Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits the funds appropriated by this act from being used to enforce any COVID-19 mask mandates.

I have been proud to introduce this amendment in previous appropriations

bills where they passed on a voice vote, and I am happy to do so here again.

Policies involving mandatory mask implementation are about control, not about science. Tom Jefferson, not to be confused with Thomas Jefferson, is a leading epidemiologist who coauthored what The New York Times opinion section called--and again this is The New York Times--the ``most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses--including COVID-19,'' and found there was no evidence that masks made any difference. It found that wearing masks in public places ``probably makes little or no difference'' in the number of infections.

It should be noted that mask mandates included any and all masks. This study looked at the gold standard of masks, the N-95, and even they didn't make a difference. When you paired masks with preventative measures, there was no difference.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's comments. I would agree to her point that there currently is no mask mandate and the fact that the COVID-19 emergency is over. However, what this does is prevent future administrations, Republican or Democrat, from taking and impinging on the freedom and liberty of individuals.

Going back to Dr. Jefferson and his study that was quoted by the New York Times, it noted that the so-called science that infringed on the liberty by forcing masks was based off of nonscientific, nonrandomized trials, that the data was flawed.

We allowed ourselves and our freedoms and our liberties to be infringed. Our Founding Fathers warned us that it is in times of crisis that the Constitution and the rule of law are most in jeopardy. I lost friends to COVID. I am not saying that COVID wasn't serious, but what I am saying is this does not give the government the right to infringe on your liberty. You have a choice. It is up to you to make it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment that prohibits funds for the enforcement of the recommendation, the guidance regarding mandated use of preferred pronouns.

On October 11, the Secretary of HHS issued guidance that would, among other things, compel employees to call other people by their so-called preferred pronouns.

I think I speak for most Americans when I say that the concept of choosing your own pronouns, which is based on biological sex, just doesn't make sense.

That is not what this amendment is about. This amendment is about a clear and present danger to the principle of free speech. Mr. Chairman, you have a right to be you. I have a right to be me. However, your choices should not infringe on my rights.

Not only does the First Amendment protect against censorship, it also has been long understood to protect against compelled speech. Perhaps one of the most egregious forms of infringement and violation of the First Amendment is compelled speech, and I rise to stand against said egregious guidance in trying to get Federal employees to buy into this nonsense.

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

Mr. Chairman, guidance. I think Ronald Reagan--and I will paraphrase--said the scariest phrase in the American language is, ``I am from the government and I am here to help.'' The last thing I want is more guidance from the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, you can bark like a dog, but I am not going to call you Fido. I am going to call you Mr. Chairman. That is what this is about. This is about infringement of speech.

This is about the Federal Government trying to compel employees to buy into the fantasies of other employees, and that is not the role of government. Bark like a dog if you want, but you are still Mr. Chairman.

Writing for the majority in the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, Justice Robert Jackson affirmed this basic idea. He wrote, ``No official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.''

Forcing employees to call people by their preferred pronouns compels those employees to affirm that it is possible for a person to change his or her gender, to buy into this fantasy even if it

does contradict science and/or their faith.

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

Mr. Chairman, people have a right to practice their religion fully. They are not told to confine their faith to an hour on Sunday mornings.

In fact, most major religions in the United States hold as a matter of doctrine that a person cannot change his or her gender.

I go back to George Washington before the Constitutional Convention in 1789 pointedly attending a Catholic mass. He reached out to the Jewish community and proclaimed religious freedom, the choices of blessings, that unwavering commitment to religious liberty, to freedom, is what we should be honoring.

Our word as a Member of Congress should mean something. If we will not stand up for the Constitution, for your right to freedom of speech, for the rights of Americans, we have no business being here.

Compelling speech, Mr. Chairman, is an infringement of the most egregious nature. It must not be tolerated.

This idea of not having a hostile workplace goes both ways, Mr. Chairman. Again, bark like a dog if you want to. You are still Mr. Chairman.

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

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment reduces funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, to fiscal year 2019 levels, something that Republicans have made a central piece of any spending arrangements in this Congress.

Under the Democrats' fiscal year 2023 omnibus, which every Republican last year voted against, Congress appropriated over $152 million. The fiscal year 2019 appropriation for CPSC was $127 million, which, when measured against the proposed appropriation in this bill, represents a relatively modest $12 million cut.

No one opposes the good intentions behind the CPSC. In fact, this amendment doesn't gut the agency at all. Everyone here wants to make sure that our fellow citizens are safe. However, it is fair to say that the CPSC has certainly gone well beyond basic consumer protection.

Earlier this year, the CPSC indicated that they planned to take action on banning gas stoves. Obviously, that effort failed, but the fact that the CPSC even considered taking action on gas stoves--heaven forbid that the American people feed themselves--is an indication of just how far this agency has gone off the rails. If an agency can regulate indoor air, what can't they regulate?

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

Mr. Chairman, I agree, and I think we all can agree that we want to keep consumers safe, but this is a modest $12 million cut to an agency that has gone beyond its purview.

I live in a rural community. I live back in a valley on top of a hill, and on occasion we have ice storms, so having a gas stove is important to me and my family. In rural America, having gas stoves, propane, is important to America, and yet this agency tried to ban gas stoves.

Why? Because they are driven by a political agenda far beyond their mission statement of keeping Americans safe.

This is why we need a modest cut to a rogue agency, to send them a message to get back on track to do their job and quit pushing the woke Biden administration's agenda. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I guess that is Common Core math because attempting to block an increase isn't a cut. We are talking about $12 million off the current appropriations. That is a modest cut.

By the way, the gas stoves, that was attempted through rulemaking. So my colleague, who I greatly respect, must assume that the American people are stupid because they attempted to regulate and ban gas stoves. That is a fact. It can't be disputed. I am appalled that that was even mentioned, even in passing.

That being said, it should be noted that two Democrat Presidents reduced the size of this agency's budget--both Carter and Clinton--at a time when bipartisan support was there for fiscal restraint. That is what we are asking for. That is what we should do. We should send them a message that enough is enough.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment. We are in a crisis in this country. Our southern border is overrun, spending is out of control, and agencies have gone woke. This President has failed us. It is time we get our fiscal house in order.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits the funds appropriated by this act from being used to enforce any COVID-19 mask mandates.

I was fortunate enough to introduce this amendment during both the Energy and Water as well as the Interior appropriations, and I am happy to do it again today.

That being said, we are in the post-COVID world. People are educated on masks and whether or not they want to use them. Instead of imposing this type of mandate on individuals, let's trust their judgment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), my colleague and friend.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out with mask mandates, that includes any mask that can be utilized or worn. As to N-95 masks, the gold standard of masking, it was pointed out in The New York Times opinion piece by epidemiologist, Tom Jefferson, that masks did not show as an effective means to blocking the virus.

Mr. Chairman, I ask adoption of this amendment. I ask my colleagues and my friends from the other side to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds to implement or enforce the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's rule titled: ``Small Business Lending Under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.'' Mr. Chairman, that is a mouthful.

Mr. Chairman, I would argue the CFPB is unconstitutional and should not exist. They should not be making this rule. The CFPB's final rule implementing section 1071 of the Dodd-Frank Act, requires lenders to report data on small business loan applications, including applications from minority-owned, women-owned and LGBTQ-owned small businesses. This is information that is private to them and should have no bearing on creditworthiness, but rather is an intrusion into their privacy.

There is no reason why the government should be requiring the collection and disclosure of this information. There is no reason why money should be allocated to enforce this rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, I respect and appreciate my colleague's comments. I would point out that the CFPB, which I would argue, is an unconstitutional bogeyman for so many small American businesses. They want to force lenders to report data from women-owned businesses.

In the committee hearing, I asked Mr. Chopra: What is a woman? He couldn't answer the question. He chose not to answer the question.

I would argue, how is this information and data even reliable when they can't define what a woman is.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of those situations that in the name of transparency the government is collecting more information, information that they don't need in order to warrant or grant creditworthiness.

There is a point at which you stop collecting data. There is a point at which you have an obligation to protect the consumer, especially when you look at all the data breaches that our government and banks have had over and over again.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his comments, and I respect his opinion.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, our Republic depends on our bureaucracies faithfully implementing the laws and policies set forth by our elected officials.

A misguided rule proposed by the Office of Personnel Management could threaten a President's ability to ensure that the executive branch is appropriately staffed to carry out his or her policies.

During the Trump administration, some career Federal employees were either unwilling to appropriately carry out President Trump's agenda or, maybe more often, found themselves ill-equipped to make, implement, or communicate policies with which they disagreed.

All Presidents, Republican or Democrat, have this problem to some degree. They have a right to staff their offices.

President Biden now, outrageously, finds himself facing resistance by State Department employees who disagree with his opposition to Hamas.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge that we allow this amendment to pass. It empowers a President, regardless of policy, regardless of party, to do their job to staff their offices.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his comments.

We have civil service protections to protect career Federal employees from being fired or demoted just because the President or their supervisor disagrees with them politically. We must allow an administration the flexibility to decide that certain people are a bad fit for certain key roles and to let them transfer people so that the role can be filled with someone better suited for it. That is all we are asking. That is all this does.

To accomplish this, the Trump administration created schedule F, which identified positions that had a ``confidential, policy- determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating character,'' and provided that the administration could change who served in those specific roles to make sure that they were willing and able to advance the agenda the President chose to pursue.

This would apply to Biden. This would apply to Trump. This would have applied to Obama--regardless of party.

My amendment simply defunds a Biden rule that blocks Presidents from using a similar policy in the future.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would argue that it is time that Congress empowers any President to be able to staff their office, and if they have a member of their administration who is undermining their policies that they are able to--and it is not that we are saying to fire these individuals. It is a matter of putting them in another role where they are better suited so the President can carry forward on their policies.

It is my understanding that we have people within Biden's own administration who don't agree with him on policy. That is not their call. That is the President's call. That is the call of Congress. So this is empowering the President, the administrative office, to be able to run more like a business.

Mr. Chairman, I ask adoption of this amendment. I think it is good, sound policy, and it puts a check and balance in place on career politicians who are more focused on their agenda than serving Congress or serving the President.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds to finalize, implement, administer, or enforce the CFPB's rule entitled ``Registry of Nonbank Covered Persons Subject to Certain Agency and Court Orders.''

Mr. Chairman, there is a recurring theme here. That is because the CFPB is unconstitutional and their funding is unconstitutional. I would hope and expect the Supreme Court to rule in that way so that Congress can rule and administer funds appropriately.

That being said, we have an obligation to rein in their out-of- control regulation.

The CFPB's proposed rule seeks to publicly identify so-called repeat financial law offenders by establishing a database of enforcement actions taken against certain nonbank covered entities.

Specifically, the proposed rule would require certain nonbank entities to register with the bureau and to provide regular updates on such covered orders.

The proposed rule also includes obtaining enforcement actions against organizations that have already settled with State or local authorities.

Mr. Chairman, this is empowering an agency that has already gone too far. It has gone beyond its mandate, it is unconstitutional, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the CFPB is essentially orchestrating a name-and-shame scheme with this registry, and it is openly weaponizing the power of the Federal Government to target market participants.

It could be weaponized, and it could be leveraged. So if they don't like how you operate, Mr. Chairman, if you are not woke enough, or if you are not green enough, then they can put on a registry.

To be clear, the CFPB does not have the authority to promulgate a robust set of registration requirements, nor does it have the authority to establish a database for a particular category of information. Such a registry will result in cost compliances and measures for covered nonbank entities, many of which are small businesses.

We are hearing this from the banking sector and from the adjacent sectors as well that the cost of compliance, because of the CFPB and because of the rulemaking, is off the charts. Ultimately, the consumer pays that cost.

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

Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague. Obviously, I ask that this amendment be adopted and ultimately that the CFPB be dismantled.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds to finalize the Federal Labor Relations Authority's proposed rule which would restrict Federal employees' ability to opt out of membership in a labor union.

I am not against the union, per se, but the right for someone to opt out. They should have that right.

In its Janus decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that government employees have a First Amendment right to retain their jobs while choosing to abstain from funding or participating in a public-sector union.

However, the Federal Labor Relations Authority has proposed a rule to violate the intention of that ruling.

First, it restricts Federal employees to a limited window each calendar year to opt out of having union dues deducted from their paychecks. Then, preposterously, it requires agencies to assume that employees who have already opted out of paying dues want to resume paying dues in the future, which requires the employee to then opt out again.

This is not the intent of the Supreme Court decision. The employees should be empowered and not basically hemmed in by a regulatory rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to point out in its Janus decision, the Supreme Court affirmed that employees have a First Amendment right to opt out. The decision didn't say that the employee has a First Amendment right 1 month out of the year. It said that they have the right.

This rule is unreasonable in that it requires an employee, if they need or decide they want to opt out, to wait 11 months. That is not what the decision says.

Mr. Chairman, you have a First Amendment right to say no.

Furthermore, once you have opted out, why, then can the union then ignore your First Amendment right and opt you back in the following year?

That is not the intent of this decision, and it is not our obligation to ensure the stability of a union. Moreover,

this decision was to protect the rights of workers.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases and decreases to emphasize the importance of restoring public safety and the rule of law on the D.C. Metro.

While it primarily is focusing on crime on the Metro, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that law and order in our Nation's Capital has completely collapsed.

Based on preliminary data from the Metropolitan Police Department, crime has increased 27 percent overall this year. More concerning, violent crime has increased by 40 percent. Compared to this time last year, the homicide rate is up 33 percent; robbery is up 69 percent; and motor vehicle theft is up by 101 percent.

A month ago, one of our esteemed colleagues was carjacked, a fate that befalls too many people in the D.C. metro area. The fact that criminals are so brazen as to steal the car of a Member of Congress shows how far the situation has deteriorated.

This sharp increase in the crime rate is directly attributable to the failed home rule policy that has empowered a leftist government to pursue its ideological agenda at the expense of the general welfare.

Let me say it one more time: D.C. home rule is a complete and total failure.

Mr. Chairman, all too often, criminals in this city receive a slap on the wrist. There are few places where crime is more noticeable than the D.C. metro area. From October 2022 to October 2023, crime has almost tripled.

We should be ashamed. We have residents, colleagues, children, and tourists taking our Metro while visiting our city, and it is not safe. Safety is something that we should be able to guarantee on a federally funded transit system.

From a 2-year period, 2020 to 2022, there were a total of six homicides on the Metro. This year, there have already been seven.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, I introduced the Seat of Government Act, which would repeal the District of Columbia's home rule and restore control of D.C. to the Federal Government, where it belongs.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds from being used to provide for additional funding for national monument designations under the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act, passed in 1906, authorizes the President to singlehandedly designate any Federal public lands as national monuments. Its creation was motivated by the looting of Indian artifacts and archaeological sites dating back to the late 1800s.

While focusing on fixing a real issue of its day, the law was carefully crafted to protect private citizens from government overreach. The Antiquities Act designations should be done under, and I quote directly from the legislation, ``the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.'' Clearly, it was meant to be limited in scope.

Just like everything else, this administration and previous Democrat administrations make it impossible for us to have nice things. Think about this. In the 8 years that Joe Biden was Vice President under the Obama administration, the Antiquities Act was weaponized for 550 million acres of land. That is roughly a quarter of the land by acreage in the United States. That is a problem that goes beyond the scope and intent of this act.

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

Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague on one point, that it has been used, it has been overused, and it has been abused.

This is intended to protect historic sites that are being looted and being damaged by whatever force is in play. To control, to take from States and private citizens 550 million acres of land over an 8-year period is not the intent of this act. It is clear that it no longer serves its purpose and, quite frankly, if the President or Vice President identifies an antiquity or area of land that needs protection, they can come to Congress. If it is worthy of Congress' designation, we can work with the administration, Republican or Democrat.

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

Mr. Chair, I ask for adoption of this amendment. We are at a point in history that if any further monument needs designation, it should come before Congress and have congressional approval.

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

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits funds to be used by the Environmental Protection Agency for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, or the USGCRP.

This program coordinates with 13 different Federal departments and agencies. Its focus as it relates to areas within EPA's jurisdiction is to conduct research on climate change.

I think it is fair to say that the climate is changing, and we have a role to play in it. However, there is a degree of climate alarmism in this country that has compelled smooth-talking bureaucrats and their grant-seeking associates in the private sector to grovel for more and more funding.

At its core, climate alarmism is immoral. It is impacting industry and business because people of power are telling Americans every day that they are going to die unless they adopt these policies, and I object.

I think more and more Americans are fed up with the subsidizing of this agenda, of this alarmism. At a time of inflation and at a time when the economy is struggling, it is time to stop.

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

Mr. Chair, I think part of the problem in this country is that we tend to hold ourselves or the left tends to hold us to a standard that is really unattainable. Meanwhile, our partners, like China, are left to abuse the environment. They are the worst polluters in the world or one of the worst polluters in the world, and they are held to a different standard. This puts a burden on our industry.

It is climate alarmism, and this administration's agenda no longer allows us to be energy independent. We are now dependent on our enemies for precious metals and for gas and oil. We should be an energy- independent nation.

When we look at the crisis in this country with inflation and economy, the fact that the American Dream of homeownership is slipping away, it gets back to this alarmism. The fact that we are undermining our oil and gas industry with ESG, this alarmism has made us no longer energy independent.

If we are going to get out of this mess we are in with these deficits, we have to grow our way out of it. When you look at inflation, when you look at commodities, when you look at the price of oil and gas, we have to move away from this alarmism and get back to the facts.

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

Mr. Chair, we may have had a hot summer, but I just went trick-or-treating with my kids and the low that evening was 29 degrees, so temperatures change. Temperatures have been changing for the millennia.

That being said, it is this alarmism, this agenda, that stands in the way of our energy independence.

If we were truly worried about the environment, if we truly wanted to be energy independent, we would have modular nuclear reactors being built all over this country. That is the future of electricity. That is the future of the environment. That is the future of us being energy independent. Meanwhile, this agenda blocks such types of projects.

It is time we admit the truth that they are making us more dependent on our enemies. This amendment is a good amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits the funds appropriated by this act from being used to enforce any COVID-19 mask mandates. I was fortunate enough to introduce this amendment during the Energy- Water appropriations, and I am happy to do so again here.

Policy involving mandatory mask implementation is not about safety nor about science. It is about control. Let's be clear: Mask mandates are about control.

Tom Jefferson, a leading epidemiologist who coauthored what The New York Times Opinion section called ``the most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19,'' found that there was no evidence that masks made any difference.

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

Mr. Chairman, I go back to the study, and it found that wearing a mask in public places makes little to no difference in the number of infections.

For the folks on the other side who privately believe that masks work, it should be noted that mask mandates include any type of mask, even just your thin paper mask, but the study looked at N95 masks, the gold standard of masks. You know what they found? It didn't make any difference.

Even if you pair mask mandates with other preventative measures, such as washing hands and social distancing, it found that none of it made a difference.

Going on, Dr. Jefferson goes on to say that policymakers who imposed mask mandates on Americans were convinced by nonrandomized studies and flawed observations.

On the other hand, Dr. Jefferson and his colleagues analyzed 18 randomized control trials before reaching their conclusion. They looked at science, not fear. They looked at science to seek a better outcome, not seek control.

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

Mr. Chairman, to be clear, it was The New York Times. The study was examined or authored with coauthors but, in particular, Dr. Jefferson, and it looked at 18 different studies that used proper scientific controls. By the way, if you are going to cite the WHO, you are losing credibility with me.

Mr. Chairman, we have a choice between truth and science or fiction.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the Environmental Financial Advisory Board, or the EFAB, was chartered under the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act. The EFAB boasts of making recommendations that would supposedly lower the cost of environmental protection.

Unfortunately, they are entirely beholden to the left's climate alarmism agenda. In a November 2022 meeting, the EFAB spent taxpayer resources gloating about the establishment of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund created from the so-called Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, a bill whose subsidies will cost the American taxpayers $1.2 trillion.

This de facto slush fund provides $27 billion to the EPA through September 2024. If the argument here is that we need the EFAB to expedite the rate at which the Biden administration can give out green subsidies to his donor base, I submit to my colleagues that perhaps the EFAB has outgrown its usefulness.

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

Mr. Chairman, let's take a look at the eligible recipients of this $27 billion boondoggle: State-sponsored green banks; nonprofit or quasi-government green banks--so much for the free market, Mr. Chairman--and nonprofit energy conservation funds and nonprofit social funds, just to name a few. In other words, slush funds, Mr. Chairman.

If you look at the EFAB's charter, you will find that they provide recommendations on ways the EPA can implement funding from the infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act to support environmental justice and to tackle the climate crisis, which is beyond their original intent.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption at a time of inflation, at a time when we are growing energy dependent on our enemies. It is time that we cull back this alarmism. It is time that we cull back these slush funds. It is time that we do the right thing and cut the budget. Cut this nonsense.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, at a time of, again, increased dependency on our enemies, my amendment addresses the royalty rates that were imposed by the Biden administration through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. We can see today that it did nothing to reduce inflation but in fact has increased inflation, taking away from many Americans their dream of owning a home.

In order to pay for what ended up being approximately $1.2 trillion in green subsidies, the Biden administration chose to raise the royalty rate of onshore oil and gas leases from 12.5 percent to 16.6 percent through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Democrats also voted in unison to quintuple the minimum bid amount from $2 per acre to $10 per acre. They voted to increase the rental rate by a factor of 9, from $1.50 to $15 per acre.

At the time of the bill's passage, estimates indicated the bill would impose a $6.5 billion hike on oil and gas development.

Here is what I find to be one of the most remarkable things about the so-called Inflation Reduction Act of 2022: Nowhere in that bill did Democrats identify any government program worth cutting. Not one.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will point out that a $6.5 billion hike on oil and gas development isn't going to decrease inflation. It increases underlying costs.

When you look at commodities across sectors, everything has gone up-- food, oil, et cetera--because of things like this. Instead of saving the American people money, this administration chose to surrender our energy independence.

Again, I go back to the underlying cost of everything. Everything in this room, everything in your kitchen, is dependent on oil, gas, diesel. Everything in this country moves by that mechanism, so this so- called business-friendly idea has done nothing more than cripple our oil and gas industry. It is contributing to inflation. The fact that it is called the Inflation Reduction Act is offensive because it did nothing.

They should admit their mistake and try to fix it. Instead, they go on increasing costs to an industry that is the backbone of our country. Again, for minerals, we are currently dependent on enemies. Oil and gas, we are dependent on enemies.

Mr. Chairman, right now, oil prices are trading around $90 a barrel. If the Hamas-instigated war against Israel continues or escalates, the American people will endure the consequences of once again depending on OPEC for our energy needs. Some estimates say that oil could go up to $150.

Again, at a time of great inflation, we have to be taking steps to roll back costs on our infrastructure, on oil and gas exploration.

I always make the comment in my townhalls that if you find oil and gas in my yard, drill, baby, drill, because we need it. We need it for our infrastructure. We need it for our independence. We need it for national security.

It is about time we acknowledge the fact the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 was a scam that screwed America.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for wishing that I find oil in my yard. I hope I do, but that being said, I joke.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this is a step in the right direction to have a more responsible energy policy. It is lowering the cost on the producers as they explore and continue to explore for our energy independence.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment prohibits the funds from being appropriated by this Act for being used to enforce any COVID-19 mask mandates. Policies involving mandatory masks implementation are not about safety nor are they about science. Mask mandates are, at their core, about control.

Dr. Tom Jefferson, a leading epidemiologist who coauthored what The New York Times opinion section called the most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19, found that there was no evidence that masks made any difference.

He found that wearing a mask in public places makes little or no difference in the number of infections. For my colleagues and friends on the other side who do privately believe that masks or a mask mandate should be in place, I would say that unfortunately mask mandates include all masks. Yet, the gold standard, N95 masks, have been proven ineffective.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I too believe in reaching for the moon, for achieving big things. We eradicated polio using science. We went to the moon using science. Mask mandates were based off of fear and control.

Dr. Jefferson goes on to say in his study that policymakers who impose mask mandates on Americans were convinced by nonrandomized studies--flawed observational studies not rooted in science. It was about control.

Mr. Chairman, I find, as a Member of Congress, any action of this body that infringes on liberty to be a problem, any action by this body that infringes on law to be a problem, and any action by this body that infringes the Constitution of this great country to be a problem.

Mr. Chairman, I stand here in great opposition to using money to take the

liberty away from hardworking Americans of freedom that has been fought for and bled for, and I will not rest.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, well, here we go again, the administration's war on appliances continues.

First it was gas stoves, then it was water heaters, and now it is ice makers. I live in the country; I like a glass of iced tea--operative word there is iced.

The Department of Energy has proposed a rule to impose stringent regulations on commercial automatic ice makers in the name of energy efficiency. For my fellow Americans watching this amendment debate, if someone knocks on the door of your local business and tells you they are from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, don't answer.

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

At the time, the proposed rule was projected to cost manufacturers $24 million over a 30-year period, about a quarter of industry's profits. That is what this rule would do. It is time to get the government out of the ice making business and get back to the business of achieving great things.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's sentiment, and I would just say that at a time when we have increased electrification in this country, at a time when we have continued stress and demand for electricity in this country--even in Tennessee the lauded and respected TVA had brownouts this past winter because of the demand for energy.

Rather than increasing our own energy production, rather than focusing on supporting a new innovative nuclear technology to expand our ability to be energy independent, to produce more energy, they are focusing on ice makers.

Mr. Chairman, this is ridiculous. This is absurd. This is nothing more than a woke Biden administration that is, once again, regulating and rulemaking against businesses that ultimately will cost consumers more money.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask for adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I commend Noah Coughlan as he passes through Nashville today on his run across America.

Noah began his 167 day run to honor American soldiers and veterans on Memorial Day in Blaine, Washington and plans to finish on Veterans Day in Miami, Florida. Carrying an American flag that was flown by the 908th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron, Noah has made a point of stopping along the way to meet with veteran's organizations, county sheriffs, police officers, and others who have chosen to serve our country. Having previously run across the country in 2011, 2013, 2015 to raise awareness of various diseases, this will be Noah's fourth, and perhaps final, run across America. When he arrives in Miami, Noah will become the 5th person cross the United States on foot four times.

Noah views this as a way to bring unity to the country. Calling veterans the glue that holds the Nation together, Noah praised them for not only the service they do while members of the Armed Forces, but also the continuing service to the country as first responders, law makers, and other essential roles.

I urge my colleagues to join me in wishing Noah the best of luck on the rest of his run to Miami.

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

Mr. Chair, when we fund specific programs, we should ask ourselves one question: What is the real return on investment?

In the case of the Peace Corps, we are spending a little over $410 million. Is the investment worth it, given the rising costs of food and gas? Is it appropriate for Congress to prioritize the Peace Corps over our veterans, prioritize the Peace Corps over securing our border?

Keep in mind, my proposed cut is a modest cut. How is the Peace Corps justifying its budget in light of financial hardships borne by millions of Americans today?

In separate testimonies before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Carol Spahn, the Peace Corps Director, pointed out the agency's work on the following: helping illegals at the southern border, promoting DEI amongst its volunteers, promoting COVID-19 vaccinations in low-income areas, and climate change adaptation, just to name a few.

In the latter case, the Peace Corps is working to promote climate- smart approaches in agriculture and to focus on gender equity issues. It is clear the Peace Corps has become more of an activist organization than an organization determined to help people.

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

Mr. Chair, best investments? This is the best we can do? How about we invest in our veterans? How about we invest in our border? How about we take care of America? I want to help those around the world, but not at the expense of Americans.

It should be noted that the Peace Corps has a long and sordid history of covering up sexual abuse of its participants. Think about that. Are we going to aid and abet an agency, an organization, that has this sordid past while our veterans suffer, while our border is open, while we have migrants being abused on the border? I should think not.

This is a modest cut. It simply returns the funding back to pre-COVID levels, merely a $14 million cut. We can do this.

At a time when Americans are suffering, at a time when interest rates are high, gas has gone up, food is more expensive, surely we put hardworking Americans first.

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

Mr. Chair, I would argue that the Gold Star families would like us to invest in our veterans. I would argue the veterans who are homeless would like for us to invest in our veterans.

When we look at the suicide rates among our servicemen and -women, we should be investing in our veterans. To say that putting our veterans first and using them as a pawn is offensive.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this. I ask that we put our veterans and Americans first, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, if you want to come up with the right policy position on an issue related to foreign affairs, talk to Antony Blinken first, and then do the opposite.

We have all seen the Secretary's inability to be correct about any major foreign policy concern for the last 20 years, whether that be Iraq, Libya, Yemen, giving the Iranians $6 billion to deploy--as their president says, ``wherever they need it''--or in Afghanistan.

He is undoubtedly one of the most professionally ineffective and incompetent individuals to hold the title of Secretary of State. But if incompetence by itself were sufficient grounds to a Senate-confirmed Cabinet official, the President would have very few advisers left.

In the case of Secretary Blinken, it is about incompetence and perhaps outright corruption. For instance, Secretary Blinken received more than $5,000 in payment from the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, who notably praised the Taliban.

He received more than $5,000 for speaking at a bank opening in China.

He offered advisory services to a Japanese company who invested heavily in a CCP company that was blacklisted by Trump.

Let's take one more. Mr. Blinken's consulting firm, WestExec Advisors, it advertised its ability to help American colleges secure CCP donations without compromising their Pentagon research grants. Think about that. Usurping America's rules for engagement with the CCP.

That advertisement, by the way, was removed just 2 weeks prior to Joe Biden's acceptance of the Democratic Party's Presidential nomination.

We have since learned from the former acting CIA Director Mike Morrell that the infamous spies who lie letter--a letter that impacted our Presidential race--was led by no one other than Antony Blinken. The letter was signed by 51 intelligence experts, and was intended, according to Morrell, to give Joe Biden a way to refute the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of a Presidential debate.

You would think this would be worthy of investigation, if not outright impeachment, but certainly defunding.

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

Mr. Chairman, serving the country or serving Hunter Biden?

Because we know through the work of Senators Johnson and Grassley, that Hunter Biden kept his Burisma colleagues apprised of meetings and emails he held with Mr. Blinken.

Mr. Blinken had previously said to Senate staffers that he wasn't aware of any communications with Hunter Biden, aside from one in-person meeting, which is a materially false statement and should subject him to criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

Of course, the U.S. Congress never holds anyone accountable for misleading Congress. Why tell the truth?

Mr. Chairman, Blinken has lied to Congress. He worked to prevent critical information, including the July 2021 dissent cable from being reviewed by this Chamber until confronted by the gentleman from Texas.

He clearly has a closer relationship with Hunter Biden than he led on, and, further, engaged in questionable activities prior to serving as Secretary of State, very little of which has been investigated or vetted.

These questions deserve to be asked.

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

Mr. Chairman, William Holman, with the Holman rule, did come up with a way to defund someone like the Secretary.

Back to the Secretary, there should be accountability for our botched Afghanistan withdrawal and for helping establish the Islamist theocracy that is in power there today. It is an insult to the memory of those who lost their lives at Abbey Gate. This man is responsible, and he is complicit.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment. He should be defunded. Quite frankly, I would say he should be impeached.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I am a big proponent of Israel, our closest ally in that region. Yet, this administration has stopped at nothing to marginalize that relationship with the State of Israel.

When President Trump shuttered the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem, it was a shot heard around the world. President Trump's action clarified our diplomatic mission to Israel--the U.S. consulate was inappropriately treated as something close to a de facto embassy to a nonexistent Palestinian State.

By getting rid of the consulate, President Trump made it clear that our only diplomatic outreach to that area is and should be the State of Israel. In place of that consulate, the Trump administration established the PAU, and housed its operations within the U.S. Embassy. The PAU reported directly to the U.S. Ambassador to Israel and cannot act independently of that Ambassador.

These actions created transparency in our foreign policy where there was previously confusion. You would think that that would be appreciated by both sides here. Unfortunately, you would be wrong.

Since taking office, the Biden administration has worked to roll back progress initiated under President Trump by announcing the administration's intent to reopen the consulate general.

Joe Biden has since closed the PAU in favor of the so-called Office of Palestinian Affairs, an intended halfway step toward reestablishing their consulate.

If you need further proof of the administration's intent, take note that the Office of Palestinian Affairs, the OPA, doesn't report to our ambassador in Jerusalem, it receives its instruction from the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the Department of State here in Washington.

Our commitment should be to Israel and Israel alone, not to the PLO.

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

Mr. Chairman, to my colleague, I thank her for the idea of communication.

Mr. Chairman, we need communication with folks from around the world. But as far as diplomatic missions, Mr. Chairman, we should be focused on Israel.

The creation of the Office of Palestinian Affairs is an affront to both our most important ally in the world and to U.S. law, which clearly states that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel, the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995.

The OPA is, unfortunately, just the latest in a legacy of foreign policy driven by an animus toward the State of Israel. This should be a bipartisan bill. Israel is our greatest ally in that region, arguably, one of our greatest allies in the world, and to diminish that is really unjust.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is often the case in foreign relations that symbolism is policy. What the Office of Palestinian Affairs symbolizes is a destructive policy that will only serve to embolden the enemies of Washington and Jerusalem.

Our friends in Israel are under attack daily from bombs lofted in the air to attacks on the streets. To do anything but to have unwavering diplomatic support really jeopardizes lives. It threatens their sovereignty, and we must stand with our important ally, the State of Israel.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this bill. I urge my colleagues for this to be unanimous, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I would just make a point of personal privilege. My colleagues and I, across the aisle and here with me in the Chamber, thank our staff for being here during these long days and long nights. We thank them.

Mr. Chair, in August 2021, as America looked in horror at the beginning of what would soon become the greatest foreign policy disaster of the 21st century, then-Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan praised the takeover of Kabul, joyfully proclaiming that the Taliban had thrown off the shackles of slavery.

Some Americans may have been puzzled that Pakistan, designated major non-NATO ally of the United States, would have been so bold as to support America's enemies back in 2021.

However, a cursory look at Pakistan's history would clarify that this country, a country whose many Islamist groups support attacks against innocent civilians, has always supported terrorism and terrorist groups.

The Haqqani Network, a designated foreign terrorist organization whose members now play a role of kingmaker in Afghanistan, is a proxy of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, and has been for decades.

Along with many elements of the Taliban, the network was regularly given safe haven in Pakistan to operate and evade apprehension. The coordination between the Haqqani Network and Pakistan was so strong that in 2011, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, described the network as a veritable arm of the Pakistani intelligence.

The Haqqani Network is guilty of horrific terrorist attacks against U.S. servicemembers. Perhaps not coincidentally, it was the Haqqani Network who was put in charge by the Taliban of security of Kabul 1 week before the tragedy at Abbey Gate that claimed the lives of 13 U.S. servicemembers and wounded many more.

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

Mr. Chair, like my colleague, I too believe in great relationships and dialogues, but when you are in a relationship with a country that consistently undermines and attacks you, then maybe that is not a relationship that is worth being in. Because of billions upon billions of assistance to Pakistan, we learned a few things. First, insofar as Pakistan goes after terrorists, it does so selectively. It often targets those who are allied with our friends in India.

Second, despite the enormous financial leverage we have historically had with Islamabad, we cannot obtain several key concessions, including the release of Dr. Shakil Afridi, a man who assisted in the capture of Osama bin Laden.

Instead, Pakistan has conditioned the release of Afridi on us releasing a known terrorist. Little wonder that President Trump canceled $300 million in security aid to Pakistan back in 2018 due to its horrific record of going after militants in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

They are an adversary in the region, and I am not talking about the people, but the government in control undermines the United States, our interests, and even our partner India.

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

Mr. Chairman, all this amendment aims to do is continue mainstream U.S. policy in this Department of State and Foreign Operations bill.

The 2021 Country Report on Terrorism regarding Pakistan highlighted, once again, Pakistan's continued listing as a jurisdiction with strategic deficits in its AML/CFT system.

Pakistan does not sufficiently support anti-money laundering efforts and it does not support laying waste to terrorists in the border region. In a Gallup poll of Pakistanis it reflected that 72 percent of Pakistanis see us as an enemy. We spend billions and billions of dollars, they attack us, and they see us as an enemy.

There are many needs that this country has, that our veterans have, that our borders have, and it is money that could be spent better elsewhere.

There is no reason for us to continue to subsidize Pakistan or any function of its government until it changes its posture.

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

Mr. Chair, may I inquire how much time I have.

Mr. Chairman, bleeding hearts can argue all they want about wanting to support Pakistan despite their overwhelming support for terrorism within and outside its borders. I would say our money is better spent elsewhere.

For what it is worth, according to a classified Pakistani Government document publicly released last month, the Biden administration apparently encouraged the overthrow of the former Prime Minister of Pakistan because he didn't want that country to abandon its neutrality stance on Ukraine.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is important that we take a stand against terrorists and terrorist states. If they are going to be our ally, if they are going to receive hard-earned American dollars, then they should act like our ally. That is all I am requesting here.

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

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

Mr. Chair, April 15, 2019, under the leadership of President Trump, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was designated a foreign terrorist organization.

That is important because the IRGC is guilty of killing and injuring thousands of Americans. They maintain the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the region. They have developed a range of unmanned aerial vehicles, UAVs. They support terrorists in Yemen like Hezbollah and Hamas, oftentimes in violation of international sanctions.

They wield considerable influence on the government of Iraq and frequently threaten the very existence of our ally and our partner, the State of Israel, like they did earlier this month.

The President of Iran just used the U.N. General Assembly as a backdrop for calling for the assassination of an American citizen or American citizens and cited the elimination of Soleimani, the former head of the IRGC, as justification.

Iran will employ all tools and capacities in order to bring justice, they said, to the perpetrator and all those who had a hand in Soleimani's killing.

These are the words of an enemy, and we should spend no funds in overturning that designation. This should be a bipartisan bill. It should have a vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I support the chairman, and I want to put a finer point on it.

In front of the U.N. General Assembly, and I continue, they will ``not rest until that is done,'' that being death to Americans. ``The blood of the oppressed will not be forgotten, and the ropes of the guilty will bring them to justice.''

These folks intend to kill Americans. These folks intend to topple and attack our ally, which is Israel, and I will not stand for it.

I stand before you, Mr. Chair, and ask adoption of this amendment. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--this should not be a partisan issue. We are talking about the lives of Americans.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, the section 1260H list maintained by the Department of Defense was created by the fiscal year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act and intended to identify any Chinese military companies operating directly or indirectly in the United States.

Section 1260H is a part of a largely bipartisan, years-long effort to name and shame CCP companies operating in our Nation.

While the Biden administration has made important additions to this list, including military companies such as ChemChina and China State Construction Engineering, the administration has still fallen short of a full commitment to countering the malign influences of the CCP.

Earlier this year, we saw Secretaries Yellen, Blinken, and Raimondo take trips to China as part of a diplomatic overture.

Many of my colleagues would undoubtedly agree that the CCP could care less about diplomacy and that these trips have very little, if any, bearing on how China chooses to behave on the international stage.

One could argue that these trips only serve to demonstrate the limits and the lack of American resolve to confront the PRC's obviously petulant behavior.

For instance, it is a daily occurrence to see the PRC infringe on Taiwan's Air Defense Identification Zone. The PRC regularly makes threats to wage war against Taiwan.

They manipulate international organizations to do their bidding. They entrap developing countries into contracts that make them de facto vassal states. They construct dual-use ports across the world, and it goes on and on and on, Mr. Chairman.

In the face of the CCP's belligerent escalatory actions, the gut reaction of the American administration ought not to be for the Secretary of the Treasury to fly to China and consume psychedelic mushrooms. Yet, that is what we saw from Janet Yellen.

Before Secretary Raimondo's visit to China, the Department of Commerce, acting through the Bureau of Industry and Security, unilaterally removed 27 CCP entities from the bureau's so-called unverified list.

Our Department of Commerce literally chose to make a concession to an aggressive state in order to get the CCP to meet with our Secretary of Commerce.

It is clear that this President's judgment cannot be trusted. This administration's assessment of China has only emboldened our Nation's foremost enemy. Appeasement has long failed as a strategy, and it continues to fail today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, it would appear that many in the Democratic Party have taken it upon themselves to offer their talents and considerable abilities to help determine which information is reliable and which isn't. Thanks, but no thanks.

Mr. Chairman, in September 2021, the Department of Defense offered NewsGuard, a self-proclaimed fact-checker, a $750,000 grant to effectively censor conservative viewpoints and opinions.

Want proof of NewsGuard's censorship efforts? I am more than happy to provide undisputed facts.

NewsGuard has given extremely subjective and clearly biased ratings to several conservative news outlets, including The Federalist, a 12\1/ 2\ percent accuracy and credibility score; Newsmax, 15 percent; The Epoch Times, a 17\1/2\ percent score; and OAN, 17\1/2\ percent.

I am sure these conservative news outlets have lost out on crucial ad revenue from these ratings. It is censorship.

It is fundamentally pathetic that this administration thinks they can sideline conservative viewpoints and demonize conservative platforms without the American people finding out about this.

All this is happening while Politico, NPR, and The New York Times have previously received a perfect 100 percent; CBS, 95 percent.

Mr. Chairman, we are supposed to have an open and free press. There should be no censorship. This is the United States of America. The fact that we are funding an organization that is censoring viewpoints and news is untenable.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that Newsmax TV is more than just online. CBS isn't just online. The New York Times isn't just online.

These are news outlets with multiple platforms, so it is not about censoring online. It is about censorship.

The irony here is abundant, especially when considering that these leftist news outlets parroted the lie promoted by 51 intelligence officials and our disaster of a Secretary of State that the Hunter Biden laptop story was a production of Russian disinformation.

Only in America could a guy who helped steal an election and undermine our democracy be promoted to oversee our Nation's policy on Ukraine, but that is the story of Antony Blinken in a nutshell.

The Hunter Biden laptop debacle was literally the biggest story of the 2021 election, and a story, if taken seriously, that might have resulted in a different outcome.

Instead, our government is subsidizing a self-identified fact-checker who completely whiffed on the biggest story of a Presidential cycle.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate my colleague's perspective, it should be noted that when conservative versus other news sources are compared with similar metrics that the more liberal- leaning news outlets are ranked 27 points higher.

This has a direct impact on revenue streams. To say that they are somehow unbiased literally defies the facts that I have laid out before you and that you have conservative news sites on the bottom end of the spectrum, whereas the more mainstream, liberal-leaning news sites are at the top.

Mr. Chairman, it should also be noted that NewsGuard is known to be reliant on and working with the WHO, the World Health Organization, which is known for disinformation and lying and is unduly influenced by the CCP.

This is a grant that should not be authorized, it should not be continued, and they should not be relied upon.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment to prohibit taxpayer money from being used on President Biden's nakedly political executive order allegedly promoting access to voting.

This dangerous executive order instructed a wide range of agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services and the Small Business Administration to engage in voter turnout operations. Think about that for a moment, the government is engaging in voter turnout.

Worse, it instructs agencies to partner with approved third-party organizations to assist them in their voter registration and other election-focused efforts.

Who will approve these organizations? What criteria will be used? The executive order doesn't say.

Congress has never granted the administration any authority to approve such groups or specify criteria therein.

This executive order is blatantly illegal.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I agree with my colleague that I, too, would like all to participate in the voting process, all demographics across all spectrums.

It should also be noted that there are already provisions in the law to allow for soldiers deployed to vote.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment to prohibit funding for the so-called Homeland Intelligence Experts Group.

The conduct of certain members of the intelligence community, who behaved as political hacks, quite frankly, rather than sources of unbiased information, has undermined Americans' faith in government. That concerns me.

Some of these officials peddled obvious falsehoods in an effort to undermine the American people's confidence in the election of 2016, and some meddled in the 2020 election, as well.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, at a time when we see dysfunction in government and, quite frankly, in Congress, it is important that we restore faith in institutions.

At a time when there are ongoing investigations into, say, the Hunter Biden laptop, it is important that we let due process work its way and not interject so-called experts.

With that being said, I encourage, at a time when we desperately need to restore faith in institutions, let's do that thing. Let's trust the process as we move forward.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, our Nation's international food assistance programs are broken. They drive our deficits higher while providing little to no value to taxpayers and even harming the recipient countries.

I am grateful for Mr. Harris' manager's amendment that reduced funding for the destructive so-called Food for Peace program, and I urge extending the cost cuts to its sister program, McGovern-Dole, sometimes known as Food for Education.

When we dump free food on developing markets, their domestic farmers can't compete. I mean, who can compete with free? Their domestic farmers are forced out of business, and investment in their domestic agricultural sector dwindles. In fact, we hurt those we seek to assist.

We have known that this problem has existed for years. In 2010, watching international food aid destroy his country's agricultural sector, the President of Haiti begged us to stop, to stop sending it. Further, reflecting on his administration's role in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, President Bill Clinton said: ``I had to live every day with the consequences of the loss of capacity to produce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people.''

Bill Clinton even recognized the mistake. However, we keep making it. We need to stop impoverishing farmers in countries with developing agricultural sectors and stop discouraging private investment in those sectors.

While supporters of the McGovern-Dole program have touted its alleged role supporting democracy and good governance, a look at the recipient countries proves that that isn't true. USDA determines a list of priority countries for McGovern-Dole each year. Let's take a look at this year's recipients, seven countries.

Nicaragua, which is ruled by Daniel Ortega's thugocracy, throws its opposition in prison, and that is on a good day. It stands accused of politically motivated extrajudicial executions and torture and other human rights abuses.

Then there is Togo, whose President first took power in a military coup in 2005.

Cameroon's President, coincidentally, won reelection uninterrupted since coming into power in 1982.

At the time the USDA put Nepal on the priority list, it had a Communist Party leader.

These are not beacons of democracy or good governance.

Haiti still remains on the priority list; and look at Haiti today. Decades of aid have failed to produce a reliable government there.

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

Mr. Chairman, success? Haiti is a wreck. Nicaragua has sided with the CCP. They led the charge to expel Taiwan as a permanent observer, replacing with the butchers of Beijing. Of the seven priority countries, six of them--including Cameroon, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, and Togo--voted to support China's imposition of the oppressive national security law on Hong Kong. The recipient countries have proven to be anti-American.

Their countries have failed to produce agricultural sectors because local farmers can't compete with free. This isn't saving people from hunger. It is destroying the very people we are trying to assist. I urge Congress to continue to reform its food aid program. Mr. Chairman, if you want to sow the seeds of freedom, harvest the yield of democracy, pursuing failed policies is not the answer. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment. These policies are failed. They are not successful. We are hurting the very countries that we are aiming to support. Let's help these nations, but this is not the answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, Elon Musk, someone generally known for promoting free speech and autonomy, falsely stated that Taiwan is an ``integral part of China.''

On a practical level, think about what that means for our efforts. We in Congress can promote Taiwan's participation in international organizations. We can argue that Taiwan must have a seat at the table, but if we refuse or fail to confront the CCP on their falsification of the historical record, if we, as a Congress, can't confront the CCP with the truth, we are letting Xi Jinping dictate the terms of the debate. That is irresponsible and wrong.

Unfortunately, this wasn't the first time that Mr. Musk has spread misinformation about the relationship between the CCP, China, and Taiwan.

For Elon to spread the talking points of the CCP from a position of influence in the United States is unacceptable, which is why I am sending a letter to Elon Musk providing him with an accurate account of Taiwan's history and a clear message: Taiwan is not part of the People's Republic of China and their free will is not for sale.

Mr. Speaker, Chinese Communists have been poisoning Americans. President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas have refused to secure our southern border and refuse to hold China accountable.

In the State of Tennessee alone, overdose deaths have increased 200 percent--200 percent in 5 years. The situation at the southern border has gotten so bad, even the United Nations is saying that our border crossing is one of the deadliest in the world. Think about that for a moment.

Therefore, I am introducing the Countering CCP Fentanyl Act. This bill would require the President to submit a list of all CCP government officials trafficking fentanyl and imposes property-blocking sanctions on all of them.

We can't stop there. This legislation will make any CCP official caught pushing this poison inadmissible to the United States.

Congress cannot stand idly by while Chinese Communists and cartel thugs line their pockets by drugging and killing American citizens.

The CCP is using our porous border to continue their march to dominate the Nation. It is time to send China a message that their scheme to scourge the American population will not be tolerated.

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

Mr. Chair, as we attempt to cut spending back to top-line FY 2022 levels, we must address the glaring $32.6 trillion debt.

We must commit in this Congress to significant spending cuts. If we don't, we will be mortgaging the futures of our children. We will perpetually hobble long-term economic growth by not only destroying our future borrowing power but by forcing our Treasury to dedicate much of its future spending to debt repayment rather than meeting the needs of the American people.

If we fail to tackle runaway spending now, we are compromising the well-being of future generations. Is that the legacy we want to leave behind? We have an obligation, a moral one, to ensure that we leave this country better off than we found it.

In an appropriations bill that is supposed to be focused on supporting our veterans and their families, we are sending $293 million--taxpayer dollars--abroad to support NATO. That is an increase of 33 percent from FY 2023.

There will be some who argue that the $293 million figure is a commitment that the United States made at the June 2022 NATO summit. While Congress has largely abdicated its role in foreign affairs to the executive branch, it was the intent of our Founding Fathers that this institution provide a robust check on the executive. It is why we have the power of the purse.

Ultimately, given Congress' massive spending habits, there needs to come a time when we say enough is enough, and that is the purpose for offering this amendment today. I am asking all of

my colleagues if they could spare just a 1 percent cut to NATO's Security Investment Program. That is just 1 percent.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for my colleagues, but let's talk about America's contribution. We have already spent roughly $42 billion on equipment and support for Ukraine in addition to these moneys.

When you think about NATO, our allies are supposed to hold up their fair share of the bargain, 2 percent. We are meeting our obligations, but only seven other countries meet their obligations. Keep in mind, it is supposed to be 2 percent. Luxembourg is at 0.62; Canada, 1.29; Turkey, 1.37; Norway, 1.57; Germany, 1.49; and France, 1.89.

Before we start talking about the United States of America doing its job and having to defend the rest of the world, how about our allies do their job and uphold their obligations? I am asking for only a 1 percent cut.

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

Mr. Chair, it is hard to justify sending hard-earned taxpayer dollars to NATO when most of our allies don't uphold their end of the bargain and when they look to us to be their defender and to fund their security.

Meanwhile, we have a porous border. Every community in this country is a border town because of fentanyl overdoses in the streets and trafficking run amuck. Yet, we are going to spend more money overseas. How about we secure our country and take care of our country, our people, our needs, and secure our border?

Mr. Chair, it is just a 1 percent cut. I encourage all of my colleagues to send a message to NATO and our allies to do their fair share.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on my amendment, which strikes ``social'' from the scope of factors examined under the FAA's BEYOND program expansion.

Mr. Chair, this is a commonsense amendment that simply seeks to allow the FAA to focus on its core mission. The FAA's BEYOND program was crafted to yield the best outcomes for unmanned aircraft systems, not to promote garbage and irrelevant woke ideology.

The FAA BEYOND program is innovative, because it was designed to understand the potential benefits of drone use and the processes for drone integration. There is no room for any sort of liberal agenda in this program nor in this legislation.

My amendment removes the reference to social impacts examined under the BEYOND program expansion, which goes undefined in the bill, and could, therefore, be used to advance woke considerations. Expanding the scope of the BEYOND program to include social factors distracts from BEYOND's mission of making beyond visual line of sight operations repeatable, scaleable, and viable.

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

Mr. Chair, I would agree with my colleague that this program is vital. It is vital for the future of aviation and for medicine and for all sorts of applications. What it shouldn't be used for is a woke agenda.

The BEYOND program expansion is supposed to enable testing of new emerging aviation concepts and technologies to inform policies, rulemaking, and guidance needed to enable these new concepts and technologies, again, not to be leveraged for wokeness.

The government should not stick their nose into Americans' lifestyle, well-being, and societal preferences by use or leveraging the BEYOND program, and that is exactly what my colleague is encouraging.

Mr. Chair, let us not allow the Biden administration to shift attention away from the real problems that Americans face every day to his administration's radical leftist agenda, which they try to creep into every aspect of our lives.

I urge adoption of this very commonsense amendment, which focuses on the underlying bill, the true mission of the FAA, which is aviation and safety in our skies, not wokeness.

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

Mr. Chair, I do appreciate the intent of my colleague, but I think it should be noted that this serves as a back door for a woke agency if it chooses to be so. When we leave these back doors open, what we have seen is a weaponized FBI against American citizens. We have seen a weaponized IRS against American citizens. We have seen a weaponized Justice Department against American citizens.

This does nothing more than open the door for the FAA to become weaponized on the social, woke agenda. Enough is enough. Yes, it is just a word, and that word should be stricken.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment. It is commonsense, it is conservative, it is the right thing to do, and it says no more wokeness in our country when it comes to the government and how it rules.

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

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

Mr. Chair, the FAA reauthorization bill has a section requiring the FAA to conduct research and development to mitigate the impact of turbulence.

As part of this, it requires the agency to conduct R&D to understand the impacts of climate change and other factors on the nature of turbulence.

My amendment changes this requirement to focus on the impacts of weather rather than climate change. Weather patterns are a common cause of turbulence. Jet streams, storms, and the movement of warm fronts and cold fronts can all cause it.

Mr. Chair, this is, again, a commonsense amendment. I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, as indicated by my colleague, the definition of climate change is a long-term event. A flight and turbulence would be a short-term occurrence.

What we are talking about is weather in a moment on a duration of a flight and how it impacts said flight. It is changing weather, not climate change, that is to blame on your flight to and from D.C.

We don't measure climate change over a duration of a flight, but this is what we are talking about--the duration of a flight--and turbulence that impacts flights while they are in the air.

As we develop a better understanding of how the weather impacts turbulence, people may better understand how instances of turbulence might differ under different times.

Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to say is let us not allow agendas to slip into the mission.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment. This is common sense, and I thank my colleague for his comments.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for his comments. I emphasize that if we allow or encourage the FAA to study climate change, if it were, it is going to lead to a boondoggle. The FAA is busy enough. They have enough on their hands. It makes sense to study weather patterns and turbulence. It does not make sense to allow woke ideologies to slip into the mission statement of an agency whose primary charter is to keep those in the air safe.

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