Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Lumbee Fairness Act because of the three-quarters of a billion dollars that is unpaid for in cost and how it undermines Tribal designation based on merit, a 100-year history where merit drives and not politics.

While I respect the hard work of my colleagues from North Carolina and I have no doubt about their intentions with this legislation, the Lumbee Fairness Act would represent a lack of fairness for all historically recognized Native Americans and a lack of fairness for the merit-based process for Federal Tribal recognition.

I am a card-carrying member of the Choctaw Nation. My family can trace its lineage to the time of the Indian Removal Act and the Choctaw Trail of Tears. Oklahoma is a Choctaw word.

I am one of only four current Native-American Members in the House of Representatives. I harbor no ill will toward any people who seek Federal recognition for themselves and appreciate the hardship of going through the Federal recognition process.

However, we must also acknowledge that Tribal-Federal relations have a near 250-year history, rooted in our Constitution. It is found in Article I and Article VI of the Constitution. There are two centuries of tradition showing how the founding generations and those following after dealt with the issue of Federal treaties with Tribes.

The recognition process is robust. It is designed to ensure only people who can prove themselves as historical Tribes are designated as such.

The Lumbee people have attempted to gain recognition via this process for 130 years, and each time rebuffed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Proponents of this bill argue the Lumbee are not eligible for the merit-based Tribal recognition process.

However, the latest ruling on this from the Department of the Interior 2016 says that the Lumbee are eligible to go through the merit-based recognition process. We should let that merit-based process go forward instead of replacing that time-honored process with a vote on this floor and what is popular.

Congressional passage of this sends a subliminal message to historically recognized Tribes all over the country that politics trumps what we should be looking at within this situation, which is merit.

That is why 141 Tribes alongside the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole Nations, et cetera, have opposed this effort going back many years.

Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, I include in the Record a resolution from the Five Civilized Tribes opposing the goal of this bill and a news article detailing the opposition of 141 recognized Tribes, to the same effect.

The INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL of the FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES

A Resolution Opposing Federal or State Recognition of Groups That Claim

to be Tribal Nations by Circumventing the Office of Federal

Acknowledgement

Resolution No. 22-14

Whereas, the Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized

Tribes (ITC) is an organization that unites the tribal

governments of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee

(Creek), and Seminole Nations, representing approximately

815,000 Indian people throughout the United States; and

Whereas, our tribes maintain a historic and continual

government-to-government relationship with the United States

and exercised the sovereign rights of self-government; and

Whereas, our tribes have distinct histories, languages,

cultures and identities that have been fiercely protected

despite government policies intended to eradicate our ways of

life; and

Whereas, fraudulent groups that appropriate our culture and

erroneously claim to be legitimate tribal governments

threaten the foundation of tribal sovereignty; and

Whereas, the federal government is granted authority by the

U.S. Constitution to regulate matters relating to Indian

tribes, which includes the process of obtaining federal

recognition; and

Whereas, these groups often seek state recognition and

other means to bolster their legitimacy and bypass the

Department of the Interior's Office of Federal

Acknowledgement (OFA); and

Whereas, the OFA currently manages a fair and measured

process for attaining federal recognition, which includes a

number of important steps that a petitioner must complete

before being granted this status; and

Whereas, it is irresponsible for any governmental body,

including the United States Congress, to bypass this process

in favor of certain groups claiming to be tribal governments.

Now therefore let it be Resolved that, the Inter-Tribal

Council of the Five Civilized Tribes opposes efforts by any

group attempting to gain federal or state recognition that

circumvents the Office of Federal Acknowledgement (OFA).

Be it further Resolved, the Inter-Tribal Council opposes

current efforts by the ``Lumbee Tribe'', ``Chickamauga

Tribe'', ``Wolf Creek Cherokee'', and any other groups

illegitimately claiming tribal recognition without following

the outlined process of the OFA

Mr. Speaker, if a Tribe cannot prove the necessary documentation to receive Federal recognition, they should not receive it by Congress' action.

If the Lumbee have a historical record of being a formal Tribe, if they have evidence of lineage to any particular Tribe, if they had a formal claim to the land that they now occupy, why would the BIA repeatedly refuse to formally recognize them as a Tribe?

Whatever Tribe may have occupied the land near the Lumbee River has long since dissipated. In fact, the 1956 bill that acknowledged the Lumbee as a people stated that the Tribe around the Lumbee River had fully assimilated into the surrounding European communities during the colonial era before the Constitution was written.

The Lumbee agreed to the language in that bill in 1956 as a compromise. In return for the Federal Government referring to them as a distinct people, they promised they would not seek formal Federal recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a copy of the 1956 hearing on the Lumbee bill where a representative of the Lumbee stated they would rather leave the county than accept the Federal recognition status. That is a strong statement of promise.

They could look us up and find we are in the law; in the

books at Raleigh, and therefore we are honest in their sight.

That is No. 1.

Mr. Aspinall. Do you or any members of your organization

anticipate that after you might receive this designation you

would come to Congress and ask for any of the benefits that

otherwise go to Indian Tribes?

Reverend Lowery. No, sir. We would leave the county before

we would come under a reservation or anything like wards of

the government. We are citizens and always have been

citizens. We would leave before we would come on this

reservation.

The transcript of the hearing record makes clear that the

Lumbee Indians were not expecting to receive any federal

benefits or privileges as a result of the 1956 law.

Nonetheless, the Department of the Interior objected to the

bill because the United States has no treaty or other

obligation to provide services to these Indians. Because of

this, the Secretary of the Interior stated:

We are therefore unable to recommend that the Congress take

any action which might ultimately result in the imposition of

additional obligations on the Federal Government or in

placing additional persons of Indian blood under the

jurisdiction of this Department.

The persons who constitute this group of Indians have been

recognized and designated as Indians by the State

legislature. If they are not completely satisfied with such

recognition, they, as citizens of the State, may petition the

legislature to amend or otherwise to change that recognition.

Except for the possibility of becoming entitled to Federal

services as Indians, the position of this group of Indians

would not be enhanced by enactment of this bill.

Ultimately, the Congress amended the bill as requested by

the Department of the Interior by including the following

language: ``Nothing in this Act shall make such Indians

eligible for any services performed by the United States for

Indians because of their status as Indians, and none of the

statutes of the United States which affect Indians because of

their status as Indians shall be applicable to the Lumbee

Indians.'' Thus, the Indians of Robeson and adjoining

counties were designated as Lumbee Indians, but not granted

any eligibility for services or benefits.

The Department of the Interior has interpreted the 1956 law

as preventing the Lumbee Indians from utilizing the Federal

Acknowledgment Process to become a federally-recognized

Indian tribe. In 1989, the Solicitor for the Department of

the Interior concluded that the 1956 law forbids a

government-to-government relationship with the Lumbee

Indians.

Mr. Speaker, this bill undermines that verbal promise. Constitutionally sound agreements to the Federal Government must be adhered to. I think we should all agree to that. Nations fall apart when people walk back commitments to one another.

The entire foundation of Tribal-Federal relations today is premised on both sides upholding commitments, agreements, and treaties made two centuries ago by our ancestors and our Founding Fathers.

Why do we uphold agreements?

Why do we uphold treaties? It is about trust.

The cornerstone to Tribal law is the adherence to promises made hundreds of years ago. The Lumbee must be held to that standard, that commitment from 70 years ago. Granting the Lumbee Tribal recognition sets a dangerous precedent. Granting them recognition by going around this 100-year-old process opens the floodgates for anyone who claims themselves a Tribe to receive specific benefits through politics not merit. This will lead to a vast and irresponsible increase in Federal spending.

Mr. Speaker, this will lead to a vast and irresponsible increase in Federal spending. I would like to respectfully refute the claim that this does not increase spending.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO report from the 117th Congress scoring the exact same bill at a cost of $726 million over 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, just because CBO this time around didn't score it, doesn't mean it doesn't have a cost. It just means they didn't score it. The score from it 2 years ago was three-quarters of a billion dollars.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the Department of Energy from issuing licenses to export nuclear materials to China, closing a loophole that currently allows for the export of some of those products.

Last year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rightly suspended the general license for export of nuclear material to China. However, this action left open the possibility that nuclear exporters could be granted a specific license to continue sending nuclear materials to China.

This commonsense amendment is something that should be put forward, as no one wants the United States to give one of our greatest adversaries access to nuclear materials. For years, the People's Republic of China has engaged in a campaign of aggressive economic and political competition with the United States. China steals our intellectual property; engages in dishonest trade practices; spies on U.S. citizens, to include balloons; and constantly attempts to spread its influence across the United States.

China is openly aggressive in the Asia-Pacific region, making clear its desire for regional dominance.

We should never reward this behavior by giving them dangerous nuclear materials. We cannot allow these materials with a potential for dual use to be sent to our most powerful global adversary. We are engaged in competition with them.

With a People's Republic of China that is not friendly, we cannot allow our trade policies to work to the detriment of our national security.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is going to reduce funding for educational and the cultural exchange programs back to the 2019 levels.

This is a modest cut that will reduce spending by less than 3 percent, back to 2019 spending levels. It leaves $700 million for these programs.

There is nothing inherently wrong with exchange programs. However, there is something wrong about continuing to increase Washington's spending on unnecessary programs when our national debt continues to climb $34 trillion-plus.

This commonsense amendment simply returns spending for these programs back to pre-COVID levels. With this appropriations bill, we have already reduced 28 accounts to 2019 levels, with strong Republican support. I encourage my colleagues to continue this trend of returning to those pre-COVID spending levels and curbing unnecessary spending increases.

To help my colleagues understand how bad Washington's spending problem is, the CBO projects our Federal deficit to be $1.9 trillion, an uptick of $400 billion. That had to be modified, if Members paid attention to what happened this last week with the CBO. It is going to grow to $2.9 trillion by 2034. An annual deficit of almost $3 trillion is facing us less than 10 years away.

This excessive spending is going to drive the national debt to record levels and continue to exacerbate the inflation crisis that everybody in America is feeling. The devaluation of our currency because of excessive spending all ties together. The average family of four is spending $1,300 more a month to afford the same goods and services as compared to January of 2021, which amounts to $16,000 lost to devaluation of the currency because of what we are doing with excessive spending. We can fix this.

I will add one more little tidbit to this. According to Zillow, Americans are having to earn $106,000 to be able to afford a home. That is an 80 percent increase, according to Zillow, from what they saw in 2020, which was $59,000 in 2020.

How can we, in good conscience, continue to contribute to this economic crisis by excessive spending being felt around the country.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support returning to pre- COVID on this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, returning back to pre-COVID spending levels, I have to ask the question to any colleague, whether it be Democrat or Republican: Was not the amount of government spending pre- COVID in 2019 enough? There is an old saying that however much government you want is how much government you have to be willing to pay for.

The problem is with Congress. We are deficit spending because we are not willing to make cuts. We are not willing to make prioritization occur to be able to afford these programs. We are passing the tab on to our kids and our grandkids. Our housing costs and inflation are the result of this.

Mr. Chairman, this is pre-COVID spending levels, and I encourage my colleagues to support it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate funding

for the Global Environment Facility at the World Bank, saving American taxpayers nearly $140 million.

This amendment represents a roughly 0.3-percent reduction in spending for the bill overall. The Global Environment Facility is an international fund under the World Bank, which uses donor countries' money to pay for climate agenda projects in developing countries. The United States' contribution to this fund is $140 million for fiscal year 2025.

Proponents of global climate initiatives often use phrases like ``shared global responsibility'' to sell programs that cost taxpayers millions and give up American sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats. However, this funding has nothing to do with responsibilities at all.

This year's roughly $140 million donation to the GEF is over $10 million more than China's, the world's largest polluter. China has contributed, during the entire 33-year lifetime of the program, less than this year's singular allocation by the United States.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Federal deficit is going to be $1.9 trillion for fiscal year 2024. That is 27 percent greater than CBO projected at the beginning of this year, a $400 billion change in a matter of months.

Where is the responsibility to American taxpayers? As Members of Congress, our responsibility is to those taxpayers. We should not be forcing and punting the price tag for this to our kids and our grandkids. We should not be sending millions of dollars overseas when we cannot get our fiscal house in order.

The Trump administration's budget request for fiscal year 2020 rightly asked for no funding for the Global Environment Facility. Under President Trump, the U.S. withdrew from the one-sided Paris climate accord and became a net energy exporter for the first time in over 70 years.

The Trump administration recognized that American strength and prosperity are advanced by supporting pro-growth policies, cutting spending and regulations, and unleashing American energy.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to follow the example of that administration and vote ``yes'' on this amendment. The U.S. Government should not send one more taxpayer dollar to unelected bureaucrats in support of other countries' climate agendas, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree. We are not retreating on the world stage. What we are trying to do is get our fiscal house in order so that America can cheat history as a republic that can outlast most democracies. I will contend we are not a democracy. We are, specifically, a republic. We are cheating history if we can get our fiscal house in order and continue this great experiment.

Retreating on the world stage is what I am afraid is going to happen. We are about to run out of the funds to be able to continue this great experiment in self-governance.

I would ask Members to consider that Chairman Arrington of the Budget Committee sent some of us this story from the Asia Times, and it is called: ``U.S. Debt Moving Toward $50 Trillion Isn't Whole Story.'' This is the Asian perspective about what they are looking at in America as us heading toward a sovereign debt crisis and us losing the reserve world currency.

We are up against a great threat. I am greatly concerned about the future of this country. We are not retreating. We are trying to strengthen. There is an old African proverb: If there is no enemy on the inside, the enemy on the outside can do you no harm. We have to get strong within.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would return funding for the U.S. Institute of Peace back to fiscal year '19 funding levels. In doing so, this amendment would save $16.3 million.

This amendment, again, returns spending for this specific agency back to pre-COVID spending levels. To be clear, this is a modest proposal in the context of the overall spending of the bill.

This amendment would reduce spending in the bill by 0.03 percent. That is less than half a percent of the top line for this bill.

Side note for all of us who have paid attention to the numbers: Post- COVID, our discretionary budget overall is up 30 percent. That is of note.

Why go back to pre-COVID spending levels? If you look at the inflationary index, if you look at what has happened with the housing prices, going back to pre-COVID has a lot of net positives in terms of our Federal outlays.

Year after year, the Federal Government continues to outpace spending and outpace revenues. It outpaces the growth of our economy. In a recent report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the Federal deficit for 2024 is going to reach $1.9 trillion.

The COVID-era spending spree drastically accelerated the growth of our national debt. In the next decade, the CBO expects the Federal deficit to grow to $2.9 trillion. That is a $3 trillion annual deficit.

We didn't get to $1 trillion in gross national debt until 1980. 200 years of governance and in 1980, we reached $1 trillion. Within 10 years, we are headed to be three times that in annual deficit debt spending when it took us almost 250 years as a Nation to get to $1 trillion.

This is going to be a cumulative sovereign debt crisis. Today, we are at $34.5 trillion, and it is just going to tick up.

As a result, the current state of our national debt means that the Federal Government will require that every taxpayer give up $267,000 to pay off your share of this balance. The growth of this debt is causing a corresponding increase in the amount of interest payments due each year, which are threatening to crowd out critical spending on national defense, contributing toward the severe inflation crisis.

Mr. Chair, I call on my colleagues to get serious about the massive debt. Let's return so many of these programs back to fiscal year '19 pre-COVID spending levels.

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

Mr. Chair, peace through strength is something that many of us believe in. It is the concern over the lack of our economic prowess, the lack of our strength why this amendment is before this body.

Again, was there not enough government spending in 2019? Returning back to 2019 pre-COVID spending levels is what this does. It would save us $16 million.

Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to put the best, long-term interests of our Nation ahead of short-term policy concerns or policy considerations or parochial considerations. It is the long-term longevity that has to rule the day.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit drag shows and drag queen story hours at U.S. military bases and installations. This measure is essential to ensure that our military remains focused on its core mission.

President Biden and his Department of Defense have hosted multiple drag show events as the left continues to push a sexual agenda on servicemembers, showing total disregard for our troops who signed up to protect this country, not to be subjected to far-left policies.

This agenda doesn't stop at our men and women in uniform. The Biden administration is also targeting young children in an effort to spread its views, its sexual agenda.

In 2022, a military base in Virginia hosted a kid-friendly diversity, equity, and inclusion summer festival--and I use air quotes, kid- friendly--featuring ``Harpy Daniels--the Navy Drag Queen,'' where children were encouraged to attend. That same summer, another base scheduled a drag queen story hour for children.

Our country depends on a lethal military capable of rising to any occasion, just as the Allied forces did 80 years ago when they stormed the beaches of Normandy. They exemplified patriotism and courage.

It seems the Biden administration and its DOD is more focused on promoting drag queens, waving the rainbow flag in a cultural war, preparing them for the cultural battle versus preparing a real fighting force advancing the red, white, and blue on a real battlefield.

This is nothing short of an insult to our troops. It is a mockery to history and those who died fighting for this country. What would General Eisenhower and General MacArthur say? I believe they would encourage a return to thousands of years of history of societal norms, not the current sexual fad that is in tandem with our armed services not being able to meet their recruitment goals, being down 30 percent during the Biden administration.

Young men who make up the bulk of our fighting forces are inspired by GI Joe. They are not inspired by: Be a Barbie girl in a Barbie world.

Although the DOD indicated it would stop hosting drag queen events last year, this informal decision lacks the force of law and was only made after significant public backlash. We have every reason to believe the DOD would resume these events tomorrow if they felt they could get away with it. We should codify this and not give them that option.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply codifies what the DOD stated last year that, ``holding these type of events in federally funded facilities is not suitable use of DOD resources.''

I remind my colleagues that the language in this amendment passed in last year's NDAA, which almost all Republicans and some Democrats voted for, Americans' tax dollars should not be paying for or be used to prop up paying for men to dress up as women in sexualized performances.

I take exception to the comment that this is something that was occurring during the Greatest Generation. What may be referenced is something totally different than something now that is designed to sexualize this culture.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the DHS Border Services Contracts Review Act, H.R. 4467.

It goes without saying that the Border Patrol is overwhelmed when handling hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens coming across our southern border, and our national debt is increasing by nearly $1 trillion every 100 days. Congress must provide the oversight necessary and do everything in its power to simultaneously assist Border Patrol and also cut back on inefficient spending.

Federal contractors have a role within DHS when the Federal Government cannot meet the requirements necessary to carry out its mission. In the last decade, DHS has increasingly relied on service contracts to carry out these operations. According to the Government Accountability Office, DHS' contracted services have increased by 40 percent between fiscal years 2013 and 2018, obligating nearly $70 billion in contracts over that 5-year window.

In May of 2020, the GAO conducted a study on DHS service contracts that the Department uses for assistance. They examined eight DHS contracts and found that three-quarters of those contractors were never given any guidance by DHS on actions that are inherently under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. GAO also reported that DHS has no consistent plan for contract oversight necessary to prevent overlapping work with contractors. This lack of guidance and potential overlap in functions highlights a glaring need for this report, especially considering the financial dilemma that we find ourselves in today.

To combat this potential problem, H.R. 4467 directs the Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary for Management to assess contracts above $50 million for covered services performed by contractor personnel along the U.S. border with Mexico to minimize overlap and cut inefficiencies.

This legislation requires the USM to report to Congress on active contracts, recommendations on how they can better be used to increase efficiency, and the criteria used to determine when contractor personnel is necessary for DHS to carry out its mission.

If enacted, this bill would provide needed clarity and oversight on which service contracts are helping DHS at the border and where there is room for improved efficiencies.

To ensure that taxpayer dollars are used responsibly, it includes a provision that prohibits the Department from requesting additional funding to carry out this legislation. I will reiterate that: Section 2(c) specifies that this legislation will not cost a dime.

I thank Chairman Green and the committee staff, and I urge all Members to support this commonsense legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this impeachment resolution.

As Chairman Green of the Homeland Security Committee has reminded our committee often in recent weeks, James Madison, the father of our Constitution, said: ``If an unworthy man be continued in office by an unworthy President, the House of Representatives can at any time impeach him, and the Senate can remove him, whether the President chooses or not.''

This impeachment is not about policy difference, though we have them. It is absolutely because Secretary Mayorkas refuses to enforce the laws that are a part of our Nation's fabric. The rule of law matters. Nobody is above it, including Secretary Mayorkas.

Contrary to what he and the President publicly claim, no new laws are needed to stop this crisis. They have created it. Section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act already grants them the authority to holler halt.

We know Secretary Mayorkas is aware of this provision. On day 5 of the Biden administration, the President suspended entry by those coming from the U.K., Ireland, Brazil, and South Africa. Secretary Mayorkas has left us with no other option other than impeachment because he refuses to enforce the law.

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

Mr. Chair, before we debate this amendment, I want to start with some important facts. A lot of us, in our States, including Oklahoma, are facing a foster care home shortage. According to one report, between 2020 and 2021 to 2022, the number of licensed foster homes in Oklahoma decreased by 8 percent.

HHS has reported that in my home State, more than 7,400 children were in foster care as of 2021 and more than 3,700 were awaiting adoption. This reflects a national crisis in our foster care system where more than half of the States, between 2021 and 2022, reported declines in licensed foster homes. Additionally, more than 407,000 children and adolescents were in foster care as of 2021 and 113,000 awaited adoptions.

With these sobering facts in mind, we need to recognize that any new foster care policies have to be directed toward solving a shortage, not making it worse. I sincerely ask my colleagues to keep this idea, which I hope we can all agree on, as you consider this amendment before you.

This amendment would prevent the Department of Health and Human Services from finalizing or enforcing its proposed rule titled: ``Safe and Appropriate Foster Care Placement Requirements for Titles IV-E and IV-B,'' a rule which will worsen our foster care crisis, burden States, and create a hostile environment for faith-based providers, harming children.

If finalized, this rule requires State and Tribal agencies to ensure that children who identify as LGBTQI+ are placed only with providers designated as safe and appropriate. In order to be considered ``safe and appropriate,'' providers seeking to take such a child who identifies as LGBTQ+ must actively affirm the child's identity, use preferred pronouns, and facilitate the child's access to ``services and activities'' to support the child's identity.

We can infer from this that providers will be required to facilitate giving children puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and other dangerous treatments to be in compliance. This will co-opt State agencies and foster care parents into the radical Biden administration's agenda, which is sexualizing our kids.

This rule also has a glaring federalism concern. As of November 2023, at least 18 States enforced laws that protect children from harmful, irreversible, medical election transition procedures, yet these States would have to violate their own statutes to be in compliance with this rule. Assistance to child welfare agencies should not be contingent on States' willingness to affirm the Biden administration's radical gender ideology aimed squarely at children.

Another federalism concern is that HHS admits this rule would have a ``substantial direct impact'' on the cost State agencies will incur. The Department estimates that the combined total Federal and State agency costs of this rule between 2025 and 2027 will be almost $40 million. State agencies are already barely scraping by with current resources. This will be another burden placed on them from the Federal Government.

This rule could also create an environment of hostility toward faith- based providers. By directing States to enact policies that label providers with basic religious views on human sexuality as unsafe and inappropriate, this rule clearly indicates that the LGBTQ+ affirmation is the only way for a child welfare provider to be deemed legitimate. Besides attacking religious liberty, this is concerning since faith- based providers play an enormous role in the foster care system.

Let me back that up. Pew Research finds that 65 percent of non-kin foster family parents attend religious services weekly compared to 39 percent of the population. Research has also found that practicing Christians are twice as likely to adopt compared to the general population.

Faith-based providers play an important role in the foster care system. This proposed rule will have a chilling effect on the number of providers available to help kiddos. Already HHS acknowledges that ``a majority of States would need to expand their efforts to recruit and identify providers and foster families.'' What HHS is admitting is that this undermines their ability to recruit foster families. This rule undermines foster family recruitment. Why in the world would we want to move forward with this?

Given what I shared at the beginning of my remarks about States facing a crisis in recruiting and retaining foster homes, this will have an effect that will be devastating for young adults in the foster care system. They will be less likely to find homes, and those who do find homes will find longer wait lines.

Protecting our Nation's children should be a bipartisan, nonpolitical issue. Unfortunately, the Biden administration has decided to place thousands of children at risk.

Mr. Chair, I encourage support of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is going to return funding for the General Services Administration, GSA, real property activities of the Federal buildings fund back to fiscal year 2019 levels. It is a modest cut of $12.7 million.

For context, this amendment would cut 0.5 percent of the entire bill. I will repeat that: 0.5 percent is what this amendment proposes. This is one-half of one percent.

This amendment returns spending for this specific funding back to pre-COVID discretionary spending levels. To my colleagues, discretionary outlays by our Federal Government totaled $1.7 trillion last year, and last year's deficit was $1.7 trillion.

That means 100 percent of discretionary spending is borrowed from our kids and our grandkids. That means 100 percent of all that we are discussing these last many weeks is borrowed money. We have to start cutting significantly.

Can we not go back to fiscal year 2019 as a start? Is that not enough government that we experienced in 2019?

This amendment cuts a modest $12.7 million from a $5.7 billion allotted amount for rental space that is not even being fully utilized by our Federal agencies.

The Government Accountability Office, GAO, released a report titled Federal Real Property Preliminary Results that show Federal buildings remain underutilized due to longstanding challenges and increased telework.

This report assessed 24 different Federal agencies' and departments' use of building space. The review was conducted between January and March of this year, long after the COVID-19 pandemic ended.

Mr. Chairman, 17 of those 24 agencies the GAO identified and listed utilized only 25 percent or less of their headquarter building capacity. Even on the higher range, these agencies only used between 39 to 49 percent of their headquarters on average.

For one agency the GAO did not name, GAO calculated that even if all of its agency staff were physically present in its headquarters, only 67 percent of the facilities would be occupied.

The same report detailed that underutilized office space cost 24 agencies mentioned in the report $2 billion a year--$2 billion a year-- lost due to wasted office space, and that was only for maintenance and operation costs. These agencies spend over an additional $5 billion on leasing space.

At a January 2023 meeting between the Federal Real Property Council, more than half of the participating agencies acknowledged that their headquarter buildings had excess space even prior to the pandemic. These are the headquarter offices. Not much less do we need to talk about the satellite offices.

The GAO report also mentioned that all 24 agencies have reduced their in-office work and have not returned to prepandemic levels because of remote work.

Even before the pandemic, Federal agencies struggled to determine how much space they needed to fulfill their missions.

Retaining excess and underutilized space is one of the main reasons Federal real property management has remained on the GAO high-risk list since 2003. For 20 years, GAO lists this problem among its high-risk list. It is a 20-year problem.

The GAO high-risk list seems to identify and help resolve serious weaknesses in areas that involve substantial resources.

More than half of GSA's leases, which account for 83 million square feet, are set to expire between 2023 and 2027. Therefore, the time to reduce this inefficiency must be now. This amendment can help achieve that.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate that, this last year, GAO said 17 of the 24 agencies that they surveyed used only 25 percent of their headquarters office space. That means 75 percent of office space in the headquarters of the largest agencies is vacant.

This is just returning back to 2019 levels. We are talking about $12 million in cuts for what the GAO says is a $7 billion problem.

For 20 years, they have been talking about this, so much so that it has been on their high-risk list for years.

If we are going to account for a $1.7 trillion deficit, can we start by cutting millions out of billion-dollar problems?

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce spending by bringing the Department of Housing and Urban Development's funding for the fair housing activities back to the fiscal year 2019 levels, which would be a cut of $19.7 million.

Cutting funding back to pre-COVID 19 levels across the board for nondefense discretionary funding can right-size a discretionary budget that has grown 30 percent larger since the pandemic. We must return nondefense discretionary spending back to the 2019 spending levels if we are ever to have hope on the discretionary side of getting our fiscal house in order.

To accomplish that for this program--this is a modest cut of 0.022 percent of the total funding of this bill. I want to repeat that. It is a 0.022 percent cut, that is a cut of one-fifth of 1 percent.

Allowing the data to speak for itself, according to HUD's own statistics, there were 11,741 housing discrimination complaints filed to the Department in 2022.

According to HUD, in fiscal year 2022, there were 15 cases of housing discrimination that were referred to the Department of Justice, of those cases, 14

were closed out by DOJ, meaning there was only one case out of over 11,000 that led to a charge of housing discrimination.

While many housing discrimination complaints are settled, most cases are found to be without cause or closed entirely. According to the Congressional Research Service, 3 to 5 percent of the complaints lead to a formal charge, and between zero to 1 percent of complaints lead to a referral to the Department of Justice.

Again, we need to get our fiscal house in order. We are rapidly approaching $34 trillion in debt. It is costing families, through devaluation of our dollar, $1,200 more per month to buy the exact same goods and services as compared to when our current President took office almost 3 years ago.

The effects of that, we all know, with interest rate changes are causing housing problems for a multitude of people.

The debt to GDP ratio is at our highest level since World War II. Our interest payments on the debt are about to cost more than defense spending, and that is within months to years ahead in short order.

Autopilot, mandatory spending amounts to 70 percent of our government spending. This number is expected to skyrocket to 90 percent within the next 10 years. This out-of-control spending at some point has to come to an end, either by choice or it will happen to us by force.

Mr. Chairman, I reiterate that this is incredibly small in terms of cuts--0.022 percent, one-fifth of 1 percent to the underlying bill. Let's return back to the 2019 fiscal year.

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

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

Mr. Chair, since this administration took office, the average family of four is spending $1,200 more per month to buy the exact same goods and services as compared to January 2021. That is an almost $15,000 increase per year to the average family of four because of excessive government spending that is driving devaluation of our currency, thus inflation.

I grew up ranching. I still ranch. When you talk to farmers and ranchers, they will tell you their biggest issue is the increase in the input costs. Whether it is 4-point barbed-wire, T-posts, a feed truck, a cake box, used tractors, everything is costing almost

twice what it did just a few years ago. The price of agriculture in general is up 23 percent, the stats tell us, just in 2 years under this administration.

To help America's farmers and ranchers, we need to get serious about cutting government spending that is the root cause of inflation and devaluation of our currency.

Right now, for every dollar that we are spending, about $6 trillion, only 70 percent of it is paid for. We are charging 30 percent to our kids and our grandkids, who want to inherit those farms and ranches.

My conservative colleagues and I are urging Congress to reduce overall spending back to pre-COVID spending levels. The cut I am proposing with this amendment is a modest 6.5 percent cut from the underlying bill and funds the NRCS at a higher level even than they were in fiscal year 2019.

I know NRCS programs. In my heavy equipment excavation business, I built ponds. I have friends who work for the NRCS. I have gotten good advice from the NRCS.

My question to my friends at the NRCS and my question to my friends in the agricultural community: Can we not return to the pre-COVID spending levels to give our kids and our grandkids a chance at the blessing of liberty?

There is money within the NRCS that can be cut that is not even conservation related. Like many agencies, the Biden administration is using even the NRCS to carry out a leftist agenda, so absorption of these cuts should start here.

The NRCS has an Equity Division whose mission is to advocate and better align institutional equity into the work and practices of NRCS programs and services.

The NRCS aims to meet or exceed President Biden's Justice40 goals. Under the guise of environmental justice, the Justice40 Initiative goal is to pick winners and losers. It aims to have 40 percent of benefits flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution.

The NRCS State offices, like Vermont, have created a lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender special emphasis program manager position. The NRCS also provides resources such as Pride calendars, pronouns in the workplace guidance, and LGBTQ spotlights.

This is not the original mission of the NRCS. It demonstrates there is excess within the agency.

I know this agency. I have benefited from it. Friends have benefited from it. If we are going to be serious about giving our kids a chance, we can't protect every program that we like from what has to be a nation that starts living within its means. We have to begin somewhere.

Mr. Chair, this 6.5 percent cut is more than reasonable, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I had someone say to me one time that governing should be pretty easy. However much government you want ought to be the amount of government you are willing to pay for.

The problem is, on the Federal Government level, we are not paying for it. We are asking our kids and our grandkids to pay for all of this.

For every dollar we are spending right now, we are asking our children to pick up 30 percent of the tab.

The question is: When will we start being responsible, looking out for the blessing of liberty for our children and our grandkids?

This is a 6.5 percent reduction. The underlying bill, if adopted, leaves $850 million in NRCS.

We are addicted to overspending in this Nation. Fiscal sanity is crying out. Future generations are crying out to start somewhere. I am asking my colleagues to start here with me.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, to reiterate what has often been said this evening, we hit $33 trillion. It is the first time in our Nation's history.

That means, as of today, every baby that is born in any hospital around this country who opens their eyes and takes in their first breath of air owes $98,000.

They are only going to pay it off through a lower standard of living because of the selfishness of the generations before them.

If we continue at this rate of overspending, we are sacrificing their future--make no mistake about that.

It is why my conservative colleagues and I are trying to rein in our Federal spending and return to the pre-COVID spending levels. We have to start cutting spending.

My amendment would eliminate the USDA rental assistance program, which is 1 of 25 duplicative housing programs. I want to reiterate the word ``duplicative''--duplicative housing programs, 25.

This amendment, if adopted, would save $1.6 billion. That is a real number.

Today, the Federal Government subsidizes low-income families through more than 25 duplicative housing programs consisting of projects, vouchers, rental construction, financing, and

grants to State and local governments. It includes 20 different entities administering 160 different programs, tax expenditures, and other tools supporting homeownership and rental housing.

In 2021, the Federal Government spent over $57 billion on low-income housing programs benefiting 9.3 million Americans. We have 333 million Americans total in this Nation.

This particular program represents only about 2.8 percent of Federal housing assistance programs. This duplicative program should be rolled into the Department of Housing and Urban Development to improve efficiency.

In 2012 and 2016 reports, the Government Accountability Office recommended consolidating many of these duplicative programs. That is why, in 2018, OMB under President Trump proposed removing USDA rental housing programs to HUD to improve operational efficiency, service delivery, and produce savings by reducing agency bureaucracy costs.

According to the OMB under the Trump administration, ``USDA's housing programs, which serve eligible rural areas, were initially established in the 1940s in response to an underrepresentation of national housing programs in rural areas. . . . Since then, the rationale for separate, rural-focused housing programs at USDA has become outdated given HUD's role in serving communities throughout the Nation, including in many rural areas. In fact, due in large part to the sheer size of its programs, HUD serves more households in USDA-eligible areas than USDA does.''

The consolidation of agencies or administrative functions could yield a more efficient oversight and administrative structure for cost savings in central housing programs.

The Government Accountability Office recommended that HUD and USDA review and consolidate duplicative housing programs, including the Rural Housing Service.

The duplication of program services provides headaches and confusion to the neediest of Americans wanting to know where to go. It is time to streamline programs and get our fiscal house in order.

What is causing so many young adults outside of this program administration not to be able to afford their homes? High interest rates driven by overspending.

This $1.6 billion that this amendment proposes represents a return to fiscal sanity. For every dollar we are spending, we are only paying for 70 percent of it.

When are we going to get serious about spending restraint for the next generation?

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

Mr. Chairman, I reiterate: duplication of programming. There are 25 duplicative programs in this same area.

This cut represents 2.8 percent of all Federal housing assistance. We can help the neediest Americans by streamlining housing programs and getting our own fiscal house in order.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense reduction in duplication, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, title 42 expires tomorrow. As Republicans are advancing the most conservative border bill ever, this administration is going to usher in more chaos on the southern border. It is going to be quite the contrast for the American people to witness.

Border Patrol agents are already seeing a surge, 26,000 illegals apprehended in a 72-hour period. This is on top of 5 million illegal immigrants that have come into this Nation within a 2-year period. That is more than the entire population of the State of Oklahoma, the State which I represent.

House Republicans have a plan, and it is the bill before us, the Secure the Border Act of 2023, which would resume wall construction. That includes the 200-plus miles of wall that was fully funded by Congress but shut down when President Biden, in contrast with the Constitution, with his pen said: ``Not another foot.''

This bill is going to deploy more technology. It is going to increase Border Patrol agents. It is going to end catch and release. Notice to appear in front of a judge has become notice to disappear under this administration.

Securing the border used to be a bipartisan issue. In fact, President Biden supported the Secure Fence Act of 2006 when he was a United States Senator. That bill included physical barriers; 150 miles of wall built under the Obama administration. Here is what then-Senator Biden, in his own words, said: ``Why I believe the fence is needed does not have anything to do with immigration as much as drugs.''

Biden continued: ``And let me tell you something, folks, people are driving across that border with tons, hear me, tons of everything from byproducts for methamphetamine to cocaine to heroin and it is coming up from corrupt Mexico.'' That was then-Senator Biden.

This statement is long before the fentanyl crisis, where 70,000 people from the United States died last year because of fentanyl poisoning, the leading cause of death between ages 18 and 45. Biden's own Border Patrol agents disagree with this administration.

Mr. Chairman, imagine a world where parents, school board members, and teachers were really running the show in the classroom, not bureaucrats thousands of miles away.

Imagine a world where parents didn't have to worry about a hypersexualized, woke culture when they send their most cherished individuals to the classroom, that they are assured that what is taught in that school system is not going to counter what they taught them at home.

We had such a world prior to 1979. It was a world that our Founders foresaw. It is why they believed in the concept of laboratories of democracy, laboratories of experimentation where, across State lines, you could learn from both success and failures.

It is why, in the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8, you do not find the Department of Education. That is why the 10th Amendment says all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to

the States respectively, or to the people.

It is why Thomas Jefferson said, in order for the Federal Government to be involved in education, you have to have a constitutional amendment and, again, prior to 1979, we had such a world. The creation of the Department of Education has only allowed a reduction in educational attainment.

I will end with this. James Madison made this statement. He said, imagine a world where we actually ascribe to the enumerated powers. I am paraphrasing.

He said, Congress can apply this. They can take the care of religion. If they can do this, go outside the 18 enumerated powers, they can take care of religion into their own hands. They can establish teachers in every county, every State, and every parish. They can pay them out of the public treasury. They can take into their own hands the education of children and establish in like manner schools throughout the Union.

They may assume the provision for the poor, and they may undertake the regulation of all roads, other than Post Office roads.

In short, everything from the highest object of State legislation, down to the most minute object of police would be thrown to the power of Congress. James Madison foresaw this. In 1792, he stood on this floor and talked about it. We need to return to the brilliance of our Founders.

Mr. Chair, September 24, 1981, in his address to the Nation on the program for economic recovery, President Ronald Reagan made the following comment: ``As a third step, we propose to dismantle two Cabinet Departments, Energy and Education. Both Secretaries are wholly in accord with this. Some of the activities in both of these Departments will, of course, be continued either independently or in other areas of government. There is only one way to shrink the size and cost of Big Government, and that is by eliminating agencies that are not needed and are getting in the way of a solution. . . . By eliminating the Department of Education less than 2 years after it was created, we cannot only reduce the budget but ensure that local needs and preferences, rather than wishes of Washington, determine the education of our children.''

The Federal Department of Education was created in 1979. Many people can't even remember a time when it was not a creation, but there was such a time.

Mr. Chair, for 200 years, our Nation flourished and had rigorous education absent the Federal Department of Education.

I, too, am a product of public education, but I contend if we want to empower parents in the hypersexualized, woke culture that is invading our classrooms, we need to give school board members and parents the ability to determine the education of their children and empower them by returning to the brilliance of our Founding Fathers.

In the 18 enumerated powers that list those things that the Federal Government should do, education is not mentioned. That is why Thomas Jefferson made the comment that in order for the Federal Government to be involved in education, you have to have a constitutional amendment.

We need to follow the advice of our Founding Fathers and put this back in the hands of our States. They can determine what is happening in the classroom. That is a success for our children and this country.

Mr. Speaker, Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution says that all legislative powers are to be vested in the Congress. In the Congress, not the President.

The Biden administration's WOTUS rule is a perfect example of the administration usurping the authority, the supremacy of the United States Constitution.

This rule impacts private property, small business, farmers, ranchers, including Jess Kane--I just got off the phone with him 20 minutes ago. Jess has a ranch south of Bartlesville, and he has about a thousand acres in a floodplain. He is concerned about his ranch and how this rule of the President will impact his ability to do what he has always done and be able to manage a cow-calf operation.

Regulatory costs are a hidden tax and are now expected to be at least $2 trillion, according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute. If you think of regulation as a tax, it comes out to more than $14,000 per family. It is a hidden tax, $14,000 per family, because of the regulatory state.

Congress has the authority and duty to rein this in. We must inject common sense, horse sense for our farmers, ranchers, small businesses, and private property owners when the Presidency is going the opposite direction.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 27 and overturn the WOTUS rule.