Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, which cuts programs in this bill by an additional 16 percent, and for not all of these programs do local governments or entities have a taxing authority to pay for them.

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

In drafting this bill, we worked really hard to rein in Federal spending. One thing that all Republicans agree on is that we have to reduce spending. The debate occurs on how much and how fast.

In drafting this bill, as I said, we worked very hard to rein in Federal spending while prioritizing critical needs within our reduced allocation.

Unfortunately, this is kind of a sledgehammer approach when we just want to reduce the bill across the board by 16 percent.

We would be reducing wildfire fighting. We have done everything we can to protect wildfire fighting, which is devastating, particularly in the West where I live.

We have also done everything we can to protect the Indian Health Service. That is something that is vital here. We don't actually do a very good job of supporting the Indian Health Service overall.

Mr. Chairman, if you look at the amount of money per patient that the

VA spends and the amount that average Americans spend, and then how much we spend per person on the Indian Health Service, it is about one- half of what we spend on other healthcare needs. So we are trying everything we can over the years in a bipartisan way to bring up the Indian Health Service and improve their health, but they don't have a separate taxing authority to be able to do that. That is the Federal Government.

This sledgehammer approach which would just reduce every budget in this bill by 16 percent that is not mandatory spending, I think is inappropriate, and I don't think it is the proper way to go.

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

Mr. Chair, I sympathize with what the gentleman is saying. I agree with him. It is a huge problem, and it is a math problem. He mentioned something that is really important.

We used to spend about 70 percent of the budget on discretionary spending--that is the money we appropriate through these appropriations bills--and about 30 percent was spent on mandatory spending. That has been reversed, where it is about 70 percent mandatory spending today and only 30 percent in discretionary spending.

Consequently, we have to address mandatory spending. That is difficult to do because anytime you say we have to reform Social Security if we are going to save it, all of a sudden, the commercials are going: Oh, they are going to take away your Social Security.

It is a political football that Republicans and Democrats have to get together and address. That is why the Speaker has said we are going to create a debt commission to look at how we can reduce this debt that we are facing.

I agree with the gentleman. It is horrible what is going on. As I said earlier, the debate is not really whether to cut spending, it is how much and how fast. I guess the gentleman said it best when he called it a small nuclear weapon in this, but I agree with what he is saying in general. It is how we go about it that is the challenge.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of H.R. 4821, to include corrections in spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing, and the insertion of appropriate headings.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, November 6, 2023, when it shall convene at noon for morning-hour debate and 2 p.m. for legislative business.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I have no further speakers on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment to decrease funding for the Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro Program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I must oppose this amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

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

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

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

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment, but I rise mainly to explain what the special hiring authority is.

The so-called title 42 special hiring authority was provided to the Department of Health and Human Services to allow the agency to pay individuals above the GSA pay scale. The authority was created to allow the agency to compete with private-sector salaries for the Nation's best healthcare experts and scientists, given the critical importance of human health and the Federal role in public health.

Congress then provided the EPA with this authority for the first time in 2006. It was authorized by Congress in 2006, arguing that the EPA also conducts human health work, such as research and assessment of chemicals. Most recently, the authority of the EPA was renewed in the fiscal year 2022 spending year, which capped the total number of people who could be hired using this special authority to 100 people.

The current authority expires at the end of fiscal year 2025. This amendment allows current individuals to continue to be paid using the special authority but blocks any additional staff from being hired under this authority.

Remember, this expires at the end of 2025, and I would hope that the authorizing committees would take it up and decide what they want to do in the future, but not do this through an amendment.

I understand the gentleman's very longstanding concerns with this authority at EPA, and I agree that appropriate oversight needs to be provided so that this authority is not abused, but I do oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. Chair, I guess it is time I got off my rear-end here and talked a little bit.

I want to let people know why I have opposed all the Holman rule amendments that have come before us. I think I screwed up on one and voted the wrong way, but I have opposed all of them for a number of reasons.

The Holman rule was originally put in place and then it was kind of repealed over the last couple of Congresses and then put in place. If you look back at the history of it, through the whole appropriations process, I can only remember one or two times when the Holman rule was actually used. It was used because the individual had committed criminal activity. That is why they cut the salary. Obviously, it didn't pass, but that was the intent behind it.

The second reason is that I question the constitutionality of the Holman rule altogether. We don't have the authority to fire someone in the administration. We don't have the authority to fire them. This is a way to get around that by reducing someone's salary to a dollar. You have essentially fired them unless they can live on a dollar for a year. I don't know many people who can do that. This is a way to get around what our constitutional responsibility is, I believe.

Believe me, I don't always agree. In fact, I seldom agree with the Bureau of Land Management's decisions on a lot of things. Elections have consequences. If you disagree with them because of a policy, why do you think they were hired? They were hired to carry out the policies of this administration. Maybe you don't like those policies. I don't like some of those policies. That is a good reason to get off our rear- ends and make sure that we eliminate this administration about 12 months from now.

It is not a reason to reduce someone's salary because they are implementing a policy for the administration that hired them. That is why I haven't supported any of the Holman rules because nobody stood up here and said they believe they have engaged in criminal activity. I haven't heard it. Until I do, I will continue to oppose these amendments.

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

Mr. Chair, all I know is if you reduce my salary to a dollar, you effectively fired me.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chair, I have listened very carefully so far. So far

Mr. Chair, so far, I have heard accusations, but I haven't heard anything. Has she been convicted of any of this kind of stuff? I don't know. I haven't heard of any of that. Believe me, I disagree with the Secretary on a lot of issues. So far all I have heard is policy.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 3 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Friday, November 3, 2023, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Chair, having been a former chairman of this committee, and either ranking member or chairman for the last 9 years, I guess, when I left, people asked me repeatedly, ``What kind of chairman will Mr. Fleischmann be of this committee?'' whether it was people from the Idaho National Laboratory, PNNL, or other places.

I told them I thought he would be a great chairman, and this is why: He cares about the Department of Energy's lab complex, not just Oak Ridge, which he represents, but all the labs throughout the complex. He has been to a lot of them, visited them, and found out what they do. He cares about nuclear energy, which is important to me and important to him also, and many other aspects within the Department of Energy.

I thought he would be a great chairman, and he has done a masterful job of putting this bill together.

This bill contains many things that are vitally important to the future of this country, whether it is nuclear power or fusion energy, as we have talked about, or the next-generation reactors that are going to be developed; whether it is high-speed computing--Oak Ridge is probably the leader in high-speed computing, and all other agencies kind of depend on the Department of Energy's high-speed computing to do work for them; whether it is cybersecurity, and a lot of that is done at the Idaho National Laboratory and at other laboratories; whether it is renewable energy and the facility in Colorado. All of those things are important.

What a lot of people forget about this bill is that about a third of it--36, 38 percent, something like that--is the defense part of this bill, NNSA, whether it is the nonproliferation that was mentioned by the ranking member, whether it is the defense cleanup portion of it, whether it is the weapons modernization program, or whether it is the part that I kind of like, which is the naval reactors program.

When they started the naval reactors program at the Idaho National Laboratory, when they fueled the first submarine with nuclear energy, it lasted about 18 months, and then they had to refuel it. Because of the work they have done out there, we now fuel ships for the life of the ship. That is an amazing process that they have done, and it is because of the work that is done by the NNSA.

However, that is just on the energy side of this bill. We could talk about that for a long time. The other important part of this bill is the water part of it. It is energy and water.

The Army Corps of Engineers is funded through this bill, and they do the dredging for our ports and waterways throughout this country. Whether it is the Corps or the Bureau of Reclamation, I will tell you, every Member of Congress, I believe, has an Army Corps of Engineers project within their district. Therefore, this bill is important to them.

I think the chairman has done a masterful job of putting this bill together.

I enjoy listening to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and they are good friends. We have worked together in a cordial way for many years, both Chairwoman DeLauro and Ranking Member Kaptur, who used to be chair of this committee, also. It goes back and forth.

I enjoy their conversation on where we haven't spent enough money on this bill, and they have talked about how we can spend more money in certain areas to address certain things and that kind of stuff. The one thing they didn't mention, when they were talking about the fact that we need more money in these bills, is the $33 trillion deficit we have.

I will guarantee you, it is easier to write bills when you are just expanding spending and have more money than you know what to do with to throw at all the different bills, which is the way it has been for the last couple of years. If they didn't have enough money, they took things out and made it emergency spending. We are having to deal with that.

It is more difficult to write a bill where you have to actually reduce spending. I think everyone in our Conference on this side of the aisle realizes that we have to reduce spending if we are ever going to address the $33 trillion debt. It is just a small part of it,

but it is an important part of it. That is what we are trying to do in a responsible manner. That is what Chairman Fleischmann has done in a responsible manner.

I find it kind of curious that as I have heard the ranking member of the full committee and the subcommittee talk, they have said that we have to spend more money because families are struggling, and then they say this is the best economy we have had in years and years. Which one is it? I don't understand. Is it both? Interesting. When can we address the debt and deficit in this bill? It is a challenge that we face.

Again, I congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee for his work on this, and I also would be remiss if I didn't say something about the staff. They have done a fantastic job. They work incredible hours to get these bills ready for the floor, and they have done a good job on this one, too.

Mr. Chair, I congratulate them and thank them for their work.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, alongside my esteemed colleagues Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, to recognize the committed staff at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site's Integrated Waste Treatment Unit (IWTU). In the face of many challenges, the employees who supported IWTU demonstrated professionalism, expertise, dedication to the mission, and exemplified the spirit of American innovation.

IWTU engineers, scientists, crafts specialists, plant operators, and administration professionals always believed they could overcome the challenges of this first-of-a-kind radioactive liquid waste treatment facility. Following its construction from 2007 to 2011, the IWTU underwent testing of its steam-reforming process, which was chosen to solidify 900,000 gallons of liquid sodium-bearing waste from an underground tank farm. This waste was generated during the INL's spent nuclear fuel reprocessing mission during the height of the Cold War.

From the first demonstration run at the IWTU in 2012, mechanical problems were apparent as metal filters became plugged, resulting in a quick shutdown of the facility. During subsequent runs, further mechanical problems surfaced as well as chemistry challenges within the IWTU's primary reaction vessel. The Department of Energy (DOE) and its contractors didn't give up. Together, they devised a plan to systematically identify and resolve all problems. They employed some of the brightest scientists at the INL and across the country, worked with academia in several states, and utilized the resources of corporate and small businesses. In all, engineers, scientists, and fabricators made hundreds of modifications to the IWTU, and with each subsequent demonstration run, the facility became more reliable and predictable.

On April 11, 2023, 16 years after construction began, IWTU operators were given permission to start radiological operations. At first, 10 percent radioactive liquid waste was blended with 90 percent simulant. This ratio was increased to 50:50 and later to 100 percent sodium- bearing waste. For those on the project who sacrificed countless weekends, holidays, and quality time with family, this moment was the culmination of years of committed work for a greater cause.

I want to thank all the Idaho Environmental Coalition employees who have supported this project. Their contributions are protecting the Snake River Plain Aquifer, which is the primary source of drinking water and agricultural water for more than 300,000 Idahoans. Furthermore, their actions in treating legacy Cold War waste and closing these sites pave the way for future nuclear research work in Idaho.

I would like to join my distinguished colleagues Senators Crapo and Risch, in congratulating the IWTU team on this extremely important achievement. They represent the most talented and committed individuals in the DOE Complex. Perhaps more importantly, they represent the greatest of our country and the ingenuity that makes the United States stand out in the world.

Mr. Speaker, on Roll Call No. 385, I mistakenly voted NAY when I intended to vote YEA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, alongside my esteemed colleagues Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, to pay tribute to the extraordinary life of Frank F. Smith. It is with great sadness that we mourn his passing on July 7th of this year. Frank was a man of unwavering integrity, dedicating his life to serving his country and his fellow veterans.

Frank was raised in a home that instilled in him the values of patriotism, hard work, and compassion. His father was a former Lt. Colonel of the Army Air Corps and U.S. Air Force. Frank went on to follow in his father's footsteps and served in the U.S. Air Force.

During the Vietnam War, from 1964 to 1968, Frank proudly served in the Air Force at Edwards Air Force Base in Kern County, California. His contributions were instrumental in the development of experimental aircraft, many of which would later be utilized in the Vietnam War.

Frank's distinguished military career garnered him numerous accolades, including the National Defense Service Medal, Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon, Air Force Longevity Service Award Ribbon, and Air Force Good Conduct Medal. In recognition of his exceptional service, he was honored with the Spirit of Freedom Award in 2017.

Following his retirement from the Air Force, Frank dedicated 16 years of his life as the Information Technology Director for the Eastern Idaho Regional Medical Center. Additionally, he established his own business providing IT services in Eastern Idaho.

Frank actively engaged with several meaningful organizations, serving as a lifetime member of the American Legion and the Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA). Notably, he held prominent leadership roles, including President of the VVA-972, Idaho Falls Bob Taylor Memorial Chapter, and he played a pivotal role in establishing the American Legion Riders in Idaho, where he served as director for the Department of Idaho and the Idaho Falls Chapter. Furthermore, he wholeheartedly contributed to the Idaho Falls and Pocatello Idaho military affairs committees.

Frank saw his role as a founding member and the driving force of the Veterans Mobility Corporation (VMC) as his greatest achievement. Established in 2015, the VMC tirelessly endeavors to provide electric wheelchairs to veterans, their spouses, and children. To date, the VMC has furnished 378 electric wheelchairs, significantly improving the lives of veterans and their families.

Frank's unwavering dedication to assisting others, particularly his fellow veterans, leaves an indelible mark. He exemplified a life of compassion and selflessness. Frank will be remembered by many as a man who made a profound difference in their lives. His memory and legacy will forever inspire us and shall never fade away.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored today, along with my esteemed colleagues, Senator Mike Crapo and Senator Jim Risch, to recognize the retirement of Kurt Nelson from the U.S. Forest Service. After 45 years of service as a United States Forest Service employee, Kurt retired on June 3, 2023.

Kurt started his career on June 4, 1978, in the Carson National Forest as a Wildlife Biologist. He was quickly reassigned to the Chugach National Forest as a Wildlife and Fisheries Biologist. In 1985, he was promoted to District Ranger in the Cordova Ranger District until August of 1988, when he accepted the Forest Staff Officer position in the Payette National Forest. In 1994, he joined the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project as Terrestrial Science Team Co- leader. The ``Columbia Basin'' Project was a monumental project that still impacts how forests and irrigation projects are managed today.

In 1995, Kurt accepted the Ketchum Ranger District position in the Sawtooth National Forest and since then he has served the community, elected officials, partners, and agencies across the Wood River Valley. Kurt has served as Agency administrator on fires all over the region and has spent countless hours sharing his wealth of knowledge with new employees on fire assignments.

His knowledge and leadership during fire season was invaluable, most notably for the Castle Rock Fire 2007 (48,000 acres), Beaver Creek Fire 2013 (113,000 acres), and Sharps Fire 2018 (65,000 acres). Each of these three fires were Type 1 long duration fires during peak August visitor seasons, which required up to 2,000 fire personnel and resulted in no serious injuries and only one home lost. There was, however, a severe impact to the local economy and the evacuation of several thousand people. Because of Kurt's excellent leadership, the agency received strong community support throughout the fires' durations and the following debris flows that damaged trails, bridges, and roads.

Kurt's leadership has also led to outstanding partnerships with the local community, a few of which include the 5BRC Coalition, Wood River Trails Coalition, National Forest Foundation, and Blaine County. Combining public and private support has allowed the Ketchum Ranger District to successfully rebuild over 100 miles of trails, rebuild several miles of road, and relocate roads out of riparian zones prone to washout and flooding. Kurt's assistance in developing these partnerships was instrumental in restoring iconic structures, developing recreational trails, and providing resources to local tribes.

There are several significant projects in the Wood River Valley area which can be attributed directly to Kurt's leadership and community relationships: the Bald Mountain Stewardship Project, the restoration of the iconic Pioneer Cabin, development of the world renowned Osberg Ridge Trail, and the Adams Gulch adaptive sports trail and trailhead which allows people of all abilities to enjoy mountain biking.

I thank Kurt for his loyal service to the Forest Service and to Idaho. We appreciated working with him. I hope he enjoys his well- deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for personal reasons from votes on May 23rd and 24th. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 232, YEA on Roll Call No. 233, and YEA on Roll Call No. 234.

Mr. Speaker, with my colleagues Senator Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, I rise today to honor the exceptional and distinguished career of Mr. Robert D. Boston. Mr. Boston has dedicated more than 38 years to federal service, that includes his 23 years of service at the U.S. Department of Energy.

Mr. Boston has led an impressive life and career, and we are most grateful for his leadership role as the Manager of the Department of Energy's Idaho Operations Office--a position he has honorably served in for many years. In this role, he has been responsible for oversight of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), the nation's leading nuclear energy research, development, and demonstration laboratory; and for providing oversight of the environmental cleanup and waste management mission at the Idaho site.

As Deputy Manager and later Manager, he was instrumental in negotiating agreements between the Department of Energy and the State of Idaho. Many of these agreements have been critical to establishing the INL as the nation's lead nuclear research and development laboratory. Under his leadership, a path was created in the agreement for the INL to receive spent nuclear fuel for research purposes and an approach was developed for the handling of spent fuel from important on-site reactor demonstrations. These elements will ensure ongoing missions at the Lab.

The INL is home to the world's most powerful test reactor, the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR). This test reactor serves as the flagship irradiation facility in the U.S. and can simultaneously support a variety of experiments for multiple customers like the Department of Energy, the U.S. Navy, or university and industry partners. During his tenure, Mr. Boston oversaw the important maintenance overhaul of ATR Core Internals Changeout VI. The 11-month outage, the longest and most complex outage in ATR history, was completed in March of 2022 and will enable the nation's principal test reactor to continue safe operations critical to the Department's research portfolio and security mission.

Mr. Boston played a key role in DOE history when he led the effort to restart the Transient Test Reactor in 2017. This transient reactor facility, also known as TREAT, is a unique national asset and is now providing the Nation with a testing capability that has been missing since 1994. While in operation at INL, TREAT will help shape the future of clean energy and foster new ways to bring innovative reactor technologies to the market.

Under his leadership, the INL completed many major infrastructure improvements, and significantly improved research and development capabilities with state-of-the-art equipment and facilities. In addition to these improvements, Mr. Boston has also been involved in establishing new and innovative reactor projects, including the Versatile Test Reactor, the PELE Department of Defense reactor, and the Microreactor Applications Research Validation and Evaluation project (MARVEL), among others.

Mr. Boston will also leave an enduring impression on the future generations of nuclear engineers in Idaho. He is adjunct faculty at Idaho State University (ISU) and a member of the ISU Reactor Safety Committee, ISU Engineering Advisory Board, and the ISU Health Physics Advisory Board.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Boston's leadership has had a lasting impact on the advancement of the Idaho National Laboratory, the Nation's nuclear energy program and national security missions. We sincerely thank Mr. Boston for his dedicated service to our state and country and wish him well in this next chapter of his life.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today alongside my esteemed colleagues, Senator Mike Crapo and Senator James E. Risch, to commend the students and staff of Canyon Ridge High School for their outstanding achievement in being named a National Banner School by Special Olympics. This recognition is a testament to the school's unwavering dedication to fostering a welcoming environment where all students, regardless of ability, are valued.

Canyon Ridge High School has demonstrated a commitment to excellence by meeting and surpassing the ten standards necessary to receive this prestigious award. Through the implementation of a three-component model, which includes Special Olympics Unified Sports, strong youth leadership, and whole school engagement, Canyon Ridge High School has truly set a high bar for education.

The school's commitment to Unified Sports, where students with and without intellectual disabilities play on the same team, is exceptional. From soccer in the fall, to basketball and bowling in the winter, and track and pickleball in the spring, these sports serve as a shining example of bringing people together.

Furthermore, Canyon Ridge High School's Student Council has shown outstanding leadership by planning the 2022 Junior Prom, decorating the school for every holiday, planning assemblies, service projects, and other school-wide activities. The ``Take the Lead'' class, which allows students of all abilities to create a senior-like ``passion project,'' is yet another example of the school's commitment to fostering leadership and empowerment among its students.

Finally, Canyon Ridge High School's whole school engagement efforts ensure that every student is part of the school's culture. From the ``Pennies for Possibilities'' service project to the school-wide assemblies that recognize the Unified Sports players and the ``HAWK'' Awards, all students are given the opportunity to feel valued and respected.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in commending the students and staff at Canyon Ridge High School for their tireless efforts in achieving this tremendous honor. They have truly set the standard for empowering education, and we are proud to recognize their achievement today.