H.Res. 838

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

Mr. Chairman, as ranking member of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I am deeply concerned about the majority's lack of urgency to fund the government. The continuing resolution expires in less than 3 weeks, but instead of getting to work negotiating with the Senate on a full-year bill, we are wasting time on bills that violate the terms of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.

I strongly oppose the fiscal year 2024 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. This harmful bill debilitates America's ability to address the climate crisis and hobbles the agencies within its jurisdiction.

It slashes funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by nearly 40 percent. That is nearly $4 billion less than we appropriated in 2023.

It also rescinds more than $7 billion of vital investments provided by the Inflation Reduction Act for the United States to take immediate economy-wide climate action. Climate change has reached a crisis point, and experts agree that we must take bold action to avoid a major, irreversible catastrophe.

In addition to the cut proposed by the State-Foreign Operations bill, the Republicans' Interior bill virtually eliminates the greenhouse gas reduction fund, which was established by the Inflation Reduction Act to mitigate the costs of climate pollution through investment in low-and zero-emission technologies.

The damage inflicted by this bill extends far beyond climate change. The bill wipes out the environmental justice program and cuts $1.4 billion from the environmental and climate justice grants made possible through the Inflation Reduction Act.

It curtails the progress that has been made to ensure that all people are

equally protected from our environmental and health hazards. This bill abandons our most vulnerable groups that currently bear a disproportionate share of negative environmental impacts, which includes large swaths of rural communities that I, and many of my colleagues across the aisle, represent.

The bill also slashes funding for enforcement of the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, which will enable polluters.

The cuts in this bill are so severe that even agencies that usually garner bipartisan support are targeted for damaging reductions. Funding for the National Park Service, for example, will be cut by 13 percent.

This bill also significantly reduces funding for the arts and humanities agencies. The cuts to the Smithsonian Institution and National Gallery of Art are so deep that they will be forced to reduce the number of hours or days each week that the museums are open to the public.

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

The bill also fails our Nation's wildland firefighters. It does not provide any of the funding requested by the administration to support wildland firefighters and their families through better compensation, safe housing, and health and well-being assistance. Without this funding, firefighters will lose the compensation increases first provided in the bipartisan infrastructure law.

Sadly, this bill also contains numerous discriminatory riders, as well as an exhaustive list of anti-environment riders that seek to derail any effort to combat climate change, and it undermines clean water and clean air protections.

They give an open invitation to exploitive oil, gas, and mineral leasing by blocking environmental regulations and even overriding judicial review. At the same time, the bill suppresses clean energy production. Clean, renewable energy is critical if we are going to save our planet for future generations.

The majority of Americans support becoming carbon neutral by 2050, and they support prioritizing the development of renewable energy sources and preserving biodiversity for the benefit of future generations. The austere and irresponsible cuts in this bill do not align with their values.

Mr. Chairman, I thank Chair Simpson and Ranking Member DeLauro for their tireless efforts on this committee. As Mr. Simpson mentioned, we don't always agree on everything, but we have a chance to work well together. I thank the staff on both sides of the aisle who work tirelessly.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this bill, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill to protect the world we are leaving to our children and grandchildren.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Defense Subcommittee and the former chair of this subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my good friend and the distinguished ranking member of the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee and my good friend.

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to support this en bloc amendment, which includes several noncontroversial amendments that we support.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the chair of this committee for opposing the amendment.

As far as I am concerned, this amendment is extreme. It will not gain bipartisan support and become law.

The draconian cuts proposed in this bill violate the agreement reached by former Speaker McCarthy and President Biden that were memorialized in statute in Public Law 118-5, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023.

We would not be teetering on the brink of government shutdown if my Republican colleagues would hold up their end of the bargain.

As to this amendment, with the West reeling from the historic megadrought, the worst in 1,200 years, why would any of my colleagues want to hamstring the Bureau of Land Management from protecting our public lands for the American public and future generations?

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment completely eliminates the Council on Environmental Quality. This important office is responsible for coordinating the Federal Government's efforts to improve, preserve, and protect Americans' public health and the environment. These are very important tasks.

It also works to ensure that environmental reviews for infrastructure projects and Federal actions are thorough, efficient, and reflect the input of the public and local communities.

This proposed amendment would hobble the office and result in significant delays to infrastructure projects across the country at exactly the wrong time.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), the committee chairman.

Mr. Chair, once again, this is a terribly misguided amendment to completely defund and eliminate the Council on Environmental Quality. I appreciate the remarks by the chair that, while in different administrations, we may feel differently about the kinds of decisions or the tactic taken, but we understand the importance of this particular agency, and defunding it would be absolutely the wrong move.

I appreciate the gentleman who sponsored this amendment, his desire to fund the national parks, and we have a way to do that. Just go against the cuts that are made in this bill, vote against the Interior Appropriations bill, and we will make sure that, in a future iteration of this bill, we fully fund the national parks. I appreciate his understanding the importance of making sure that funding is available.

As to this amendment, this is a bad amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, let's just remember, we are here to protect the welfare of the American public, and we cannot close our eyes to the impacts of climate change: the drought, the flooding, the severe storms, the wildfire events that we are experiencing. Climate change has reached a crisis point, and we have to take bold action to avoid a major irreversible catastrophe. That means we have to invest in renewable energy.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are proposing this amendment that would focus all of BOEM's resources on conventional energy. If my colleague from New Jersey wants to talk about the tragedy of what could happen to our States--I represent Maine, and we care about our beautiful coastline. We are worried about offshore oil drilling and the fishermen's impact, the potential impact on tourism of an oil spill, all of the things we have seen happen in other places.

We want to invest in the renewable and wind industry. To say it would reduce our tourism industry down to zero is ludicrous. To say it would do this to our fishing industry without careful management would be ridiculous.

I have been to visit the countries of Norway and Denmark. I have talked to the people from Scotland about their offshore wind projects. It hasn't eliminated tourism or reduced their fishing industry. This is misinformation made up because people want to stick to their dependence on oil and gas and the things that we have to eliminate.

I oppose this amendment. It has nothing good about it. We should not reduce the funding from the renewable energy programs, and we should continue in the way that we are.

Mr. Chair, this is another partisan amendment that wastes more time on a bill that should go nowhere. Cutting $15,000 and taking away the Cabinet Secretary's ability to host Tribal members and other important dignitaries is just petty.

At a time when we are seeing record numbers of historic storms and climate events, this is what my colleagues across the aisle have chosen to care about?

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

Mr. Chair, I want to be clear. I fully support hazardous fuels reduction activities at the BLM. I am so sorry for the wildfires that have occurred in Colorado and in so many other States across our Nation.

I come from the most forested State in the Nation, the State of Maine. We know how important good forest management is. We know how important this is, but I absolutely do not support the offset.

The EPA has already been cut by 39 percent, and further cuts to its core programs will only embolden polluters and weaken the safety of our water and air.

We could easily fund both things, the EPA and forest management at the Forest Service, if the majority had produced their bills at levels that were agreed upon and passed into law in the Fiscal Responsibility Act.

If my colleagues across the aisle are serious about managing hazardous fuels at BLM, it would have been fully funded in the base bill.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to address some of the same concerns about this amendment as I did in the previous amendment.

To be clear, I fully support active forest management at the Forest Service. I feel very bad about the wildfires that have occurred in Colorado and so many other States across our country. I can't imagine the devastation to a family who loses their home or a community that finds the entire community leveled by a forest fire.

I am also very aware of the importance of managing our forests, whether it is the timber sales or the great benefit we get from well- maintained forests. I come from the most forested State in the Nation. Sustainable forest products and our wood products industry are extremely important, and managing those forests is extremely important.

Mr. Chair, I cannot support this offset. The EPA has already been cut by 39 percent. Further cuts to its core program will only embolden polluters and weaken the safety of our water and air.

We can easily fund both things, the EPA and forest management at the Forest Service, if only the majority had produced a bill at the level that was agreed upon and passed into law by the Fiscal Responsibility Act. If my colleagues across the aisle are serious about active forest management at the Forest Service, it would have been fully funded in the base bill.

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

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

Mr. Chair, to be clear, I fully support all oversight efforts and believe the mission of the inspectors general across government is vital, but I disagree with the offset and the treatment of the EPA in this bill generally.

In the base bill, the EPA is cut by nearly 40 percent. Every single account is cut except for the Office of the Inspector General. Quite frankly, the inspector general's office does pretty well under this bill.

Cutting every single program at the EPA and seeking to increase funding for only one office, which happens to be the oversight office, is a clear attempt by the majority to politicize the inspector general, and that is unacceptable.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pretty sure this is deja vu all over again. I think we have already had an amendment to cut or eliminate the Council on Environmental Quality. This one does it by cutting 36 percent.

This office is responsible for coordinating the Federal Government's efforts to improve, preserve, and protect Americans' public health and environment. It also works to ensure that environmental reviews for infrastructure projects and Federal actions are thorough, efficient, and reflect the input of the public and local communities.

This amendment would hobble the office and result in significant delays to the very important infrastructure projects going on all across this country.

We have debated this once already. This was a bad amendment then. It is a bad amendment now. I oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is back again. I think it is still deja vu all over again because this is now the third time we have taken up this amendment. It is to, once again, eliminate the Council on Environmental Quality. We have a pending roll call on that very exact question.

It just seems to me we have plenty to do around here. We have plenty to do and are having a very busy day. We will have a very busy day tomorrow, and we have very ambitious goals on the part of the majority to pass through a lot of appropriations bills.

Why in the world would we have three of the same amendments?

I appreciate that different people wanted to give different perspectives on it, but couldn't they all have spoken on the same amendment?

I also would just say that a lot of my colleagues on this side of the aisle had amendments that were eliminated and that weren't given a chance to speak on the floor.

If the majority had just gone from three to one of these amendments, they could have used the time for two more of my colleagues' amendments and we could have had a little more Democratic debate, perhaps on reinstating funding for the National Museum of the American Latino. There were a lot

of good things we would like to see discussed under this bill.

Why in the world did the majority have to have us discuss this a third time?

Mr. Chairman, I do want you to know I have my talking points. I can say exactly the same things about why it is very arbitrary to eliminate the Council on Environmental Quality, why the office is important in establishing the Federal Government's efforts to improve, preserve, and protect Americans' public health and environment, also to ensure that environmental reviews for infrastructure projects and Federal actions are thorough, efficient, and reflect the input of the public and local communities, and I know you appreciate hearing that from me three times.

Nevertheless, it just seems to me that if we were managing this floor in a way that really made the best use of all our colleagues' time we would either give a few more amendments to the Democratic minority or we would just do this once, have one roll call, and give the majority all a chance to speak on that particular bill and voice their opinion.

It is still a bad amendment. We will still oppose this amendment, and we shouldn't be doing this at this particular time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am just so sad that we have to debate this amendment to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.

The NEA is the Federal agency that funds, promotes, and strengthens the creative capacity of our communities by providing all Americans-- that is all Americans--with diverse opportunities for arts participation.

With the very small $186.3 million in this bill, the small but mighty agency supports arts organizations and artists in every congressional district in the country, and these investments yield enormous economic benefits.

My colleague on the other side of the aisle says that he pays for his own arts. He makes sure that his family has the arts opportunities and that his children's art is paid for.

However, every community does not have the funding to pay for their own arts. Not every community can afford arts and music in their schools. They can't afford these opportunities. Yes, there is private- sector funding, but private-sector funding goes to where the private sector wants it to be spent. It doesn't make sure that in rural States like mine that small towns can take advantage of this and that small arts organizations can have these opportunities.

A 2021 analysis done by the Department of Commerce and the NEA found that arts and cultural industries add over $1 trillion to the U.S. economy, support nearly 5 million jobs, and account for 4.4 percent of the GDP--4.4 percent.

In what other sector wouldn't we make a lousy $186 million investment in something that was going to add 4.4 percent to our GDP?

These guys would be all over it if it was auto manufacturing or chips or something else.

The arts have an incredible value as a positive tool for economic development, education, and community building. Defunding this important agency would cause catastrophic harm. It is a terrible idea.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), who is the chair of the committee.

Mr. Chair, to close, I appreciate the words of Mr. Simpson, and I appreciate his acknowledgment that it is the rural communities, whether in his State of Idaho or my State of Maine, where there are so many communities that don't have the benefit of the private funding, they don't have the benefit of wealthy parents who can maybe afford to pay for their children's music and arts education. These are communities that desperately depend on this money.

I also want to say that while there is a lot of economic growth going on in the arts industry, that it is a huge contributor, that many of these venues--particularly the small ones--were the first to have to close their doors during the pandemic and the last to open, and many haven't recovered.

Many people who work in the arts industry, many artists themselves are still struggling to get back on their feet. That just makes this funding even more critically important.

This is a great way to make sure that everyone in America has the great educational benefit that all young people should have in arts and music and developing that level of creativity and curiosity and the so many wonderful educational benefits that we know come from having that education in the arts. This makes sure that it is available to everybody.

We are already facing a cut in this bill. We are going from $207 million--which was never enough; it ought to be at least a dollar per person--down to $186 million. This cut has already been taken. We don't need to do any more. Certainly, eliminating it would be a travesty.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. Chair, I would just reiterate that I oppose this amendment that would defund the National Endowment for the Humanities. I thank the chair for his eloquent remarks about the importance of it in Idaho.

Idaho and Maine have a lot in common. Our potatoes are so much better, but other than that, we really could see eye to eye on so many issues. Sorry, I am sure their potatoes are perfectly fine.

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

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

My colleague on the other side of the aisle who proposed this amendment says he doesn't really see the value of it and goes about to disregard some of the programs that are being funded through this. The fact is that sometimes we need to use literature, history, or the arts to talk about difficult topics. You may not think it is important for us to talk about climate change but, in fact, millions of young people, in fact millions of people in this country, are very worried about that and want to talk about it and think about how we can come with very diverse ideas to a solution that works for all of us.

The same with our diversity and equity issues. These are tough topics, and my colleague on the other side of the aisle would just have them eliminated, sweep them under the rug. Yet, we have the opportunity to use our great literature and the history of this country and the lessons that we have learned to have those conversations.

I don't know what planet this amendment comes from; someplace where these issues aren't important. Here they are very important. These programs are used by American veterans, by American senior citizens, and young people in our schools. They are so widely used in large and small communities, and they are good investments in our communities. These awards stimulate significant participation and commitment by local and private partners. They generate more money to do exactly what we are doing, so we should be doing more for the NEH, not less.

Mr. Chair, I oppose this misguided amendment.

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

In 2012, before the Bush tax cuts, the Congressional Budget Office showed revenues exceeding primary spending for the next 65 years and that debt as a percent of GDP would decline indefinitely.

Since then, tax cut extensions and the Trump tax cuts have added $10 trillion to the debt to date, and their cost will increase enough over time to account for the entire long-term growth in debt ratio. Remember, those benefits are disproportionately enjoyed by the wealthy.

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

Let's get serious about passing bills that can gain bipartisan support and become law.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit all funds to the United States Board on Geographic Names. The U.S. Board on Geographic Names is a Federal body created in 1890 and established in its present form by public law in 1947 to maintain uniform geographic name usage throughout the Federal Government. The Board is comprised of representatives of Federal agencies concerned with geographic information, population, ecology, and management of public lands.

In this age of geographic information systems, the internet, and homeland defense, geographic names data are even more important. The Board works with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, and more than 50 nations have some type of national names authority.

My Republican colleagues should be focused on creating bills that will garner bipartisan support and become law, not prohibiting funding for a board that helps surveyors, mapmakers, and scientists, and serves the Federal Government and the public as a central authority to which name problems, name inquiries, name changes, and new name proposals can be directed.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I am not an authority on this, but my understanding is that the Federal Government could not rename a town in a State. The Federal Government has authority on public lands on names that are related to public property.

I am very pleased that we have Secretary Deb Haaland as the Secretary of Interior right now, and I respect the fact that we have someone, for the first time ever, who is a member of a Tribe. Secretary Haaland has made a statement that using the word ``squaw'' is offensive to Native American Tribes, and I fully agree with her, and many people in my own State agree with her and have changed those names, but, in this particular case, I don't believe that the Department of the Interior can arbitrarily rename a town in any State in the Nation.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would prohibit the use of any Federal funds to establish or modify any national monuments under the Antiquities Act within Colusa County, California. Now, I am very sorry that my colleague on the other side of the aisle feels this way. I appreciate being able to serve on the Agriculture Committee with him. We often have areas on agreement, but on this, we disagree.

The Antiquities Act provides the President with the authority to designate national monuments in order to protect the objects of historic or scientific interest. This amendment inappropriately restricts the President's ability to declare a national monument in specific parts of the country. Both Republican and Democratic Presidents have used this authority to increase the protection of special Federal lands.

In our State, we are particularly pleased that a previous President declared the Katahdin Woods and Waters as a national monument. And we are very glad about the way it has been managed and the fact that it is an important resource to our State. This bill would go against 100 years of American tradition to protect the Nation's cultural and natural resources. The Antiquities Act represents an important achievement in the progress of conservation and preservation efforts in the United States. Congress should not stand in the way of these achievements.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would block New York City from completing the terms of its lease agreement with the National Park Service, and it offers no solution for those seeking refuge.

This amendment would put up yet another obstacle for the residents of New York City as they try to address this unique challenge.

We should be looking for ways to help both residents of the city and the migrants as they navigate the often complicated and lengthy immigration process.

I know a little something about this challenge the cities are facing because while I don't represent New York City, I represent Portland, Maine, and other cities in Maine that have had a large influx of asylees coming to our State. Now, we are a very welcoming State, but we have some of the same challenges with finding sufficient housing for people while they are navigating this difficult process of asylum seeking.

Now let's just remember, we are a welcoming nation. Asylum seekers are coming from war-torn countries, from political challenges, and the process of seeking asylum can take a very long time. In my State, we have some of the same challenges trying to find sufficient housing.

I want to say that we can't forget the fact that, again, we are a welcoming nation. We are a welcoming State, and we are a nation of immigrants.

I don't know about my colleague across the aisle, but I am very fortunate that my grandfather had the opportunity to come to this country. And that allowed my family to be a part of the American Dream.

So many of the people who are coming here today are leaving, as I said, difficult political situations, war-torn nations, with real challenges to get here. Our immigration process is lengthy. They are, for the most part, legal asylum seekers. They need to go through a long court process.

If, in fact, she really wanted to do something that would significantly change the amount of time that people have to be in shelters or in housing, perhaps--I know it is on another bill--she could support my bill to reduce the amount of time that asylum seekers have to wait to get their work permits so that they could more rapidly go to work, so that they weren't waiting in shelters, in tents, in other places.

I don't know about your State, but in mine our chamber of commerce is constantly asking for more workers. We are constantly behind in having sufficient people to do the work. So to say that we do not want to welcome these people who come from war-torn nations and difficult political situations, and that we don't want to find a way to accommodate them, we should be looking for ways to speed up the process to make sure that people can go to work, and so that they can make sure that they can move forward and become those extremely responsible and hardworking members of American society that they choose to be.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4821, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

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

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to begin consideration of the H.R. 4821, the fiscal year 2024 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

Before I get into the bill, I commend Chairwoman Granger for her steadfast leadership of the Appropriations Committee and her ongoing support. I thank the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, for her work on this important legislation and other things. I thank Ranking Member Pingree for her partnership and the subcommittee members for their work on this bill, although Ms. Pingree and I may have some differences of opinion on this bill.

H.R. 4821 provides $25.4 billion in new nondefense discretionary spending, which is $13.4 billion, or 35 percent, below the fiscal year 2023 level. The bill also rescinds $9.4 billion in unnecessary funding provided to the EPA, the Presidio Trust, and the Council on Environmental Quality through the Inflation Reduction Act.

Cutting funding is never easy or pretty, but with the national debt in excess of $33 trillion and inflation at an unacceptable level, we had to make tough choices to rein in Federal spending.

Last Congress alone, $3 trillion was spent outside the normal appropriations process. That is $3 trillion that went into the national debt.

Simply holding funding flat is not enough. We must work to curb our out-of-control spending and get our budget back on track. This bill does that. This legislation prioritizes critical needs within our reduced allocation and addresses specific interests and concerns brought to our attention through more than 8,000 Member requests.

H.R. 4821 fully funds the payments in lieu of taxes program for fiscal year 2024, which is estimated to be $515 million. It also makes critical investments in Indian Country by providing funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Education, and Indian Health Service at fiscal year 2023 levels or above.

To combat catastrophic wildfires and protect communities across the country, the bill includes a $1.6 billion discretionary increase to fund wildfire activities without budget gimmicks. It also provides a $2.65 billion cap adjustment for wildfire suppression activities, as authorized.

To address these priorities while rightsizing the agencies under our jurisdiction, the bill reduces funding for nearly every other appropriation in the bill, and many agencies received double-digit percentage reductions. The EPA is reduced by $4 billion, or 39 percent, below the fiscal year 2023 level.

In terms of policy, the bill makes important steps to reduce regulatory burdens imposed by the EPA, expand access to critical minerals and natural resources, and promote domestic energy production. Such efforts include halting the EPA's job-killing regulations, such as repealing the recent waters of the United States regulations and rules that target reliable energy sources and domestic manufacturing; limiting abuse of the Endangered Species Act regarding species such as the sage grouse, gray wolf, bison, and lesser prairie chicken; expanding access to critical minerals and promoting proper management of our Nation's forests; and requiring oil and gas lease sales. These policies will help boost our national security, reduce energy costs, and create American jobs.

Mr. Chairman, this bill will help manage our public lands wisely, meet our commitment to our brothers and sisters in Indian Country, and restore the fiscal responsibility necessary to get our economy back on track.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just note that neither the chairwoman or the ranking member of the full committee or the ranking member of the subcommittee in their comments never mentioned the $33 trillion debt, and over the last Congress, there was $3 trillion that was spent outside of the regular appropriation process. That is what is causing this. That is what is causing the problems in this country.

This is what reducing spending looks like. Every time you try to reduce spending, Mr. Chairman, you would think it is nothing but death and destruction. If I believed what was just said, I wouldn't vote for this bill, but I think she is wrong on so many counts.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Carl).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for drawing the House's attention to the Department of the Interior and Bureau of Land Management's responsibilities under the Mineral Leasing Act. I would be pleased to continue to work with him on how the agencies in this bill handle royalties on Federal lands as we move through the FY 2024 spending process.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Yakym).

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

The challenge here, as I stated earlier, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle never saw a problem that they didn't think a government program could solve. Anybody that thought that we were not going to have to reduce spending I think was living in a different world. When you are facing $33 trillion and getting on to $34 trillion in debt, the reality is you are going to have to cut spending.

Now, this is not a criticism of them. I think they honestly believe that all the profligate spending that went on the last couple of years was absolutely necessary. I think the American people expect us to start addressing the debt that our children, grandchildren, and great- grandchildren are going to face, and this is what cutting spending looks like.

It is easy to write a bill. Anybody can write a bill if you have unlimited funds, and that is pretty much what they have had last year and the year before. In spite of almost having unlimited funds to write the Interior bill, they actually took $1.6 billion in wildfire fighting costs and made it emergency spending. We had to bring it back into the bill, where it should be, instead of using budget gimmicks. That put us $1.6 billion behind.

We said we are not going to hurt Indian Country with this bill, even with the cuts that we had to make. We were going to fully fund PILT payments. We were going to make sure that we took care of those things that were necessary, like wildfire fighting, because those costs are going to go up. That meant the rest of the bill was going to take some cuts. We used rescissions by pulling back some of the money that was spent over the last several years to make sure that the cuts in this bill were not as dramatic as they would otherwise have been. This is still a 10 percent reduction in the overall bill.

I disagree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Death and destruction will not follow if we pass this bill. I encourage my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 838, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan en bloc amendment was developed in coordination with the minority. It contains noncontroversial amendments addressing important issues at the agencies funded in this bill that have been agreed to by both sides.

It provides support for the Department of the Interior's efforts to identify critical minerals in the United States. It highlights the importance of the rural water technical assistance grants, as well as the clean water and drinking water State revolving funds. It emphasizes support for the Federal wildland firefighters and Bureau of Indian Affairs road construction. Finally, it includes additional support for research into harmful algal blooms and provides assistance to the territories.

Mr. Chair, I support the adoption of this en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers on 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 to decrease funding for the Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro Program.

I understand the gentleman's frustration. Many of us have been addressing this for a number of years, trying to find the right solution. We haven't found it yet. They used to take these horses to slaughter. You can't do that anymore. The public won't accept it, and frankly, neither will I.

In the West, continuing the Wild Horse and Burro Program at sustained levels is vital to controlling the population. Even with the funding provided, BLM will not be able to manage and curb the exponentially increasing number in the herds.

Failing to manage wild herds in the West would have devastating effects on rangelands and all the animals that depend on them. Therefore, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Living in the West, I have seen this problem and what it does to rangelands. If there is a better solution rather than just cutting funding, let's hear what that better solution is because, believe me, this committee has been working hard to try to find what to do about it because we don't want to see these populations grow either, but it is a reality that we have to deal with. That is why it has increased funding in this bill.

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

Mr. Chair, drastically reducing funding for the Wild Horse and Burro Program would have a devastating effect on our Western lands and the work we have done to manage the herd. For these reasons, I must oppose this amendment.

I thank the gentleman for bringing up the issue. It is an issue, but cutting funding is not the way to solve the problem. If people have better ways of managing this or additional ways of managing this, I encourage them to come forward because we are willing to listen to all alternatives on what we can do.

As I said, we used to slaughter them. We used to send them to Mexico for slaughter and stuff. We can't do that anymore because of the optics of it and everything else.

Mr. Chair, we are looking at sterilization of some of those and the success or not success rate of what we are doing, but I guess the expert on this whole issue was the former Congressman from Utah (Mr. Stewart). He worked on this continuously, trying to address it, and he has since retired. That was a great loss to all of us, but this is a perplexing problem.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for bringing the amendment up and discussing it, but I must oppose this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I understand the frustration that the gentlewoman expresses in her statement, but I must rise in opposition to this amendment.

The Bureau of Land Management's funding level is already $255.4 million, or 18 percent below the FY23 enacted level. A drastic 50 percent cut to already decreased levels leaves me concerned that this would put the agency in a position where they cannot carry out critical activities to address their most pressing issues in Western States, particularly in Wyoming, Idaho, and other States.

The growing backlog for grazing, energy, and mineral activity permits; population problems with wild horses and burros that were just debated on the last amendment; and the increasing demand for increased recreational access to our public lands cause me deep concern when you want to cut the BLM by an additional 50 percent.

Mr. Chair, I must oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if the gentlewoman has a problem with the Rock Springs area, that the gentlewoman address that specifically, but this cuts 50 percent of the BLM across the board. That

means it is going to substantially impact Idaho, and guess what? We get along pretty well with the BLM in Idaho.

If you cut this 50 percent, you are going to have tough times getting grazing permits. We have minerals in what is called the phosphate patch in Idaho that the BLM has to deal with.

Our general problem is when the decisions that are made in Idaho, both by the BLM or the Forest Service or their other agencies, and those decisions come to Washington, then you have a problem. That is where the problem exists.

This would cut 50 percent of, actually, the BLM across the country. That is the problem I have with this, especially when we have already made an 18 percent reduction in their budget in this bill.

I understand where the gentlewoman is coming from. Wyoming might have a special problem, and an amendment should be addressed to deal with that instead of the BLM in general.

I would oppose this amendment, and I hope my colleagues would vote ``no'' on it.

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

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

While I understand the concerns from my colleagues about the CEQ's actions under this administration related to the environmental review process and other issues, I believe that the CEQ has a valuable role to play in leading the efforts to strike a balance in ensuring our environment is protected while also promoting economic development and job growth.

It is important to have an agency lead coordinated efforts across the administration on issues such as conservation and preservation of our natural resources. I would say this, though: Republicans like what CEQ did under the previous administration. They actually liked what they were doing. The way to change policies of an agency is by voting in a different administration, and next year, we will have that opportunity to see how the American people feel.

I would point out that we rescinded those funds that were given to CEQ in this bill also, so they don't have all those funds that are left there, and we have actually reduced the funding. I rise in opposition to the amendment, while I understand the gentleman's concern under this administration.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment to strike the provision in the bill prohibiting the use of the social costs of carbon.

The social cost of carbon attempts to monetize the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions. What it really means is that it is an easy way to increase the cost of a project or of anything that will produce emissions, like driving a car, to justify regulations or halt the activity because the costs outweigh the benefits.

This is even more problematic because this monetary value has fluctuated wildly in past decades from $1 to $190 per metric ton. This fluctuation tells me that the methodology and metrics are fuzzy at best and seriously flawed at worst and have lacked transparency.

All of this is especially concerning given the social cost of carbon is used to issue job-killing regulations and halt energy and infrastructure projects in the United States while the world's largest polluters are not being held accountable.

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management manages the development of energy and mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf along our Nation's coastlines. I understand the intent of the gentleman's amendment is to eliminate the Office of Renewable Energy Programs of BOEM.

I will first note the base bill already cuts funding for the renewable energy account by nearly $15 million, or almost 35 percent, so about a third of it is gone in our base bill.

I am also concerned that completely eliminating funding runs counter to an all-of-the-above energy approach that is necessary to ensure a mix of affordable and reliable energy sources for our constituents and businesses, and to reduce our dependence on foreign countries, some adversaries, for our energy.

Additionally, I have heard from some in our Conference about their support for offshore renewable activities, which would not move forward without this BOEM office.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Chair, as I said, I oppose this amendment. It is contrary to what we on this side of the aisle have been preaching for a number of years, and that is the all-of-the-above energy program. It is going to take nuclear. It is going to take coal. It is going to take oil. It is going to take, yes, wind and solar. That is going to be a part of the mix. That is just the reality.

We don't mean that every mile of offshore area ought to be available for wind towers in the ocean, but there are some places that are. I would oppose cutting the BOEM renewable energy office completely, and I would urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment which seeks to eliminate funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. While I support the gentleman's spending, this bill already significantly reduces funding including the NEA. The bill also requires--and this is what is important to me, frankly--that the NEA allocate at least 40 percent of its grant funding to State and local communities.

Now, the gentleman mentioned the $24 billion that was given privately to the arts throughout the country. The problem is none of that $24 billion goes to support an arts organization in Jerome, Idaho; or in Shelley, Idaho; or in Sandpoint, Idaho.

What I emphasize every time I talk to the director of the National Endowment for the Arts is that I am concerned about the arts in rural communities. I have gone out to communities throughout my district and met with these arts councils about what they do. Their funding is completely reliant--maybe completely is too broad a word--but substantially reliant on the grants that they get from the National Endowment for the Arts.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which seeks to eliminate all funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities.

While I understand the gentleman's intent to reduce spending-- something that I agree with--the reality is that is exactly what we have been doing in these bills.

I have seen firsthand the impact that the NEH dollars have had in my district. In fact, I contribute annually to the Idaho Endowment for the Humanities. NEA grants allow rural communities, including veterans and students, to have access to historical, cultural, and educational resources that wouldn't otherwise be available to them.

What I have seen that works--and, again, I have been around to a lot of the different grants that are received--they are preserving our history. That is exactly what they are doing. I support their efforts, and, therefore, I object to this amendment and hope my colleagues will oppose it.

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

Mr. Chair, I would just say that I am very disappointed that the gentleman doesn't agree with us that we ought to reduce spending because that is what these bills have been doing. Anybody who suggests we are going to stop the debt clock overnight is living in a fantasy world, but we are actually reducing spending.

The Appropriations Committee is the only committee in this Congress that is actually reducing spending. They are tough choices, but we have been making those tough choices. I wish the rest of Congress would also.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree).

Mr. Chair, first, let me say that I am not totally opposed to what the gentleman is trying to do. I think these air tours are important, but I think it is wrong to say they can't place any limitations on them.

The gentleman raises the point that they have been trying to address this for a number of years, and so far, they haven't been able to do it. I think that they need to be able to do that, and the Park Service ought to be able to look at the number of air tours.

I am not opposed to air tours. I think they are a great thing. I have taken a few of them. The reality is that completely eliminating the Park Service's ability to make reasonable limitations on these, I think, is the wrong way to go. It goes too far, but I understand what the gentleman is trying to say and what he is trying to do. I just don't think we can go this far.

Mr. Chair, 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, I want to be clear about something. Democracy is messy, and, yes, at times it can be very frustrating. However, what happened in this Chamber last month, putting everything on hold for 3 weeks as House Republicans failed time and time again to elect a Speaker, was not democracy.

All the drama and all the chaos of the Republican Conference over the last few weeks was not democracy. Shutting down one-half of the United States Congress and immobilizing our national legislature at a time of global turmoil is actually the exact opposite of democracy.

I keep hearing my colleagues across the aisle claim that not having a Speaker for 3 weeks was somehow democracy in action. That is a bunch of baloney. Some of them even said that this impasse made our country look good on the world stage.

Are you kidding me?

What planet do they live on?

Their dysfunction makes us look like idiots.

The American public elected all of us to come here and to represent their interests and their ideals. That is democracy. They didn't send us here to play student government. They didn't send us here to sit around and yell at each other about who gets to be Speaker as if this were ``Lord of the Flies.'' They sent us here to work, to govern, to get things done, and, yes, when necessary, to compromise.

Republicans have a slim majority in the House, Democrats have a slim majority in the Senate, and Joe Biden is President of the United States. To get anything done--anything--Republicans need to come to the table and work with us in a bipartisan way. That is what democracy is. It is compromise. It is consensus.

However, the spectacle that we saw last month of this Chamber sitting empty for weeks on end while Republicans fought with each other, or even the idea that they should be fighting over which member of their conference would compromise with the Democrats the least--let that sink in--is not democracy. That is a national embarrassment.

Now, even after 3 weeks of self-inflicted chaos, the House GOP still doesn't seem to get it. Instead of working across the aisle, they are digging in their heels, and they are continuing to advance their extremely partisan appropriations bills that will never become law. There have been no lessons learned over the last few weeks at all.

The GOP's Interior and Environment funding bill for fiscal year 2024 profits polluters while endangering the health of Americans. It cuts EPA funding to its lowest level since 1991. The bill additionally slashes funding for arts programs and, once again, shoves MAGA culture wars down the throats of the American people. They can't help themselves.

The Republican Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development funding bill for fiscal year 2024 would also keep us from meeting our Nation's infrastructure and housing needs. It cuts funding for housing and transportation programs by 28 percent, putting Americans' safety at risk while, once again, attacking vulnerable communities.

Now, I don't know how often this needs to be said before it sinks in: These draconian cuts to essential programs will not become law. If these bills manage to make it off the House floor, then the Senate will vote them down. It will be a bipartisan vote in the Senate, by the way. Even the Senate Republicans can't stomach this garbage, and if they ever made it to the President's desk, he would veto it.

What I am gathering is that Republicans would rather press forward with

these unreasonable bills instead of coming together to form a funding plan that serves all Americans. We are just over 2 weeks out from a government shutdown, and all Republicans are doing here is wasting more time. This is a complete waste of time. It is ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I haven't even got to how cynical--how cynical--and insulting this new supplemental aid package is. Republicans are leveraging the excruciating pain of an international crisis to help rich people who cheat on their taxes and big corporations who regularly dodge their taxes.

Are you kidding me?

The fact of the matter is the richest people in this country pay less in taxes than teachers, than police officers, than firefighters, than nurses, and than laborers.

This is what this is all about?

Who came up with this brilliant idea to help rich tax cheats? Who came up with that idea? Was that hatched at a fundraiser in Mar-a-Lago?

Did some big donor come up and twist somebody's arm and say, You have to do this. You have to protect us. We want to be able to continue to cheat on our taxes so we can make more and keep more money. This is truly despicable.

Here is what I love: The bill's so-called offset cuts $14.3 billion from the IRS which will further increase the deficit. Basically they want to cut funding from those who are responsible for holding big corporations accountable and for going after rich tax cheats. That is their offset.

According to CBO, it will add to the deficit.

Let me repeat that. This bill adds $12.5 billion to the deficit. Their offset actually needs an offset.

Once again, they cry, they cry, and they cry about the deficit, but they have no problem conditioning aid to Israel on another tax break to millionaires, billionaires, and corporations.

Representative Chip Roy who is on the Rules Committee said--or maybe he yelled: The aid ``should be paid for, and it should be paid for with real money, not budgetary gimmicks.''

Nonetheless, that is what this is. This is a budgetary gimmick. It is a big, gigantic, and in-your-face gimmick. It is a joke, and they come to the floor with a straight face to say that somehow we are paying for this package.

Really? How can they say that with a straight face?

It makes sense because they don't like the results of the election and they tried to overturn it. They don't like the math from CBO, by the way, and they pretend it doesn't exist.

Republicans say they are friends of Israel. If I were Israel, I would unfriend them. What they are doing here will delay aid to Israel, not to mention there is no humanitarian aid in here for the vulnerable people in Israel or Gaza.

Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz came before the Rules Committee last night and asked us and tearfully pleaded with us to make in order her amendment for humanitarian aid that the President of the United States requested. This is humanitarian aid for Israel, for Palestinians, and for people in Ukraine. She pleaded with Republicans to unlink their conditions on aid. She offered an amendment to put in the humanitarian aid the Republicans left out, again, and asked that we help some of the most vulnerable people who are caught in the middle of this conflict. These are people in Israel, people in Gaza, and people in Ukraine.

By the way, one-half of the people in Gaza are children, for God's sake. They need food, they need medicine, and they need water. They need it now. They need help now.

I offered Ms. Wasserman Schultz's amendment, and it was voted down. It was voted down by every single Republican.

I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, the ease and the indifference with which they rejected even making her amendment in order was, quite frankly, chilling.

By the way, there is no aid for Ukraine in this supplemental package. There is nothing. This is what the President asked for.

So Vladimir Putin is happy. I am always amazed at how my friends on the other side of the aisle fall over each other to try to make Vladimir Putin happy. He is happy with the package they are bringing to the floor today. There is no aid for any other national security priorities that the President asked for.

To sum it up, Mr. Speaker, the House is back, but Halloween has been extended. These people are scary, and there is no saying what will happen next. I hope and I pray for the sake of the Nation that House Republicans come to their senses soon. This is no way to govern.

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

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

Again, let's make no mistake about it, my Republican friends are deliberately delaying aid to Israel. They are deliberately delaying aid to Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the Statement of Administration Policy for the Israel Security Supplemental Appropriations Act.

Madam Speaker, despite a clear bipartisan path to assisting Israel, House Republicans have decided to go at it alone, alienating Senate Republicans, Democrats, and the President. The President has indicated that he will veto this supplemental in favor of a bipartisan approach that he knows Congress is capable of.

A bipartisan approach is what our allies deserve. A bipartisan approach is what the American people expect, not playing politics with an international crisis to be able to satisfy their richest donors.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article by The Hill titled: ``GOP plan to `offset' Israel aid with IRS cuts would backfire, budget experts warn.''

Madam Speaker, aid to Israel should not be conditioned on giving greater tax breaks to the rich, let alone a fake offset that adds to the deficit. Again, it is not me who is saying that their budgetary gimmick, their fake offset, is a fake offset. It is the Congressional Budget Office that says it will add $12.5 billion to the deficit.

It doesn't pay for anything. It adds to the deficit. That is according to CBO. That is the office we use to figure out how much things are going to cost. They know that, and they come here and they deliberately distort the facts and distort the truth.

They are conditioning aid to Israel on helping out the richest tax cheats in America. I mean, it is mind-boggling. It is mind-boggling. Again, maybe they will raise money at a fundraiser or something, but it is not the way we should proceed here.

By the way, it is going to delay aid to Israel. The Senate, in a bipartisan way, wants no part of this. The President wants no part of it; therefore, we are wasting time. We are spinning our wheels for no reason at all.

When people come down here, like the gentleman just said, oh, we want to stand by our ally Israel, you know, we are a friend of Israel, I will repeat what I said before: If I were Israel, I would unfriend you because you are delaying the aid package.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have promised the American people that they won't cut a single dime from Social Security and Medicare. However, this past September, Budget Committee Republicans passed a budget that favors the wealthy and well connected over working families and makes massive cuts to critical programs that Americans rely on. They even rejected amendments to protect Social Security and Medicare earned benefits.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer a resolution to state unequivocally that the House won't cut a single cent from these crucial programs that so many of our constituents rely on.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Look, the decision here is simple. The two appropriations bills that we are talking about today literally strip billions and billions of dollars that fund essential agency functions and services. Members are either for these extreme funding cuts or they are not.

I would say to my friends on the Republican side who like to masquerade as moderates that they can't get away with saying, oh, I just wanted to move the process along. The bottom line is, you vote for these bills, you own what is in them. Please understand that.

On the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, they cut $26 billion below the 2023 levels. It raises costs while threatening to damage our Nation's economy. It makes travel and communities less safe. Who does that?

It further harms our environment and ignores the impact of climate change. I mean, open your eyes. I would say to my Republican friends: If Republicans don't believe that climate change is real now, then they are hopeless. They are hopeless. They should go retire. They are not fit to be here.

It strips away equal access to housing and community development investments. Who does that?

On the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, again, there are deep, deep cuts. Cuts aimed at trying to undo attempts to deal with the climate crisis. We are having wildfires all over the world and in this country; extreme weather conditions, floods and droughts. I mean, talk to your farmers, talk to people in your community. Everybody gets it, except the Republican Conference here has its head in the sand.

On these appropriation bills, it is clear. I mean, read the bills. Read the bills. I don't know how anybody could come here with a straight face and say that this is good legislating. The only thing that is good is the fact that they are so extreme that even Senate Republicans are not going to take any of this garbage seriously.

The supplemental aid bill is as disastrous as it is disgraceful. Everybody in this House, everybody is horrified by the events of October 7. A terrible tragedy occurred that day. Israeli civilians were massacred that day. My Republican friends say they want to help Israel, and so what do they do? They condition the aid to Israel on essentially a tax break for millionaires, billionaires, and corporations that cheat on their taxes. Really? That is what they are thinking about? That is the focus? Don't miss an opportunity to help the well off and the well connected. Don't miss an opportunity to help tax cheats.

Let's not miss an opportunity to help millionaires, billionaires, and big corporations to try to cheat on their taxes. They may be big donors, but I am going to tell you what they do is not right. It is illegal. They ought to be held accountable, the same way that average working people are held accountable.

Rich people in this country do not pay taxes anywhere near as much as average workers in this country. Rich people don't pay as much taxes as nurses, teachers, laborers, and people who work hard every day just to make ends meet. Come on, we ought to be able to agree on that. However, to condition any aid on helping protect these tax cheaters? Boy, that is cynical. It tells you where their priorities are, Madam Speaker.

The question is, Members either want to provide the aid to Israel or they don't. If Republicans really were serious about this, they wouldn't politicize it. If Republicans were really serious about this, they would be working in a bipartisan way not only with Democrats in the House but with Republicans and Democrats in the Senate and with the White House, and let's get this thing done quickly but they can't do it.

They decide that they can't bring themselves to support any kind of humanitarian aid. Half the people who live in Gaza, half the people are children. Children. They are not Hamas. They are just innocent children. The idea that we will get to a humanitarian aid package, oh, whenever we feel like it, I mean, really? Are you watching the footage on TV? Are you reading anything about the reports, about the suffering? These children need help now. They needed help a week ago. The idea that, oh, we just can't talk about that right now, is inhumane. It is inhumane.

There is nothing in here to help Ukraine. By the way, there is a humanitarian crisis unfolding in Ukraine as well. That humanitarian aid package would help those innocent people caught in the crossfire in Ukraine, but can't be bothered. We have to help protect tax breaks for rich people. That is the priority. Not the suffering people of Ukraine.

No security package for Ukraine, nothing. Vladimir Putin is celebrating as we speak. That is exactly what he wants. I am sure my friends will get great coverage on Moscow TV because this is exactly what Putin has been hoping for, that Congress will walk away from helping the Ukrainians defend their sovereignty.

Russia attacked Ukraine, tried to invade Ukraine with only provocation, and you are acting like it is no big deal; and the people that are being caught in the crossfire, well, we can't be bothered with giving you any humanitarian aid.

Other national security priorities the President asked for will be put on the back burner.

What is this Republican majority thinking? What world are they living in?

Again, please don't repeat the lie that the majority is paying for things with these offsets. These offsets are not real. The Congressional Budget Office says it. I get that Republicans don't like that the CBO says it, but CBO tells the truth. The majority can either ignore it or not, but don't say that somehow we are offsetting the costs of our foreign aid package here. We are not. It is a joke. It is an insult to the intelligence of the American people. It is an insult to the Members of Congress who serve in this institution. Plus, my Republican colleagues say it with a straight face. What is going on here?

The chaos of the Republican Party is no longer just about the Republican Party. It has become an international embarrassment for our country. The way they are handling legislation today is an international embarrassment for our country.

The insensitivity that is being demonstrated for innocent civilians being caught in the crossfire of these conflicts is an embarrassment for this country. It is a failure of government, and this is a national security threat.

The Grand Old Party, the once-great party of Lincoln and Eisenhower, is no longer fit to govern. They are no longer fit to govern. It no longer represents a coherent political philosophy or ideology. It relies on scandal and spectacle to mask sedition, selfishness, and greed. How else do we explain the giveaway to tax cheats in their Israel aid package?

I am pleading with normal Republicans, traditional Republicans, with courage, integrity, and guts. We need them to retake their party. I want a strong Democratic Party, but we need a strong, principled Republican Party if this country is going to work. Right now, we do not have that.

What is happening here today is wasting our time on appropriations bills that are so extreme in terms of what they cut that they are going nowhere. We are wasting our time on that and the cynical attempt to help big donors who cheat on their taxes by conditioning aid to Israel on protecting them. Who thought that one up? I don't even know where that idea came from. Who thought it was a good idea to do this?

At a time of an international crisis, it would be nice if we all spoke with one voice. Wouldn't it be great if everybody could stand up here and say we are together and meeting the challenges appropriately, properly, and decisively? That is not what we are doing today.

I have to say, Madam Speaker, just when you think it can't get any worse around here, it does.

I will close with this: I still can't get out of my head the ease with which my Republican friends on the Rules Committee voted to not even allow us to consider the amendments by Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, especially the one on humanitarian aid.

There was no discussion. There was no debate. Let's quickly all reject it as if it was no big deal.

Look at those pictures. Look at those pictures of not only what is happening in the Middle East but what is happening in Ukraine.

We have to start asking ourselves why we are here. We are supposed to be about helping people in this country. We are supposed to be about standing for human rights all around the world. Yet, we are dealing with these garbage appropriations bills that are a disgrace. We are dealing with a supplemental aid package that is insufficient in so many ways in terms of what it doesn't fund, and it is so cynical. It is so cynical.

Again, I urge my colleagues, Madam Speaker, to vote ``no'' on this rule. I urge them to vote ``no'' on all the underlying bills. I urge my Republican colleagues to go to one of their many conferences that they seem to have five times a day to try to work out their problems within their Conference and actually come to an agreement that maybe we ought to put the country and doing what is right ahead of everything else.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, ineffective, unreliable, and dangerous. That is what we are here to talk about on this amendment. This amendment strikes the $28 million in this bill to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management renewable energy program that promotes the administration's reckless goal of creating 30 gigawatts of offshore wind production by 2030.

The promotion of the rapid expansion of offshore wind is particularly misguided considering offshore wind's high levelized cost, the significant lack of reliability, the impact on flight safety and national defense, and the threat to endangered ocean wildlife from offshore wind activity.

Offshore wind is one of the most expensive energy sources available. The Energy Information Administration estimates the levelized cost of energy for offshore wind at $136.51 per megawatt hour, which is three times as much as even onshore wind, which is still way more expensive than the traditional forms of energy that are clean and that we rely on to turn these very lights on in this Chamber.

The heavy reliance on offshore wind is a contributing factor to the United Kingdom having one of the highest electricity prices in the world.

In addition to being expensive, wind power is notoriously unreliable. Intermittency is a fact of life for wind power and one that cannot be overcome or ignored. More simply put, if the wind stops blowing, the power goes out. You don't have a backup because we are shutting down all the backups across this country.

One of the significant contributors to the European energy crisis in 2021 and 2022 is a flatlining of offshore wind production. Investing Federal resources in this expensive and unreliable technology is economically ill-advised and unaffordable as we are $33 trillion in debt.

Beyond the economic problems with offshore wind, these projects actively threaten national security, maritime safety, and flight safety.

The Department of Defense has identified most of the eastern Atlantic Coast as a wind exclusion zone for defense and defense training, including active and currently leased wind farm areas. The DOD, the people we rely on to keep us safe, said, no, they don't want this.

The interagency Wind Turbine Radar Interference Mitigation Working Group has raised concerns that these offshore wind farms will create radar interference that will impede air traffic control, homeland security, national defense, and weather forecasting.

Despite these concerns and the grave implications of radar interference on the military and the maritime and aviation industries, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has recklessly pursued these offshore wind projects without addressing any of these issues. The Bureau's renewable energy program is recklessly green-lighting wind energy projects without accounting for any of the concerns I just raised.

Congress must end the funding for this misguided program and protect American taxpayers from the funding of this, again, ineffective, unreliable, and dangerous form of energy.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew), someone on the front lines who is dealing with this and energy bills with his bosses, his constituents.

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

Mr. Chairman, while I like the last amendment, I have got another good one.

This amendment strikes all funding, $3.75 million, for the Council on Environmental Quality. The Council on Environmental Quality was created by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to advance environmental policies and to meet requirements under NEPA.

The Biden administration has weaponized this CEQ with developing policies on climate change, environmental justice, and Federal sustainability, all while creating more paperwork under NEPA that the previous administration tried to reverse.

Mr. Chairman, these policies are what is holding America back. Onerous NEPA requirements and State-level laws like those in California are holding back countless programs and construction projects around the country. They are also part of the Democrat apparatus that aims to shift America's way of life by meeting unscientific emission goals.

The Federal Government is supposed to do a lot of things. It doesn't do many of them well, but it doesn't need to tell us how to cook our food. Yet, as written by the Department of Energy's own estimates for their gas stove rule, only 4 percent of gas stovetops available in the market today meet the new standard, essentially forcing Americans to choose electric stovetops.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her thoughts on it.

Why are there three?

We want to give the minority three opportunities to do the right thing. Oftentimes Members vote, and then they think, oh, boy. They hear from their constituents and say that I wish I didn't vote that way.

We want to make sure that the minority knows that this agency does not need to exist.

By the way, of all the things, again, that the Federal Government needs to do, it does not need to be doing this. The States are doing an adequate job. As a matter of fact, they are doing an awesome job and in some places it is too awesome of a job.

Take California. It is losing population for the first time in history because they are doing too awesome of a job of being tyrannical towards their citizens with policies just like this.

We want the minority to have the opportunity. We want the minority to know that this is a pressing issue. We want the minority to know that we are not giving up on it and that we are going to keep coming back until we end this boondoggle. Finally, we want to remind everybody--in case no one else knows it--we are $33 trillion in debt and in the next 18 months we will probably be $36 trillion in debt.

Mr. Chairman, if you can't afford electricity, groceries, or gasoline, your credit card payments are maxed out, and you can't afford to buy a new car, the reason is because this Congress, this institution, and this town refuses to stop the spending that is causing all of your high prices.

This is the place to stop the spending.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes $186.3 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. According to its website, the NEA is the largest funder of the arts and arts education in communities nationwide.

Now, this is all well and good. I am sure all of us here can appreciate the arts. Certainly, I attend my daughters' concerts. We have pictures hanging up in our home and pictures hanging up in my office. We bought them. We pay for our daughters' instruments. We pay for their instruction in music. We go to the plays, and we pay. However, again, we are $33 trillion in debt. We are heading for $36 trillion in the next 18 months.

According to a recent report by Giving USA 2023, in 2022, giving to the arts, culture, and humanities is estimated at over $24 billion. The funding in this bill is a drop in the bucket compared to those private- sector contributions. Yet, it is still important to an America that is careening towards bankruptcy.

Furthermore, there have been many debates about objectionable art funded by NEA grants including lewd or controversial topics. Our citizens, our bosses, and our constituents shouldn't have to be forced to pay for these things that they find objectionable. One current example is the NEA's current focus on equity, which only divides Americans using identity politics.

One way to completely avoid that debate is to stop subsidizing any of these projects.

The NEA also operates several programs that, quite frankly, shouldn't exist, including the Art in Architecture program which commissions art for Federal buildings, and the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Program which subsidizes the insurance of art exhibitions, both domestic and international, including private collections.

It is not enough that we pay for it here, we have to spend the money internationally, including private collections. This is our Federal Government. These are our Federal tax dollars of which we are borrowing right now to pay this bill. We just don't have the money for these programs.

I don't have anything against Americans creating wonderful art or enjoying wonderful art. I am one of them.

The question is: Should our taxpayers be paying for it?

I don't think that they should.

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

Mr. Chairman, the question really should be: Is this a Federal requirement? Is this a Federal responsibility?

I agree with the gentlewoman on a whole host of things she said about the economic impact of the arts and the humanities.

The question is: Should the Federal Government be doing it?

If there is a return on investment, and I agree there is, apparently, it is worthy because in 2022 private industry and private contributions were $24 billion. That is awesome. We ought to encourage that.

Now, maybe $186 million is a drop in the bucket in this bill, and I suspect it is. Where I come from, $186 million is a heck of a lot of money. It is a heck of a lot of money.

Mr. Chairman, if you watch the one millions, the two millions, the five millions, the 100 millions, the 186 millions, then maybe sometimes you can get to the fact that this year we are spending $2.2 trillion more than we are taking in at the Federal level--$2.2 trillion.

Mr. Chairman, you have to start somewhere, and you start with the ones, the tens, the twenties, the hundreds, and the hundred millions. That is where you start.

This is not a Federal responsibility. It should be done by local and State if they want to do it. The Federal Government cannot sustain it and should not sustain it.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes $186.3 million in funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities. I will say, yet again, since people in Washington don't seem to care, we are over $33 trillion in debt. We are going to add another $3 trillion here in about less than 2 years.

Let's take a look at the types of projects we are funding through the NEH grants:

$60,000 to study the labor of interpreters in U.N. field missions;

$500,000 to renovate 5,800 square feet of gallery space in the Adirondack Museum to meet ``contemporary museum standards'';

Over $330,000 for compact cabinetry and fixtures for a museum in Richmond, Virginia;

Almost $150,000 to build a comics and social justice curriculum at San Diego State University.

I have a kinship with San Diego. I have been to Richmond; I like it. I am sure the gallery in the Adirondacks and the museum there are very nice, but these are State and local projects. This is not a Federal requirement.

The gentleman from Idaho talked about the small towns and communities I am sure he represents and hopes that the arts and the humanities are there. I hope for the same thing in the little town that I come from, Dillsburg, a rural community that just held the farmers fair, where children, including my daughters, entered their arts stuff to be judged. There was no Federal grant to my kids or any kids in Dillsburg, York, Hershey, Upper Dauphin, or Carlisle.

We all want things for our communities, and we want somebody else to pay for them. It has to end somewhere, and this is a place where we can start. Someone has to be responsible. Nobody is saying we shouldn't have the arts and humanities. I am also not saying that some of these aren't worthwhile projects. I am just saying that our constituents' tax dollars shouldn't be subsidizing them.

If a State or locality wants to fund a local museum renovation or curriculum at a State university, that is between them and their taxpayers.

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

Mr. Chair, let's talk about some other projects. I know the good gentleman from Idaho talked about we are reducing spending, we continue to reduce spending, and we try to do that.

Mr. Chairman, we are going broke saving money around this town. We keep on talking about reducing spending, but somehow--I don't know how it is--when I watch that clock one of my colleagues wears on his lapel, the numbers on the national debt clock continue to get larger. I showed the national debt clock to my daughter one time, and she said, ``What is that?'' I pulled it up online, and I showed it to her. She stared at it, and she said, Well, it never stops.

Mr. Chairman, it doesn't stop. We are going broke saving money.

Here are some more projects:

$60,000 to incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion concepts and content into humanities general education courses at Thomas Edison State University in Trenton, New Jersey; a wonderful place;

Over $360,000 for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at the University of Central Oklahoma;

$215,000 to California State University for 25 middle and high school English teachers to study climate futurism, which is storytelling that uses climate science as a catalyst to imagine possible climate futures.

Now, the President has just asked for a supplemental of over $100 billion for wars in Ukraine, Israel, and to process more illegal migrants across our border. We don't have money for that. We are going to borrow money for that, and we are going to borrow money for this.

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of worthwhile things in the world that we want to be a part of, that we want to pay for. We just don't have the money. We just don't have the money. I would ask that we quit saving money and going broke and pass this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, today, I rise in support of my amendment that cuts funding for the Bureau of Land Management by 50 percent.

The mission of the BLM is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. Unfortunately, the BLM isn't living up to its stated purpose, and it has lost its way.

It is becoming harder and harder for each new generation to use and enjoy our public lands because the BLM is locked in on its goal to lock out land users, including recreationists, livestock grazers, and energy producers.

Earlier this year, the BLM proposed the so-called landscape health rule, which seeks to replace productive activities under the BLM's multiple-use framework by creating an additional use, so-called conservation leases, a designation never approved by Congress.

The current framework already balances conservation with other uses. Creating an entirely new use under the umbrella of conservation is simply a means to eliminate other uses and bar anyone from even setting foot on these lands.

Now, I am grateful that this act also includes a section that prevents funding from going toward the implementation of this proposed rule, but that is not enough. We must also address the BLM's overall agenda to lock us out of our Federal lands. My amendment does just that, and I request my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chair, The BLM has recently launched an attack on 3.6 million acres in Wyoming through its proposed draft Rock Springs Resource Management Plan, or RMP. Through their preferred alternative, they are trying to lock out land users by designating 1.8 million acres as areas of critical environmental concern, which essentially prevents us from accessing and using these lands, particularly as it relates to recreation, livestock grazing, energy production and mineral extraction.

The Rock Springs Draft RMP is entirely biased, unscientific, violates FLPMA and NEPA, and is an abuse of BLM's authority. We can mine, we can drill, we can graze, and we can recreate on Federal lands while also conserving our important natural resources and wildlife, and, in fact, we have been doing so for literally decades.

Come to Wyoming and see how we have managed these resources. We have a beautiful State, abundant wildlife, clean water, and clean air. We are also one of the largest energy producers in the United States. Conservation and protection go hand-in-hand with grazing and energy development.

The BLM's preferred alternative for the Rock Springs RMP does not strike the proper balance between conservation and development. It would ravage Wyoming's and the Nation's economy and ultimately destroy opportunities to use the land in a productive, profitable, and effective way.

The BLM has turned into an arm of the radical environmental organizations running this administration, is aggressively exceeding its authorization, and ignoring its very purpose for existence.

I encourage adoption of my amendment so that we can begin to right this ship.

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

Mr. Chair, the BLM is attacking not only the State of Wyoming's economy, but the economic well-being and security of every American. It continues to pursue these failed policies that force us to depend on importing our food and our energy, while also stifling competition for companies that operate on public lands.

Examples of these aggressive actions include: Leading out on President Biden's war on oil and gas, as well as his war on coal;

Crippling conservation efforts by eliminating uses that improve the environment;

Preventing local and State and multigenerational input as to what the most appropriate uses and management of land are, while also pursuing policies that impact the value and quality of our property resources;

Holding projects on Federal lands hostage to environmental litigation, and then selling out to the demands of environmental groups that are gaining traction in the fight against local control.

The BLM has perfected the sue-and-settle model, and all of us are suffering the consequences.

There are so many other examples of the BLM attacking the State of Wyoming, as well as the economic well-being of every citizen in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, today, my State faces an onslaught of proposals from the Bureau of Land Management and other Federal agencies as they pursue the terribly destructive Green New Deal. Cutting the BLM's budget as proposed in amendment No. 2 is one step forward in addressing those attacks.

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

Mr. Chair, the system that we have with the BLM is no longer sustainable, and most States across the West are struggling as a result. My colleagues in the House and Senate are wholly opposed to reining in the executive state, so I have no choice but to try to slash this agency's budget to try to rein in what they have been doing.

The fact is that the Federal Government's ever-growing presence in the West and its adversarial nature to our way of life is undermining our prosperity. In short, the BLM doesn't work for us anymore, it doesn't work for the people of Wyoming, and it doesn't protect our natural resources. It is time that we do something about it, recognize where the problem lies, and slash the budget.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, today, I rise in support of my amendment, which prohibits the BLM from finalizing its draft Rock Springs resource management plan, the purpose of which is to severely restrict livestock grazing, mining, energy development, recreation, and other activities on 3.6 million acres of land in southwestern Wyoming.

The BLM is required to update its resource management plans approximately every 10 years. The Rock Springs field office began the process of updating its own plan in 2011 in accordance with FLPMA.

The proposed RMP contains four alternatives for the planning area, including alternative A, which keeps the current management plan in place; the BLM's preferred plan, alternative B,

which would have tremendous negative consequences for Wyoming and the Nation as a whole; alternative C, which severely restricts recreational activities; and alternative D, which provides a better balance between various uses but still substantially impacts the activities of key contributors to Wyoming's economy, such as our trona mining and existing oil and gas operations.

Contrary to the very purpose of the BLM, it has chosen the most restrictive, the most draconian, and the least scientifically defensible plan--the one that Wyomingites are the most opposed to--as its preference, that being alternative B.

In total, under BLM's preferred alternative B, about 2.5 million acres would not be available for new rights-of-way. This would be an increase of more than 480 percent in acreage off-limits to important things like power lines, pipelines, and maintaining roads.

The draft RMP restricts the use of vehicles on millions of acres of land, restricts recreation, cuts livestock grazing, destroys our trona industry, and severely restricts our ability to explore for and produce oil, gas, and coal.

BLM's alternative B is a nonstarter and will have severe impacts on the economy of not only Wyoming but the Nation. It will impact our food supply.

It is for these reasons that I have introduced my amendment to defund the BLM's efforts to finalize or implement the RMP as a whole.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this important amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, none of the responses from my colleague on the other side had anything to do with the amendment before us, so I am going to proceed with the statistics related to this particular RMP.

The RMP severely restricts vehicle access, including 4,500 miles of routes to all uses, while removing an additional 10,000 miles of routes from the transportation network.

This draft RMP designates 1.8 million acres out of 3.6 million acres as areas of critical environmental concern without any congressional input whatsoever.

Perhaps what is most disheartening and disturbing and illegal about this RMP is the fact that it has ignored not only stakeholder input over the past 12 years, but the input and analysis undertaken and completed by the BLM personnel in the Rock Springs district's office.

The administration has proven time and again that its primary agenda is to push forward with the radical Green New Deal, as we just heard from my colleague on the other side, and that it views the opinions of unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., over the citizens of this country, and that it does not care whether its actions actually work in the real world or cause severe damage.

In addition to the fact that alternative B is just plain bad on its face, it was also adopted in violation of FLPMA and NEPA. According to a former BLM engineer who worked in the Rock Springs field office on this very RMP, most of the research and work went into studying and pursuing alternative D. What does that mean? The most controversial alternative, the alternative that the BLM is now seeking to impose on Wyoming, was never adequately evaluated.

Alternative C, which includes heavy recreational restrictions, also had little time and little review. The lack of planning and analysis and input related to alternative B exposes the fact that this is a political decision that is not based on the real-life situation in the Rock Springs district, but more related to the idea of blocking any access to our natural resources for the things that we have historically used them for.

Mr. Chair, we have historically balanced our energy development, land use recreation, wildlife management, and grazing, and we have done it well. Come to Wyoming. It is a beautiful State. We have been able to balance all of these interests and, in the process,

become the largest producer of trona in the United States, raised hundreds of thousands of head of cattle and sheep, and produced massive amounts of coal and oil and gas to power this country, all the while protecting our habitat, our air quality, our water quality, and our very way of life.

I am proud of Wyoming producers, ranchers, and recreationists and what they have created, and we cannot allow BLM to destroy it.

It was said the other day by a reporter that this BLM RMP takes the public off public lands. I couldn't have said it better.

Mr. Chairman, we have seen this kind of thing happen across the interior West, including with the Bears Ears designation in Utah, and others in Colorado and Arizona. We need to put a stop to this effort to block our access, use, and management of our resources.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which would prevent any funds from going towards implementing this monstrosity of a plan.

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