest. Wildfires are burning in the West, earlier than ever. We had the most intense hurricane to form in the Atlantic so early in the year.

We have States hitting rainfall records. June was the 13th month in a row to set a monthly temperature record. The Wall Street Journal reported property insurance premiums are rising significantly or being completely cut off across our Nation.

The total cost from the billion-dollar disasters in 2023 was a record-setting $92.9 billion, almost $100 billion. We can either continue to pay more for disaster response, or we can invest now in climate mitigation and adaptation that will also lower costs for consumers, create jobs, and increase our global competitiveness. The pathway seems crystal clear to me.

Thus, I oppose the Republicans' cuts to vital energy and climate programs. Shortchanging these advances pushes

our Nation backward by slow-walking energy innovation, failing to modernize our Nation's electric grids, failing to advance innovation relative to our global competitors in materials and manufacturing, and failing to build domestic end-to-end supply chains for jobs in the new energy economy, American jobs.

In other areas of this bill, while I support many of the bill's efforts to maintain a safe, secure, and credible nuclear deterrent and robust naval nuclear propulsion program--God bless them--I am concerned how this bill cuts nuclear nonproliferation programs that reduce nuclear risks and counter the global challenge of nuclear proliferation.

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

I truly do appreciate working with Chairman Fleischmann, a very, very hardworking Member, and our colleagues to develop and pass bipartisan bills, as has long been this committee's practice, including last year. I am saddened that this vital subcommittee is being steered to return to a partisan process for this fiscal year 2025 House bill. Americans all witnessed how chaos and extremism played out last year, and we all fully should know a bipartisan compromise is the only avenue to finalize these bills.

Americans expect us to negotiate our differences, work together across the aisle, and do our jobs to find the big middle. America's future relies on the new age frontiers of energy and water. America can and must do better, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. McClellan).

Mr. Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished and extremely hardworking ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close.

As I said before, Mr. Chairman, America's future relies on our new age frontiers of energy and water. This bill does not meet the mark. America can and must excel.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This en bloc contains noncontroversial amendments from Members of both parties, and I have no objection.

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

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Ms. DeLauro, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).

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

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Flood

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The amendment purports to prohibit funding for what is termed ``lab- grown meat'' at the Department of Energy.

One would normally think of the Department of Agriculture as the place for that to occur. However, the actual amendment text prohibits funds to be ``used for or to advance the research, development, demonstration, processing, or promotion of alternative proteins.''

The term ``alternative proteins,'' without getting too deep into the scientific weeds, is very broad, and this would likely have an impact largely beyond the purported intent related to lab-grown meat.

Members probably have seen some of the scientific and medical work being done across our country, for example, in kidney transplantation. There is great crossover between some of the pure sciences and some of the applied sciences in trying to heal and trying to help people live longer and to replace damaged organs and so forth, so we need this science to progress.

This amendment would restrict the work of the Department of Energy, which is a basic science department, and its Office of Science, which is the Nation's largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences.

This amendment would impact work both for the Basic Energy Sciences division and the Biological and Environmental Sciences division. Sometimes these sciences cross over as we become smarter and more able to heal. With supercomputing, we are now going to be moving into an age way beyond where the 20th century was, and we don't want to harm that research.

The Basic Energy Sciences division supports fundamental research to understand, predict, and ultimately control matter and energy at the electronic, atomic, and molecular levels in order to provide the foundations of new energy technologies, which, of course, we are all balls of energy in one way or another.

With supercomputing, we are now going so far beyond where science in the last century went in terms of understanding how we function and how our world functions. For example, within the basic energy sciences, they conduct biosciences and photosynthetic system studies to modify a protein to better understand its function.

This work is deep into high science. This is not producing cattle for market. This is something very different.

The mission of the Biological and Environmental Sciences Research division is to support transformative science to achieve a predictive understanding of complex biological, Earth, and environmental systems, even trying to understand the reaction inside the human body of the biochemical reactions of a nerve sheath, which requires the help of supercomputers.

Understanding proteins, which is a subdivision of understanding how all matter functions, is fundamental to understanding biology.

The unintended consequences of this amendment are widespread and could cripple our Nation's ability to make breakthroughs in biology, bioenergy, decarbonization of the food industry, and human health.

Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. I would love to work with the gentleman on trying to meet the challenge my colleague is trying to solve, but this is not the way to do it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would be more than happy to come to those farmers' farms. I serve on the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. I have farmers in my district that raise cattle. I want to find ways to reuse manure for soil complements and energy. We have other farmers here in this Chamber who care about this very much. The gentleman should know that he has an ally on this side of the aisle.

I just don't want to diminish the high science in the study of proteins that is so valuable to us as a country. Please know, at least this Member doesn't want to do anything to hurt your industry; we only want to help you. We don't want imported meat.

I am very unhappy China owns Smithfield's at this point. I want American producers to succeed, so just know you found a friend, not with this amendment, but with your desire to promote American agriculture in the animal industry.

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

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

Mr. Chair, first, let me say that I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, but I understand the gentlewoman's desire to protect the jobs of people in the State that she is sworn to represent. I respect that very much.

Southern Ohio has had a lot of transition in the energy industry, and we understand what it means when you lose jobs. We have a fossil fuel energy research lab in the State of Pennsylvania that actually is looking at products like coal and seeing if, in fact, there aren't rare earths in there that are worth more per ton than traditional mining. I just mention that.

I sadly have to rise in opposition to her amendment because it would essentially prohibit funds to implement the Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap published by the Department of Energy in fiscal year 2022. The purpose of the roadmap is to develop a strategic approach to decarbonizing the Nation's industrial sector.

I come from a major industrial area. I can't tell you how many funerals I have been to, including my own brother's, of people who worked in industry. His situation was as a mechanic on heavy duty equipment, garbage trucks, fire trucks, and police cars, working in garages where the people ingested the fumes.

George Tucker, who was the head of our Local 7 unit in that garage, had a double cancer. He suffered for almost two decades.

Believe me, these are horrendous illnesses that come from working in unsafe conditions.

The purpose of the roadmap is to develop a strategic approach to decarbonizing the Nation's industrial sector, which we need, while simultaneously creating good-paying jobs for American workers, spurring economic growth, developing U.S. leadership in new technologies, and creating a cleaner, more equitable future for all Americans.

For a number of our mechanics, whether they are repairing airplanes or whether they are working in extractive industries, the conditions that they work under are really tragic.

One of the interesting things to look at is, in the different States that we live in, if you look at the occupational safety and health bills that come in the form of healthcare, the money that it costs to take care of sick people who have had to work in these industries, that is not our job in this account, but I can guarantee you, we hemorrhage money because of the illnesses of people across this country.

This roadmap focused on proven steps for energy technology innovation, advancing early stage research and development, investing in multiple industrial process strategies, scaling through demonstrations, and integrating solutions from that.

Particularly with what is happening to air quality because of the climate crisis, our efforts are even more needed to make the industrial sector more efficient, to position it to be a global leader in innovation as well as clean air and clean circumstances that people work in and to be competitive in the future global clean energy economy.

We really are transitioning to a different world. It will be a healthier one. I really don't want to go back to the 20th century and what these individuals and their families have had to live through. It is really ugly.

While it is clear that we need an all-of-the-above energy strategy that taps domestic oil and gas and invests in clean energy, we must also continue to promote energy innovation in all sectors of our economy. It is just intelligent. It is just a wise thing to do for the country.

The transition will be difficult, and we know that, because people lose jobs and technologies go out of date, but some that come on are just ingenious. America is a country of invention, and I believe that we will work our way forward in this new challenge to decarbonize our Nation's industrial sector, create good-paying jobs, spur economic growth, create a cleaner future for all Americans, and lead the world in these new technologies.

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

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment because it would prohibit the National Nuclear Security Administration from halting construction on the HE Synthesis, Formulation and Production facility at the Pantex plant in Texas.

The FY25 bill does provide $20 million to proceed with activities, so there is funding in the bill. I would ask the gentleman to go back and look and see if that doesn't at least move the project forward. I have long been a champion of ensuring that our country maintains a safe, secure, and credible nuclear deterrent while also addressing the threat of nuclear proliferation and terrorism. We have to do both.

However, as I have said, I continue to be troubled by the unsustainable spending in the Department of Energy's weapons program. The National Nuclear Security Administration needs to improve its program and project management given that more than half of its projects are over cost or behind schedule. I am going to repeat that. Over half of its projects are over cost or behind schedule. There is a problem there. Pantex isn't a complete victim because there is money in the bill for

the facility. However, they have a problem over there, and they need to figure out what can be done to move these programs forward more quickly.

Importantly, we must also face the realities of defense funding gaps. I am on the Defense Subcommittee, as well. We have to begin making important decisions to prioritize within these programs. As one step in the prioritization process, the National Nuclear Security Administration proposed pausing construction of this facility to focus resources on higher priority items, which we have asked them to do, necessary for nuclear weapons modernization efforts.

I would say to the gentleman, one of the things he might want to consider is to talk to some of the folks here who promote these weapons systems, but then the NNSA can't build them fast enough, so we have to be disciplined in the guidance that we give them.

Only through strategic prioritization can the programs achieve success in meeting the needs of stockpile requirements and maintaining our Nation's nuclear deterrent. We should not prohibit the NNSA from pausing certain activities, especially since those issues will be resolved through conferencing funding levels.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I have some sense of what is happening in Florida. I live along the Great Lakes, and I see what is happening with our shorelines and the changing climate conditions that are impacting life.

This amendment would prohibit funds for the Army Corps of Engineers to implement or enforce guidance from 1996 called approval of perpetual beach storm damage reduction easement, underline the word ``easement,'' as a standard estate.

What that means is if the government is going to be involved, a private owner has to give them permission to have this easement, to go in and do work. That has to be really hard in Florida because of what is happening along all of your coasts.

While this might sound like a lot of jargon, it is actually an attempt to have some areas of the country treated differently than other areas.

Beach renourishment is an important function. The Army Corps of Engineers plays a major role in that, and it includes the adding of sediment onto or directly adjacent to an eroding beach. The Army Corps of Engineers generally requires that real estate easements are granted when performing work, which makes sense because taxpayers are footing the bill for these improvements that the Corps installs.

Further, it seems particularly of interest to taxpayers that if our taxpayer dollars are improving private property, then there should be an easement provided. In this case, that wasn't required in the past, but the Army Corps of Engineers realized it wasn't following standard procedures and decided to implement that going forward.

I also realize that a sudden change in policy can have impacts on local communities. I support efforts to ensure

that there is adequate time to plan for and adjust to changes in policy. I expect that the final Water Resources Development Act, which is not our job, will address this issue in a way that reduces the negative impacts on local communities while ensuring consistency in implementing the laws and regulations of this country, especially when it comes to projects funded with taxpayer dollars.

However, this amendment is not that balanced approach. This matter should be addressed by the appropriate authorizing committee.

For these reasons, I cannot support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote against it, though I can certainly share the gentlewoman's concern about what is happening on all Florida coasts. The ecosystem is changing greatly, and we are going to have to, as a country, figure out how to handle our coasts.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment because it prohibits funds provided by this act from closing campgrounds or parks operated by the Army Corps of Engineers located at or around Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia.

I can certainly understand the strong interest in preventing the Corps from closing campgrounds and parks in a particular area. I am trying to think if we have any around me. I don't think so. I probably should get them to do some in our area.

The Army Corps of Engineers is one of the Nation's leading Federal providers of outdoor recreation, so you indeed are fortunate. Its recreation sites receive 262 million visitors each year and include more than 400 lake and river projects in 43 States.

Unfortunately, the Army Corps of Engineers recreation funding has been--guess what?--declining in recent years. We know they have to make decisions.

I support the notion that we do not want the Corps to begin closing recreation sites due to lack of funding. However, this is an issue that affects hundreds of sites across dozens of States.

As I said, personally, I don't have a dog in the fight. I do not believe we should begin the practice of using funding prohibitions to carve out special designations but instead should urge and will urge the Corps to develop a comprehensive and fair solution to address the challenge of funding the Corps recreation sites.

For this reason, I oppose the amendment at this time, but I look forward to working with the gentleman and my colleagues to develop a solution to the larger problem. Hopefully, through that, the gentleman's site could be benefited.

Mr. Chair, 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 this amendment which would prohibit the use of funds for the consideration of the social cost of greenhouse gases in the development and implementation of budgets, Federal procurement processes, and environmental reviews.

As I have said, it is undeniable that we are witnessing growing weather events stemming from climate change occurring in real time before our very eyes. During 2023, there were 28 separate billion- dollar weather events and climate disasters, costing over $92 billion. There have already been 15 confirmed billion-dollar weather and climate disasters so far this year. In fact, I am sure the gentleman can check with his constituents, but people's home insurance is going up, and there are many places in the country where insurance is no longer offered. The cost of what is happening is rising.

We do not have the luxury to pretend that climate change isn't impacting us or that our actions aren't causing it. We need to understand what is happening to people across this Nation. We just heard from a Member from Florida in terms of requesting funding for beach replenishment in a place where the water is rising and sloshing over the edges of Florida on all coasts.

Tell American citizens who have lost businesses, homes, and loved ones or have lived in structures that have collapsed or disappeared from hurricanes, wildfires, and other recent natural disasters, that there are no costs from climate change. That is wrong.

It is already past time for aggressive action to address climate change and its impacts. It is critical for us to analyze and account for the potential impacts of government actions on the climate, and it is just as important to use that information for positive actions to help heal.

The truth is that climate change is having catastrophic social and economic impacts here and across the globe, and they are real. Pretending that climate change doesn't exist won't make it go away.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment which prohibits funding for the American Climate Corps.

I have long been a champion of engaging young people in the climate corps to teach practical skills, to get them out of their narrow worlds, and to provide more open opportunities as happened many years ago with the Works Progress Administration.

The whole intent of the climate corps is to create capable people and give

them skills to move into ultimately middle-class jobs focused on weatherizing homes in this country, installing solar and other energy infrastructure. Hopefully, we will get some mechanical engineers out of that and some water engineers, hydraulic engineers. To mitigate coastal erosion, maybe we will get some Army Corps of Engineers enlistees. To prevent fires and flooding--you can't go out West and not have an energy company tell you that they are short on people who can climb the poles and try to make repairs after the wildfires out there.

The Coast Guard needs individuals to enlist. We also need people to construct and maintain public trails and more, all these wonderful metro parks we have and national parks. This will be a great experience for America's young adults.

From the West to the Great Plains to the coasts and the Great Lakes, we are witnessing the wreckage brought about by a changing climate whose ferocity knows no bounds.

We just heard from a Member from Florida about beach replenishment. How about putting some of these folks that would be in the climate corps to participate in that effort, if it can be funded.

Our success in tackling climate change will require bold, innovative strategies commensurate with the scope of the threats we have and the younger generation coming up behind us to provide that opportunity for them to gain the skills.

Last year, President Biden announced the American Climate Corps to train a band of young people in high-demand skills for jobs in the clean energy economy.

The programs will give a new generation of Americans the skills necessary to access good-paying jobs that are aligned with high-quality employment opportunities after they complete their training or service program.

We must continue to invest in the American workforce of the future. What a wonderful way to give the young people who would be moving forward in this an opportunity to help repair and build forward their Nation.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funds for the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases.

I don't know where the gentleman lives, but I live in an area where we have very ozone-heavy industrial zones. We have major neighborhoods that are oxygen short. We have areas where methane belches out of old landfills and dumps. We are not the only place in America that has these places, and this amendment would prohibit funds for the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases.

We are involved in a big tree planting project in our area right now, 10,000 trees to try to replace the old ones that are over 100 years old and try to bring oxygen into oxygen-short areas.

It is very clear that in urban areas coast to coast, there are places that are not healthy to live, and I don't think the countryside should be a dumping ground for waste from industry or any other place, but that has happened in many States in our Union.

The work that is being done by the department is crucial to making sure that the government accounts for the potential impacts of government actions on climate.

I have to say this, and it doesn't relate to gases, but back in the eighties we ruined the freshwater lake of Erie, and we have been cleaning it up ever since. What happened?

The Clean Water Act was passed, and you couldn't dump DDT into the water anymore. We had only two bald eagles left on Lake Erie. Today, we have given rebirth to the American bald eagle population, and they have even flown over to Cleveland and are multiplying now over there.

So we have seen the results of stupidity and ignorance in the past, and we don't intend to be ignorant in the 21st century.

It is critical to analyze and account for the potential impacts of private as well as governmental actions on climate, and it is important to use that information to better ourselves. I wish we had an answer in the Great Lakes right now for dissolved reactive phosphorus. We don't. However, if we are not smart, the greatest freshwater legacy in the world will be ruined for humanity, and that is not acceptable.

There is an old expression: Don't try to fool Mother Nature. I say: Don't ignore Mother Nature when she is telling you something is going wrong.

Mr. Chair, this is one such moment in American history. We can't pretend that the impact of human activity on planet Earth is negligible. There are billions of us now, and there is a draw on Mother Earth, and we have to understand her and hear her.

We must robustly meet the needs of the future and not flounder in the past.

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

Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

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

Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Ogles

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

This amendment prohibits the use of funds for the Department of Energy's Office of Science's Scientific Workforce Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

This bill already includes harmful riders that show Republicans are not interested in bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.

The underlying bill includes a provision that prohibits funds related to advancing racial equity and supporting underserved communities--I represent some of those--and related to diversity, equity, and inclusion and accessibility in the Federal workforce.

In addition, the bill includes a provision that prohibits any activities related to critical race theory that, as we heard during markups last year, none of my Republican colleagues could even define.

How many times do my Republican colleagues need to emphasize that they do not like diversity, equity, and inclusion?

I would encourage my friend to go to a website and look up Admiral William McRaven's wonderful, wonderful, speech to a graduating class of the Naval Academy called ``Make Your Bed.'' What was interesting about it is that as a former SEAL, he talked about who actually in his SEAL training were the guys who actually won?

They were the guys who weren't the tallest, and they weren't the biggest, but they were a squad of sort of people who weren't as tall, they weren't as big, but their fierce spirit drove them to victory. I would urge the gentleman to look at that film, and then come back and consider whether he should ever offer an amendment like this again.

I really do not understand why these provisions are necessary on an Energy and Water bill, and I would hope that my colleagues can stop targeting those who may be different from themselves and embrace acceptance or at least tolerance of others. That is the greatness of America.

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

Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Department of Energy is charged with implementing congressionally directed energy efficiency standards.

I will tell you, Madam Chair, in our home, efficiency standards have made hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of dollars of difference in savings, certainly in the area of the water heater and the refrigerator.

In accordance with the statute, the Department of Energy has published regulations in the code of Federal regulations for more than 60 categories of appliance and equipment types. The Department of Energy drafts the efficiency regulations with the full participation of equipment manufacturers and the public at large. The process includes thorough consideration of all comments and concerns.

These actions result in direct energy savings for American consumers. Look at all the little postcards you get in the mail making unsolicited offers. I got one yesterday for windows. I know we are not talking about windows here, but the difference between different window types and how much energy you can save, consumers look at that.

We have to work toward improving the reliability and performance across household appliances and commercial and industrial equipment.

Efficiency standards are not bans, and they do not impact existing appliances that Americans have purchased.

However, I think it is safe to say that virtually all Americans, let alone all the people in this room, have benefited from these types of efficiency standards over the course of their lifetimes, and I bet the gentleman's household has, as well.

Again, these actions are required by congressional direction.

Collectively, the Biden administration's past and planned energy efficiency actions will save Americans $1 trillion. That is at the household level.

That will save the average family at least $100 a year through lower utility bills. That amount may not be a lot to some people, but it is a great deal of money to a lot of people.

The Department of Energy estimates that this specific rule would save Americans $44 million in annual operating costs. It will make us smarter and better as a country.

If Congress does not like these standards, that should be addressed by new laws through the Energy and Commerce Committee, not through funding prohibitions.

With respect to the proposed energy efficiency standards for automatic commercial ice makers, I urge my colleagues with concerns to participate fully in the rulemaking process. That is the appropriate response to a proposed rule that Members oppose.

Congress has vested the Department of Energy with the authority to promulgate these rules. They listen to the American people and let us fully participate in that process.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, as I have mentioned on other amendments, the Department of Energy is charged with implementing congressionally directed energy efficiency standards. In accordance with the statute, the Department has published regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations for more than 60 categories of appliance and equipment types. The Department of Energy drafts the energy efficiency regulations with the full participation of equipment manufacturers and the public at large.

The results are energy savings for the buyer of the equipment. I have experienced that in my own house, and now that the gentleman is buying an appliance for his house, my colleague is going to experience those savings, too. The gentleman ought to add them up. It makes a difference.

Efficiency standards are not bans, and they do not impact existing appliances in Americans' homes. I think it is safe to assume that virtually all Americans have benefited from these types of efficiency standards over the course of their lifetimes. Also, our environment has benefited.

These actions are required by congressional direction. Laws were passed asking the Department of Energy to do this, and we know that these efficiency standards will save our people over a trillion dollars. That isn't chicken feed. It will save the average family well over $100 a year through lower utility bills.

The Department of Energy estimates that this specific rule would slash household utility costs by over $7 billion annually and could save consumers $1,800 on their energy bills over the life of the appliance.

That helps pay for the appliance. It helps consumers save money for something else they can buy.

If Congress does not like these standards, Members should address it with new laws through the Energy and Commerce Committee, not through funding prohibitions, as the gentleman suggests. Stopping the Department of Energy from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing energy efficiency standards will only create uncertainty for manufacturers and consumers.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment creates a funding prohibition related to the Delaware River Basin Commission.

The Delaware River Basin Commission is a Federal-interstate compact agency charged with managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin on a regional basis without regard to political boundaries. As established by law, through the Delaware River Basin Compact that went into effect in 1961, the commission consists of the Army Corps of Engineers and four basin State Governors. Those States are Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. The gentleman is from Pennsylvania, one of the four States.

The Corps of Engineers and these States work as equal partners for planning, development, and regulatory actions for the river basin. Given the commission's statutory mission, it analyzed the risks to water resources posed by high-volume hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques. Through a public rulemaking process, the commission developed regulations on high-volume hydraulic fracturing in rock formations within the Delaware River Basin.

I do not pretend to be an expert on the Delaware River Basin. I trust what these four States have worked on together.

As a reminder, the commission consists of the Governors of the four basin States, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, and the North Atlantic Division commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

It does not strike me as a proper role for Congress, particularly through an appropriations rider, to overrule regional and local governments on this complex matter.

While the commission's work could be further discussed, I am also concerned that this implicates funding provided to the Delaware River Basin Commission as community project funding on behalf of one Member of this body.

Madam Chair, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this

amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding, and I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

I say to the gentleman who is offering it, I have a lot of respect for the State of Pennsylvania because, like Ohio, you manufacture things. You make things happen in America.

Right now, in the vehicular sector, especially in new electric drivetrains, the leading nation in the world for that is not the United States of America. The leading nation is China, and to a great degree, if you look at the figures. I don't have them here with me on the floor, but what China has done in other sectors is it manufactures over what the market needs.

Let's take steel, for example. Pennsylvania used to be a great steelmaking State, and it still has shreds of that left. China manufactured four times what the world needs and then it dumped them. It does the same in pharmaceuticals.

We understand what they are going to do next: cars. The cars they are manufacturing, millions of them, much more than this country, they are going to dump them here too because that is what is happening inside the world of global trade in the automotive sector.

I oppose the gentleman's amendment because I want America to be able to compete and to have all the componentry here, including the batteries, in order to move our population. Hybrids are selling. I don't think the all-electric vehicle is as popular. He is correct. There were subsidies provided for that, but we are building a supply chain in the automotive sector, and we could lose it. We could definitely lose it because our trade laws are weak.

We are an open country. Other places are not. The Chinese can manufacture because they have billions of hands, really, to work with. It is a much greater population, and they will strategically target. I would just ask the gentleman to take a look at that.

The funding in this bill includes, with the people applying, $19 billion in active applications for loans, and there is also the administration of another $19 billion in loans that are either active or have conditional commitments.

Let me just go through a couple of them. There is a $2.5 billion loan that just closed in November to support 6,000 construction jobs and an estimated 5,100 permanent jobs at three newly constructed lithium-ion battery cell manufacturing facilities in Spring Hill, Tennessee, not that far from Pennsylvania and Ohio; also, Lansing, Michigan; and Lordstown in my home State of Ohio near the Pennsylvania border.

There is a $9.2 billion conditional commitment to finance the construction of three manufacturing plants to produce batteries. We are behind, even with all the money we put into research and everything in order to make batteries more efficient. The Ford Motor Company and their future Ford and Lincoln electric vehicles are estimated to support 5,000 construction jobs and 7,500 operation jobs in Kentucky and Tennessee once the plants are opened and running.

We just dedicated in my hometown to working with the Koreans, the South Koreans, a Mobis battery facility to serve the Jeep Gladiator, which is going to have a hybrid electric offering to the marketplace. This is all new.

From automotive America, I cannot accept the gentleman's amendment because we want to beat the Chinese, we want to be the best, and we have to have the help of the government in that because we have to move these technologies faster.

There was an $850 million loan commitment announced in June of this year to help finance the construction of KORE Power, an advanced battery cell manufacturing facility in Buckeye, Arizona, to support up to 700 construction jobs and 1,250 operation jobs once the facilities are open.

In all of our labs at the Department of Energy, we are trying to push battery technology to a level never seen before. This takes time, but it is happening. Believe me, there are other countries that are ahead of us. We are in a catch-up mode, and we are in a predumping mode.

I completely disagree with the gentleman's amendment and urge a vote against it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. I obviously rise in opposition to this amendment.

If you want to increase fraud and hinder the ability of the Federal Government to quickly and efficiently interact with private businesses, then, by all means, vote for this gentleman's amendment.

However, I will vote against it because we must continue to invest in the manufacturing prowess of this country.

We have to catch up. So many of our jobs were outsourced to penny- wage environments in very undemocratic countries, and we lost manufacturing in small towns and big cities across America. So we are in a catch-up mode right now to domestic onshoring and reshoring of vital economic activities, including the manufacturing of vehicles that all of us use to get to work and to conduct the business of this country.

I urge my colleagues to vote for America against this misguided amendment.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to implement or enforce the DRBC's rule to ban hydraulic fracturing within the Delaware River Basin. The best way to combat high natural gas prices that all of us are paying is to produce more natural gas in America, not less.

In places like my home, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the second largest natural gas producer in the Nation, it is unfortunate that unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the Delaware River Basin Commission have instituted a hydraulic fracturing ban for a portion of our State, our Commonwealth, stripping away, at the stroke of a pen, property and mineral rights from Pennsylvanians in contravention of the will of their own legislature. These aren't elected officials. These are folks who just have a different idea and have the authority to take.

The result is a prohibition on the development of critical shale plays in eastern Pennsylvania that can bring desperately needed natural gas to market and the unconstitutional taking of the mineral rights of Pennsylvania. That is the result.

To be clear, this amendment simply prohibits the DRBC from implementing or enforcing this hydraulic fracturing ban, but it does not impact the ability of the States in the river basin to regulate hydraulic fracturing as they see fit.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, during previous debates on this issue, mistruths were spread about the impact of this policy change on the water reservoirs that serve New York City. These claims are false and easily disproved by the facts, which I am going to lay out right now.

The safety of hydraulic fracturing has been demonstrated through its extensive use across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and across the country, not only over the past two decades but for multiple decades.

The Obama-era EPA--not the current one and not the last one, but the Obama-era EPA--determined that the practice did not pose a threat to drinking water. Simple geography and hydrology make this outcome an impossibility. All New York City reservoirs are upriver from Pennsylvania or on the Hudson River, which does not connect to Pennsylvania, precluding any impact from Pennsylvania from reaching those reservoirs.

The intention of this amendment and its primary impact will be unleashing Pennsylvania's full energy potential by allowing Pennsylvanians in the river basin that they live in to use their property that they bought with their money and their mineral rights that they bought with their money as they see fit, subject to the laws passed by their elected officials, not by some bureaucrat from some other State.

It is time to stop this underhanded attack on property rights, representative government, and State sovereignty and restore American energy security at the same time. Opposition to this amendment essentially is saying my colleagues support a ban on hydraulic fracturing and for higher natural gas prices for Members' constituents.

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

Madam Chair, this amendment would eliminate funding for administrative expenses necessary for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, which provides loans to companies that make Green New Deal cars, and to manufacture so-called advanced technology vehicles and qualifying components, like car manufacturers in this country need an infusion of cash from taxpayers that are buying their cars.

This law recklessly spends over $1 trillion, ignoring the fact that the national debt is now $35 trillion and will likely be $36 trillion by the end of this year. The package also includes almost $8 billion in subsidies for electric vehicle chargers, even though profit incentives have driven private actors in the auto industry, independent startups, and utilities across the country to rush to build charging stations on their own. We don't have to subsidize this.

Car dealerships are having trouble moving electric vehicles. Do you know how I know, Madam Chair? Because they come in and tell me, and they beg me to do something about it. They can't get these vehicles off their lots. There is no need to continue throwing good money after bad, coercing private companies to manufacture Green New Deal vehicles that our citizens do not want.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, many have supported this program, but in recent years, it is even more egregious. Recent legislation removed the $25 billion cap on loan authority. While some folks say, well, the loans are all out and we just need to administer them, the cap on loan authority has now opened up. It has opened up the program not just to light-duty vehicle manufacturers, but to medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, trains, and maritime vessels.

What do you think is going to happen when the government is handing out money without a cap on it?

You know what is going to happen, Madam Chair. You go from $35 trillion to $36 trillion, and the debt just keeps on climbing a trillion dollars every 100 days.

I know there are people that want this money. Everybody wants government money, but the people that live in this country that pay the bill can no longer afford it.

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

Madam Chair, the Federal loan guarantee program is exactly what it says. They are loans that are guaranteed by the Federal Government. Of course, that just transfers the risk of those loans to the taxpayers.

As with any government subsidy, they reduce the market discipline of loan recipients. Recipients get the loan, they know the Federal Government is going to pay the bill if it fails, and when it fails that is exactly what happens.

Now there is a checkered past in the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program, and it demonstrates that it is not immune from these concerns. As it currently stands today, it hasn't been reformed; it hasn't been revamped. We are just going to keep on loaning money. Among the most egregious examples of title 17 loan failures are Solyndra, Fisker Automotive, and A123 Systems. All three entities received hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees before filing for bankruptcy and leaving the taxpayer holding the bag.

They filed for bankruptcy, by the way, because they produced things that the American people didn't want but were forced on them. To add insult to injury, A123 Systems and Fisker Automotive were purchased by, you guessed it, Chinese companies for pennies on the dollar.

You pay the bill; they get the money. Meaning, the CCP, the Communist Party of China, was the ultimate beneficiary of our tax dollars and the good people that are working hard every day to pay those loans.

Both companies also received subsidies from the Michigan State government under then-Governor Jennifer Granholm.

Now, you might not care about that because it was in Michigan. Maybe you don't live in Michigan where Fisker Automotive and A123 Systems were located, went bankrupt, took your money, and then were sold to the Chinese, but the integrity of these programs is heightened by the fact that Secretary of Energy Granholm's leadership position is now at that Department and will oversee these loans.

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

Madam Chair, I must disagree. The so-called Inflation Reduction Act, I don't know if anyone's keeping score, but when I go to the grocery store since the Inflation Reduction Act, prices are higher. When I go to the gas station, prices are higher. It hasn't really reduced inflation, but that is another story.

Since the Inflation Reduction Act provides approximately $11.7 billion for the loan program office to issue new loans, we are going to keep going. We are going to burden the taxpayer with the potential for these loans to go bad, and they have gone bad.

This additional funding raises significant concerns that the program will, once again, be used as a piggy bank for any administration and the Secretary to reward politically-favored industries.

Madam Chair, my bosses, my constituents, can't afford this continued grifting. We have to stop the gravy train for these failed green energy companies on the backs of taxpayers. If private industry wants to invest, God bless them, but the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, continue to invest. Continue to invest. It is going to continue unless this amendment passes. We are going to keep throwing good money after bad.

We are going to continue to invest in Chinese slave labor. It needs to be understood that the material that makes these batteries--even though the material that comes to the United States of America, we don't produce any of our own material here; it is not allowed--is going to come from slave labor in China.

If that is not bad enough, the raw material is going to come from child slave labor in Africa promoted by the Chinese. You are going to continue to invest because you are going to be forced to continue to invest in them.

This is an easy one, Madam Chair. The American people are sick of investing in these things that are immoral and unaffordable. I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The IIJA provided the Appalachian Regional Commission with an advanced appropriation of $200 million every single year, the entirety of its authorization level for fiscal year 2022 through 2026, meaning every dollar provided under this bill is more than the authorized level.

This Congress said this is the level at which you can spend. We are spending way above that. In other words, under this amendment, the ARC would still receive $365 million for the fiscal year rather than $400 million provided by the underlying bill.

Even with this minimal cut under this amendment, the program's funding is still extremely bloated, and its effectiveness remains unclear. It doesn't really remain unclear. It is completely unknown. I know. I sat in and presided over the hearing regarding this commission and all the commissions where, literally, the metric they use to determine success was we get loan applications. People want to receive loans and grants. That is their measure of success.

Where I live in Pennsylvania, the Appalachian Trail comes right through the district, and people in Appalachia certainly sorely need help, but they don't need a bunch of throwaway things from contractors outside of their area coming in to make a bunch of money off the government and leave them with whatever is left over.

This commission's programs are duplicative of other Federal development economic programs and are better addressed at the State and local levels where those States know exactly what is needed.

In fact, the FY18 budget justification identified the Appalachian Regional Commission failed to show a strong link between grants and a positive impact on the community they serve. They are giving out money, but they can't justify any of it through metrics or through any performance evaluation whatsoever.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, that might be all well and good, but last year, the commission's inspector general--not Perry, not this Congress, the inspector general identified the massive increase in the commission's funding over recent years as a threat to its ability to evaluate grant proposals, measure program performance, and conduct appropriate oversight, meaning this spike in funding threatens to worsen an already tenuous link between funding and success.

Mr. Chair, these commissions are populated by the politically connected to hand out money to those that are connected to them. That is what they are for. That is what they do. They don't do much else other than that, and they are certainly no measure of success.

Again, I presided over the hearing where we asked them for their metric, their measure of success. Again, Mr. Chair, it was that they received a lot of applications for grants and loans.

People want money. That is your measure of success? That is pathetic. We certainly must bring the funding level for the ARC down to ensure that it has the capacity to ensure if you are going to spend the money--I am not getting rid of the commission. I am just saying if you are going to spend the money, let's do it wisely and actually prove that it does something to help the people that you allegedly are helping as opposed to the people that sit on the commission and dole out the tax dollars.

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

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

Mr. Chair, since 1965, which is a long time ago now, they say the poverty rate has been cut in half, but the general poverty rate across the country has been cut in half since 1965. The general rate. None of that can be attributed to the ARC.

By the way, the map that we had provided by the ARC at the hearing showed one county in all of the region, in all of the States had improved. One. This is not a cut.

As a result of the IIJA, it is well above what they were supposed to be appropriated, and everyone in here knows it. Everyone knows it, but they will take the money anyhow.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces the funding to the Delta Regional Commission by $6.1 million, back to the FY19 level. In FY17, the Obama administration sought to cut funding for the Delta Regional Commission by $3 million. The FY18, FY19, FY20, and FY21 budgets all sought to eliminate funding for the Delta Regional Commission, identifying it as duplicative of other Federal economic development programs.

Where have we heard that before?

The FY21 budget pointed out that the Delta Regional Commission, like others, is set aside for special geographic designations rather than applied across the country, based on objective criteria indicating local areas' levels of distress.

Well, that is what States are for. That is not the Federal Government. If you don't live there, this isn't going to help you at all, but you are going to pay for it.

We are $35 trillion in debt, Mr. Chair. We simply can't continue to allow for the rapid growth of parochial commissions. They probably do wonderful things for the people that are there, probably, but they duplicate other Federal programs, and they continue undeterred. Federal programs that are likely doing the work that States and local governments should be doing.

We wonder how did we get to $35 trillion in debt? Well, I don't know. Everybody got a commission, a handout, money. At a minimum, we should return the funding of this program to prepandemic FY19 levels. We need to find somewhere in this budget some sanity, so that our taxpayers aren't footing the bill for things they can't afford to pay for.

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

Mr. Chair, this actually does reduce the spending. This is actually an amendment that does reduce spending. As far as the FRA is concerned, my goodness, just saying it meets FRA, well, FRA spends more than last year. Every year we spend more than the year before. We never see a year where we actually cut any spending.

Maybe this is a small account. Mr. Chair, $6 million is pretty small in the face of trillions of dollars and billions of dollars, I agree. We have got to start somewhere.

Again, the FY18, FY19, FY20, and FY21 budgets all sought to eliminate funding for the Delta Regional Commission, eliminate it. Not me. That is what the budget wanted to do then. I am saying in 2024, let's just reduce it to FY19 and try to live within our means, just like my bosses and your bosses and our bosses have to do at home. They don't get more money every single year regardless of what happens.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

The Denali Commission's mission of providing job training and other economic development services in rural Alaska can better be served by the 29 other Federal programs with which it duplicates. There are 29 other programs doing this.

The Obama administration sought to eliminate funding for the commission in FY12 because it was duplicative and did not select projects based on competition or merit. Again, we are just handing out money, but we have a fancy name.

In 2013, the inspector general for the Denali Commission called for the elimination of the program. The elimination of the program. I am just saying, let's take it to FY19, $2 million. The inspector general stated that he recommended that Congress put its money elsewhere.

Well, it is not our money. It is their money. It is our bosses' money. You might go to Alaska. I don't know if you need a job training program if you go there. Maybe if you plan to go, you

should--well, that is another story. The Trump administration, likewise, sought to eliminate the commission in FY18, FY19, FY20, and

Mr. Chairman, at a bare minimum, we should pass this amendment just to keep the Denali Commission where it is, at its pre COVID-19 level, and not allow for its continued growth in the face of trillions of dollars of debt while our people can't afford gas, groceries, daycare, their electricity bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we heard last week that the Republican Party is newly focused on unity, toning down the rhetoric, and bringing people closer together. Wow, that is rich. I mean, I guess they mean only to unite people under their extreme agenda because the four funding bills we met on last night are part of the same unpopular, divisive, controversial, extreme MAGA agenda that they have been pushing since they came into the majority.

None of this is serious. None of these bills are ever going to become law. All of the bills are aligned with the GOP's Project 2025, their dystopian plan to consolidate power in the Presidency and take total control over our country and our lives.

If Trump and the Republicans win in November, they promise to gut the checks and balances that protect our freedoms. They promise to advance abortion bans in every State. They promise to give big corporations billions of dollars while increasing taxes for middle-class families.

That is their plan for America. It is not about unity. It is about division. It is scary, quite frankly.

These policies are centered around driving people further apart, not bringing them together. They even had to pull the Agriculture and Financial Services appropriations bills because they were too extreme. They didn't even know whether they had the votes within the Republican Conference to vote for these crummy bills.

Just to reiterate, this rule only brings half of the bills we heard testimony on last night to the House floor because the other half were so controversial, so divisive, so partisan, again, that the Republican leadership wasn't even sure they had the votes within their own Conference.

What is the point of wasting time at the Rules Committee if these bills aren't ready for the floor? I have never seen lawmakers work so hard and force institutional staff to spend so much time putting in such extensive effort to do absolutely nothing--nothing. This majority's superpower is wasting people's time.

For the two bills that are included in this rule, they are just as unserious. Again, they will never, ever become law.

This is an energy and water bill that raises energy costs and is full of more giveaways for big polluters and an interior and environment bill that is potentially even worse, gutting funding for national parks. Our national parks are like the only thing in this country that has a 100 percent approval rating, and they are attacking national parks. Give me a break.

What they are doing, Mr. Speaker, is they are going after national parks while padding the pockets of big polluters. Follow the money. There are more culture war riders and more attacks on LGBTQ people.

One of these bills has language to protect Confederate names of things. I mean, that is unifying, commemorating the traitors of the Civil War? Enough is enough.

This is just an awful, awful rule. I urge my Republican colleagues to stop wasting people's time and vote ``no'' with us.

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

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

The gentlewoman said that I was off topic in my opening speech. I have never been more on topic. I actually talked about the crummy bills that my Republican friends are bringing to the floor today. The gentlewoman in her opening speech talked about ag producers. They pulled the ag bill. It is so important that they pulled it because they don't have the votes to pass it.

I will say, Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends are demonstrating to the country what the definition of incompetence is. They don't know how to run this place, and they can't pass appropriations bills.

I am looking at FY 2024. They had the agriculture appropriations bill fail on the floor. They pulled three appropriations bills before final passage because they didn't have the votes to pass them. There were failed rules on appropriations measures. The defense rule last year failed twice. Two of the bills that we had testimony on at the Rules Committee, where Members actually filed amendments, were pulled because they can't even get support within their own Conference. That is the definition of incompetence.

You talk about a campaign rally? The campaign rally is going to be later today in the Rules Committee when Republicans are going to call an emergency meeting to pass a resolution bashing Vice President Kamala Harris. Don't give me any lectures about campaign rallies because I have never seen a more politically motivated majority in my life.

This is not the way this place is supposed to be run. None of these bills, including the two that my friends are bringing to the floor today, are serious. They are going nowhere. They will never become law. This is ridiculous, and it is a waste of time. It is pathetic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

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

You hear lots of things on the House floor, but the gentlewoman from Minnesota just said something I am having a tough time following. She is blaming Senate Democrats for the failure of House Republicans in bringing their appropriations bills to the floor.

Was it Senate Democrats' fault that the House agriculture appropriations bill was pulled, that Republicans pulled it? We had a hearing in the Rules Committee. People testified on amendments, and it is not here. Where is it? I don't know where it went. They pulled it.

I gave the gentlewoman an opportunity yesterday to vote to bring the House ag appropriations bill to the floor as well as the financial services

bill, the ones they wrote. They are lousy bills, but I figure let's bring them to the floor, we will amend it and have a debate. She voted no. All Republicans voted no.

Then the gentlewoman comes to the floor and says, oh, it is the Senate Democrats. What? People are paying attention. We have got to be serious here. Getting our appropriations work done is one of the essential jobs that we have in the House of Representatives, and Republicans can't get it done.

These bills are so polarizing, so awful, that they can't even get a majority of Republicans to vote for it. So she is blaming the Senate Democrats? Give me a break. I have heard everything. I have heard everything as an excuse why they can't get their work done.

This is incompetence. This is pathetic. We need a majority in this House that puts the people first, that actually gets its work done, not someone who comes up here and points fingers at everybody as an excuse to not bring bills to the floor.

We had two appropriations bills that we heard testimony on in the Rules Committee that were pulled, including the House ag appropriations bill that they wrote. They are in charge. I can't believe this.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 12, a bill that would ensure every American has full access to essential reproductive healthcare.

Republicans continue to double down on ending access to abortion care, even going so far as to try to end access to IVF and assistive reproductive services. However, because it is so deeply unpopular and plain wrong, now they are trying to hide it. They don't like to mention it anymore. However, we still see their attacks every single day. We see the toxic riders that they attach to their bills banning abortion and contraception.

We saw it last night in the Rules Committee with Mr. Rosendale putting forward his amendment to ban IVF. We saw it in the Appropriations Committee markup when Ranking Member DeLauro offered an amendment to protect IVF coverage in our Federal employee health benefits plan, and the Republicans on the committee voted ``no.'' They voted ``no.'' Thankfully, they pulled that bill from the floor because they don't even have the votes among their own Conference for this extreme, radical agenda.

House Democrats are focused on protecting women, protecting patients, and protecting Americans' rights. H.R. 12 will keep fundamental healthcare services available across the country, and we must get this passed.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I proudly yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Washington (Ms. Jayapal).

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the BBC titled: ``Project 2025: A wish list for a Trump Presidency, explained.''

Mr. Speaker, this article describes Project 2025 as a policy wish list for a second Trump term cooked up by some of Trump's closest allies at the far-right Heritage Foundation.

It is a chilling window into what may await us come January should Donald Trump be elected President.

The items on Project 2025's agenda are straight-up dystopian. They want to take complete control of the Department of Justice. They want to end the independence of all Federal agencies, and they want to take mifepristone off the market which would amount to a virtual nationwide abortion ban. They want to slash efforts to combat climate change, implement inhumane border policies, and fire thousands and thousands of government employees.

I am just scratching the surface here, Mr. Speaker. You can read it for yourself. I hope people will Google it and read the documents for themselves.

If that weren't horrifying enough, the architects of this atrocious Project 2025 are also threatening political violence to all those who oppose them. Just last week, Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, said: ``The second American Revolution will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.''

Let that sink in.

Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump literally incited an insurrection to stay in power. He claimed he would be a dictator on day one of his second term, and the Supreme Court just granted him full immunity for acts committed while in office.

If anyone here is stupid enough to believe that he won't act on these threats, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is hard to believe that anybody could be that gullible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I will close on our side.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, it is not just about the legislation here. It is about two competing visions for America.

Democrats' record speaks for itself. We passed the largest infrastructure bill in a generation, and my Republican friends are falling over each other trying to take credit for infrastructure projects in their district that most of them voted against.

We passed the largest climate change bill in world history. We brought jobs back from overseas. Inflation is coming down, job growth is solid, and we are working to guarantee that all Americans have an opportunity to succeed. We are fighting for workers. We want opportunity for kids, success for families, and dignity for our seniors. We support our veterans. We want democracy to be secure at home and around the world. We have a vision for a better future and an idea on how to get there.

These Republican bills, once again, show the Republicans are more interested in division and taking us backwards. They have no ideas to make life better for Americans. They only have Donald Trump and Project 2025. That is it. That is it.

Here we are debating appropriations bills. We were supposed to be having four on the floor today. Two of them were pulled after we had a hearing in the Rules Committee, after Members testified on amendments, after legislative staff spent hours and hours and hours drafting amendments for Democrats and Republicans, and after the Parliamentarians reviewed all these amendments to see whether they were germane or not. CBO did scores on all of them.

All this work, and they pulled it. What a colossal waste of time, and the

gentlewoman said: Well, it is the Senate Democrats.

I just have trouble following that logic. I have trouble following that logic. It makes no sense.

The bottom line is that these bad bills can't even get over the finish line. None of them are going to become law. We are wasting our time. The way this is supposed to work is we are supposed to work together, especially since it is a Democratic-controlled Senate and a Democrat in the White House, and you have a very slim margin here in the House for Republicans. We should be working together to construct bills that can actually pass and that will actually help people.

Again, I had an amendment in the Rules Committee last night to bring two bills, the Financial Services appropriations bill and the Agriculture appropriations bill that we had testimony on, bring it to the floor. I think they are garbage bills the way they are written, but I had an amendment that made in order all of the amendments that were offered by Democrats and Republicans. We didn't protect any amendments from any points of order, and we could have had a debate and hopefully made these bills better.

However, they were so bad that Republicans didn't even believe they could twist enough Republican arms to pass them. We wasted time, and they pulled them.

I will say this about the bills that are being brought to the floor today. I want to give my friends who are watching a little insight into the way they think about fairness. Mr. Speaker, 123 Republican amendments are made in order, and 23 Democratic amendments. That is it.

Perfectly good, germane amendments that should be in order were not made in order. That is their idea of fairness. It is a coming attraction of what will happen if their candidate wins the Presidency and they win the Senate. It is their way or the highway.

Right now, their way can't even get enough votes within the majority party right now. They can't pass two of these bills, so they pulled them.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, we have to do better. This is not a serious Congress. This is not serious legislating. These appropriations bills are important because our farmers rely on them. That is why the Agriculture appropriations bill is important and the Financial Services bill is important. All these bills are important. We need to not just have ideological debates, we need to have bills come to the floor that can actually pass and work its way through the process and get signed into law.

This is the failing of this majority. My friend from Minnesota can point the finger at the Senate, she can point the finger at Biden, and she can point the finger at Vice President Harris. I mean, they can point fingers all over the place. At the end of the day, unfortunately for America, they are in control of the House of Representatives, and they are doing a lousy job. They are doing a lousy job.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Madam Chair, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to consider the social cost of greenhouse gases in the development and implementation of budgets, Federal procurement processes, and environmental reviews.

President Biden is directing agencies to consider the social cost of greenhouse gases in the development and implementation of budgets, the Federal procurement process, and environmental reviews.

Progressive Democrats use these social costs of greenhouse gas metrics to justify sweeping climate policies and stringent regulations that drive up costs. However, the social cost of greenhouse gases is an extremely inefficient policymaking tool. Estimates are based on very questionable, flawed, and uncertain assumptions, and the Biden administration refuses to share any details on how they come up with these numbers.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I certainly appreciate my colleagues' sentiments, but I think the key here is analysis and the metrics, or the lack thereof, on some of these policies and regulations.

As we assign metrics that can't be quantified to policies and regulations, driving up costs to industry, that is passed to the consumer. As you have more people moving into zones that are prone to tornadoes or hurricanes, you are going to see more incidents, you are going to see more destruction, and you are going to see more costs. Those folks move there knowing that that is the cost-benefit analysis of it.

What I would say is that the current metrics are insufficient. They drive up costs. It is at a time when we have ballooning budgets and at a time when our border is wide open. These are the things that we need to be discussing, not metrics for gases that can't be quantified.

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

Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funding for the American Climate Corps that the Biden administration established through an executive order last year.

When you understand that we have the power of the purse and that we are the body that is supposed to authorize and appropriate on that executive order alone, this should be dismantled.

The Biden administration describes the American Climate Corps as a workforce training and service initiative for careers in the clean energy and climate reliance economy. As part of the administration's Justice40 goal, the corps will focus on equity and environmental justice.

This cost is around $30 billion. Madam Chair, I just want to emphasize that we have a border that is overrun. We have deficits that are out of control. Inflation is at an all-time high.

People in our country are struggling, and when I see a line item for equity and environmental justice, I am appalled, just as my constituents are and should be.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I look forward to working with my colleague on how to get the next generation to engage in the workforce. As we see and as she mentioned, we have a shortage of workers in the oilfields. We need people to climb poles, drill for oil, and be captains of ships for the Coast Guard. Teaching them environmental justice isn't what she is talking about.

We need workers to roll up their sleeves and buy into the American Dream of building a life for the future in America. It is not solar panels. It is the oil and gas beneath our feet. We have got to stop pushing the progressive Democrat agenda, which is pulling us away from the very thing that is part of our national security, which is fossil fuels.

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

Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funds from being used by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases.

The Interagency Working Group was originally convened by the Obama administration before being disbanded by the Trump administration and reimposed through President Biden's radical climate Executive Order No. 13990.

Progressive Democrats use the social cost of greenhouse gases metrics to justify sweeping climate policies, strict regulations, and like I have said before, it does nothing but drive up costs for the American consumer.

As I have explained, President Biden began directing agencies to consider the social cost of greenhouse gases in the development and implementation of budgets, Federal procurements, and environmental reviews. At a time when we have to get down to the dollars and cents, where we have to be cutting budgets, where we have to be saving dollars, metrics that can't be quantified are not acceptable.

These costs are hard to explain. They are hard to measure. They are not reliable.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, as an Eagle Scout, I truly want to see our community become and be a better place. As someone who lives in a rural area, I am passionate about our rural communities and seeing a better and vibrant rural America.

However, the mistakes of the past don't justify passing regulations that destroy American energy, destroy American industry, and that make it cost prohibitive for R&D to take place so that we do produce cleaner energy and so we do produce chemicals or precious metals in a cleaner and more efficient way for the American consumer. Nonetheless, this working group is designed to undermine American industry.

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

Madam Chair, I rise as the designee for the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), and I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment would prohibit funding for policies that advance the Biden administration's radical DEI agenda.

Specifically, this amendment would prohibit the use of funds for the Department of Energy's Office of Scientific Workforce Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

This office's mission is to promote diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplaces.

Now even science must bow to equity and inclusion. Science should be rooted in fact and research, not wokeism.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, we have seen what happens when the Department of Energy prioritizes diversity and inclusion over all else. It results in hiring nonbinary nuclear officials like Sam Brinton who uses they/them pronouns and steals women's clothes.

From the military to corporations to Federal agencies, we have seen time and time again that the DEI mission fosters tribalism in the workplace. We have seen where corporations, Tractor Supply and John Deere, for examples, have pulled away from DEI policies because they are a failure.

One has to ask when you look at the attempted assassination of President

Trump when the Director put diversity above all else, was that complicit in the fact that a shooter almost killed the former President?

Diversity and inclusion as a priority when it should be based off of metrics, skill set, and who actually deserves the job, that should be the priority.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, the administration's war on appliances continues. First, it was gas stoves. Then it was water heaters. Now the Biden-Harris administration apparently wants to go after ice makers because, as everyone knows, ice makers are obviously a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

The Department of Energy has proposed a rule to impose stringent regulations on commercial automatic ice makers in the name of energy efficiency.

For my fellow Americans watching this amendment debate, if someone knocks on the door of your local business and tells you they are from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, don't answer it. Close the door.

What this does is drive up costs to hardworking citizens, people who own restaurants, and it makes the products more expensive, and for what?

Where are the metrics?

This is baloney.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, to my colleague's point, we are getting new windows in a couple of weeks, but that is a cost that, as a household, my wife and I decided to expend, and it is a metric that I can quantify for myself over time.

We have seen this play before. In 2014, the Obama administration pushed out a rule to force different sectors of the American economy to comply with more restrictive energy conservation standards. They targeted hotels and hospitals, schools, office buildings, and supermarkets.

The projected cost at that time to manufacturers represented 25 percent of their profits. There is no savings for the American consumer. This is a Marxist-style wealth distribution scheme that forces increased costs on the manufacturer, which ultimately costs the consumer more money.

If someone wants to buy windows for their home and wants to improve the energy standards of their home, that is one thing. For the government to come in and meddle in an industry that is not truly contributing to carbon emissions or gas emissions is ridiculous.

This is absurd. That is why this amendment is offered.

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

Madam Chair, the administration's war on everyday appliances continues with no end in sight, and it has to be pointed out that the ultimate price of these regulations is and will be paid by the American consumer.

At a time when inflation is higher, when going to the grocery store costs more, when rents have increased, when the dream of buying a home has slipped away for many Americans, and the costs of purchasing and operating a car

have increased, the last thing we need is more government policies that are going to force something that I would consider necessary in every home, which is a water heater. To increase costs on a necessity for the American people at a time when they are already struggling just doesn't make sense.

It is time for government to get out of the way of industry. Let's get back to free market principles and stop forcing radical Marxist agenda items on industry. It didn't work. It doesn't work. This isn't going to work.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for her words.

This kind of climate alarmist rulemaking isn't about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is about control. It is absolutely ridiculous that some bureaucrats at the Department of Energy can impose energy efficiency standards that radically alter the marketplace.

The Biden-Harris climate crusade has gone too far. They have weaponized the Federal rulemaking process to officially place nonelectric technology off the market. My amendment sends a message that the climate cartel running the White House has no claim on our appliances. Enough is enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1370 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

general leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here to debate the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 8997 and H.R. 8998. The rule provides for both bills to be considered under structured rules, each with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees, and provides for one motion to recommit for each.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule and am in support of the underlying legislation.

I hear time and time again that Congress needs to get serious about addressing our debt. This rule provides for consideration of two measures that cut wasteful and unnecessary spending. They responsibly fund the Federal Government, and they support American production, pushing back on the ridiculous Green New Deal agenda under the Biden- Harris administration.

H.R. 8997 refocuses spending on things that matter. It eliminates wasteful spending on unnecessary and redundant climate change programs, reins in the out-of-control regulation being implemented by the executive branch, and prohibits funding from being used to promote DEI and CRT initiatives. I don't think I need to go into all the ways misguided DEI efforts are failing.

It removes the Department of Energy's role in the LNG export application review process, something that has bipartisan support, and this legislation counters the very real Chinese and Russian threat by investing in national security and American energy production.

It should come as no shock to anyone that the Biden-Harris administration has been attacking American energy production at every opportunity, giving up power to adversaries like China and Russia in the process.

H.R. 8997 counters these national threats, investing in U.S. energy security and strengthening our economic competitiveness. It funds key nuclear programs to regain America's leadership in the global market, and it safeguards our energy and technology assets from foreign threats.

H.R. 8998 right-sizes Federal Government spending, limiting burdensome and unnecessary regulations, respecting taxpayer dollars, and eliminating government waste. It strengthens our national security by encouraging domestic energy production, requiring the government to resume oil and gas leasing and expanding critical mineral access on public lands like those in northern Minnesota.

It respects the taxpayer by cutting government waste, including a 20 percent reduction in the EPA, reducing the Council of Environmental Equality to its authorized levels. It removes the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List, an issue that hits home with so many people across this country dealing with the menace of wolves, including in my home State of Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, the Biden-Harris agenda does not achieve their stated goals. What it does do is it hurts our domestic producers and gives Russia and China a competitive edge. This legislation takes a serious step to address our debt, strengthen national security, and focus funding where the American people need it.

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

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the ranking member, I think we got way, way off topic. In some cases, people just tuning in may actually think it is a campaign rally.

Here to refocus us on what is actually in this bill and what we are talking about is our colleague from Texas--excuse me--our colleague from Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Alford).

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

We are doing what the American people sent us to do. We are doing the work. We are introducing appropriations bills, hearing them in committee, sending them through the process in transparency. We are doing that.

We have actually passed four appropriations bills off the floor, and that represents the majority of spending. We are moving forward. We are doing the work.

If we want to look at who is not doing their work, that may be the Senate Democrats. We have sent bills over, and they just refuse to do anything. What have they been doing with appropriations bills? We have been passing these and sending them there. They have chosen to do nothing.

We can just take a look at the tax bill, a negotiated tax bill that had bipartisan support out of the Ways and Means Committee. We passed it off the floor, and they have done nothing, even though that was negotiated. They didn't even live up to the negotiations, the agreements. If we need to look at who is not doing their work, let's look at the Senate Democrats because we absolutely are passing bills, and we are doing our work in transparent ways through the committee process and on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Weber).

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the left have accused Republicans of wasting time, and I take serious issue with that. Republicans are going through the proper and transparent process to pass these appropriations bills. We are doing serious work.

I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for the work they have done and for listening to the needs of the American people. The Biden-Harris administration is hell-bent on imposing the radical far-left Green New Deal agenda, and they do not care how much damage they do to the country or to the economy or to the American people in the process.

The legislation under the rule today reins in reckless government spending, cuts harmful regulation, and restores independence putting us back in competition on the world stage.

As an example, the EPA spends too much of its time and resources creating new regulations to stifle the U.S. economy. When I go home to Minnesota--and I know many of the other Members hear this when they go home--I constantly hear about concerns with regulations largely due to EPA rulemaking. This includes regulations on light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles, electric power plants, and the abuse of the Endangered Species Act. All of these burden businesses and consumers.

H.R. 8998 will make significant cuts to these regulations and take meaningful strides toward rightsizing our government.

I encourage my Democratic colleagues, particularly those in the Senate, to recognize that this legislation is the will of the people. My colleagues should take it seriously to responsibly fund our government, defend American producers, and address our Nation's debt.

My colleagues like to make it sound like Republicans are blindly hacking away at government programs. I, for one, applaud the Appropriations Committee for taking such a thoughtful look at where we can responsibly cut spending.

The fact is that we are trillions of dollars in debt, and Americans are facing the highest inflation rates in over 40 years. Families across this country are being forced to tighten their belts. For their sake, it is time for the Federal Government to do the same.

We must put a stop to reckless government spending. My Democratic colleagues are not willing to do it and were not willing to do it when the minority was in control, but we are. I call upon the other side to help us get the debt under control.

Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.