Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I fully support Chairman Perry's amendment.

This agency is a rogue agency. Let me give an example to my friend to my left. The CFPB is irresponsible and reckless. In February 2023, a CFPB employee made an unauthorized transfer of records to a personal email account containing personal information of 256,000 customers. It affected over 45 institutions.

We sat with Mr. Chopra during a hearing. He is unregulated. I don't know if you have ever been on a bank board, but they are the most regulated group.

Do you know who pays the price, the fines, that they come up with through vague, in today's world, climate change? All these customers up here that are trying to borrow money.

It never should have existed. To keep it funded and to keep it as it exists with the personnel, we are going backward.

Mr. Chair, I fully support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, what my amendment does is prohibits the use of funds to finalize, implement, or enforce a proposed rule titled: ``Conflicts of Interest Associated With the Use of Predictive Data Analytics by Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers.''

On July 26, 2023, the SEC proposed a new rule that requires broker- dealers and investment advisers to confront challenges posed by predictive data analytics and related technologies like artificial intelligence. They did this despite no evidence that this technology harms investors.

While technological innovation has significantly enhanced the financial industry's capabilities in auditing, reporting, recordkeeping, trading, and surveillance, the SEC's proposed rule, despite claiming to be technology-neutral, appears to be fundamentally hostile to these advancements.

This rule creates a comprehensive regulatory regime governing any analytical or computational tool whereby information potentially relevant to investments is presented to the public.

This misguided, paternalistic rule declares it is a ``conflict of interest'' for a firm to communicate to customers any information generated using technology that so much as ``takes into consideration'' any interest of the firm.

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

Mr. Chair, just like my good friend from Arkansas said, any time I hear an arm of the Federal Government say it is going to protect the public, that means another fine, that means another tax, that means another regulatory commission controlled by bureaucrats.

This proposal is misguided and rests on the false premise that delivering information to customers should be presumed harmful simply because it is consistent with the firm's interests.

The new rules would also impose significant operational challenges and expensive burdens on broker-dealers and investment advisers that use virtually any technology to any degree, without citing any compelling authority or evidence of abuse or wrongdoing.

It is abuse at its highest. It is vague at its highest.

The scope of the new rule also presents challenges. As SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce observed, the proposed definition of covered technology could include technologies long used by broker-dealers and investment advisers, such as spreadsheets, commonly used software, math formulas, and statistical tools.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, what my amendment does is prohibit the use of funds by the OMB to consider the ``social cost of greenhouse gases.'' Try to define ``social costs.'' It will just result in another fine by government bureaucrats. It is used in the development and implementation of budgets, Federal procurement processes, or environmental reviews.

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

Democrats use the social cost of greenhouse gas metrics to justify sweeping climate policies, strict regulations, and, I might add, strict fines.

This impacts everything, from purchasing goods or services to conducting environmental reviews for all kinds of projects and levying climate penalties against private businesses. This is against every private business that is under a lot of stress right now in this country. This is all this bureaucratic process does.

The social cost of greenhouse gases is an extremely inefficient policymaking tool that can easily be manipulated. By boosting the climate cost of projects, regulators could use the social cost of carbon to derail everything from energy to infrastructure projects, not to mention the cost of complying.

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

Mr. Chairman, again, this is just another attempt by this radical administration to put up another commission to fleece the American taxpayers who are struggling as it is.

On January 21, 2021, President Biden signed the radical climate Executive Order No. 13990, which established an Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases and directed the working group to publish interim estimates of the social cost of carbon, nitrous oxide, and methane.

President Biden is now directing agencies to consider the SC-GHG in the development and implementation of their budgets, Federal procurement processes, and environmental reviews.

Social cost of greenhouse gases metrics are inefficient policymaking tools used to justify sweeping, radical climate policies and strict regulations that are interpreted by lifelong bureaucrats.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, 12 States, including South Carolina, filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration, claiming his calculations and use of the social cost of greenhouse gases are arbitrary and capricious and would harm their local economies.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, what my amendment does is prohibits funding for the SEC's proposed rule titled: ``Substantial Implementation, Duplication, and Resubmission of Shareholder Proposals Under Exchange Act Rule 14a-8.''

Since its origins in the 1940s, the shareholder proposal process has evolved from a modest effort to give shareholders an additional tool for influencing corporate governance to a complex and overpoliticized process.

Under the current SEC rules, even small shareholders who meet the $2,000 ownership requirement for at least 3 years can submit proposals on public company ballots. This process is overwhelmingly exploited by activists driven by social or political agendas and leads to hundreds of resolutions being filed related to environmental, social, and political issues rather than focusing on a company's growth and competitiveness.

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

Mr. Chairman, any time I hear the Federal government say they are going to streamline anything, it kind of raises my eyebrows.

In fact, based on the SEC's own data, a single shareholder proposal can impose costs of more than $100,000, with many firms reporting significantly higher costs, which are ultimately borne by that company's shareholders.

Congress never granted the SEC authority to make it mandatory for companies to include shareholder proposals in corporate proxy statements, especially after companies already rejected substantially similar politically charged proposals.

Not only does this rule overstep the authority given to the SEC, but it also raises numerous constitutional concerns and is a clear violation of the First Amendment's prohibition on government-compelled speech.

Political performance does not belong in the boardroom. Instead, companies should focus on maximizing shareholder value.

Again, all this does is add another bureaucratic nightmare to the taxpayers that are already struggling.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, this is just another long list that you have witnessed today and really all through this administration of bureaucratic overreach and fines to administer on the taxpayer.

What my amendment does is prohibit use of funds to implement, finalize, or enforce a proposed rule titled: ``Enhanced Disclosures by Certain Investment Advisers and Investment Companies About Environmental, Social, and Government Investment Practices.''

On May 25, 2022, the SEC proposed rules that mandate additional disclosures for funds incorporating or contemplating ESG factors in their investment strategies.

If adopted, the rule would reflect a significant shift in the SEC's current disclosures regime for private fund sponsors by focusing disclosure on a particular targeted aspect of the investment process.

The primary purpose of this rule is to address the risk of greenwashing and furnish investors with more comprehensive information regarding ESG strategies.

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

Mr. Chair, I take issue with my good friend on the opposite aisle. In fact, I would note the Supreme Court's recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA raises concerns about the Commission's ability to implement both this proposal and the broader Climate Disclosure Rule under the major questions doctrine.

This is overexcessive. It is excessively broad, intricate, overly prescriptive, and vague. Again, this is just another bureaucratic commission set up to fleece the taxpayers and fleece the people that made this country.

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

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Mr. Steil, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, like so many amendments that I, along with many others, introduced today, this is an assault on the taxpayers and more bureaucratic red tape that they want the taxpayers to pay for.

Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to implement the SEC's ``Staff Legal Bulletin 14L,'' also known as SLB 14L. This staff legal bulletin allows the SEC staff to open up a big loophole for activist proposals to the detriment of American workers and retirement savers.

It is either doing one or two things: paying staff twice or hiring staff to do something that was not anticipated by the SEC.

Traditionally, under rule 14a-8, public companies could request a no- action letter from the SEC allowing them to exclude shareholder proposals that are irrelevant to the company's business.

The SLB, or staff legal bulletin, said they will not issue no-action letters if a proposal concerns an issue with a broad societal impact. I don't even know what that is, ``a broad societal impact.'' Try defining that.

In other words, it doesn't matter if a shareholder proposal is illegal or irrelevant to the company. If it is on a significant social policy issue of broad societal impact--whatever that is--it has to be considered.

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

Mr. Chairman, basically, what my friends on the opposite side of the aisle are saying is that investors are too stupid to know where they put their money, if it is legitimate or not--get this--and they need help from staff judgments to decide which societal policy issues to prioritize. This is basically saying the American people are stupid.

Nobody should be surprised that this has led to a spike in ESG- related shareholder proposals.

Again, this political performance does not belong in the boardrooms. Companies should be governed to a maximum shareholder value on our retirement plans that should work toward healthy returns. I guess they are going to get the staff judgments to say if they are healthy returns or not.

Allowing the SEC to politicize the shareholders' proposals hurts workers, retirement savers, and the American people.

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

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Mr. Steil, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, much like the previous amendment to stop the assault on the American taxpayer, I rise in support of this amendment to prohibit funds for the SEC's 2022 proxy adviser rule.

By issuing this new rule, the Biden SEC gutted key safeguards from the previous administration. Those safeguards provided sorely needed accountability and transparency for the proxy adviser industry.

ISS and Glass Lewis, the two main proxy adviser firms, control 97 percent of the market for proxy advice. The businesses that manage our retirement savings rely on these firms when deciding how to vote on corporate governance issues.

The two that they rely on control 97 percent. They are the ones that have

the expertise, and to say anything different is just flatout wrong and not in reality.

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

Mr. Chair, I will close with the fact that, instead, this powerful duopoly is fueling a movement to weaponize your retirement funds to basically push a political agenda that this Biden administration has been so adamant on. Both firms often recommend in favor of harmful ESG measures and proposals that violate State or local law. They have a long track record of costly factual errors and uncontrolled conflicts of interest.

The 2022 Biden administration rule lets proxy advisers continue to push a political agenda and make bad recommendations. Our retirement savings should be geared toward higher returns and not political objectives.

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

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Mr. Nehls, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the salary of

Ann Carlson, who is the acting administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to $1.

While we abhor her radical climate change agenda, questionable ethics investigation, and overall policy decisions, the reason for my amendment is because Ms. Carlson is serving as acting administrator after she failed to clear the Senate confirmation process for the position.

In March of 2023, the Biden administration submitted Ms. Carlson's nomination for the National Highway Traffic Safety administrator. Before the Senate could vote on her nomination and after Senator Cruz led an effective opposition, the White House pulled her nomination once it was obvious that she was not going to be confirmed.

After the Senate effectively rejected her nomination, the White House nominated her to that same role as an acting official anyway, circumventing the Advice and Consent clause in the United States Constitution on Presidential nominations.

I view this as a constitutional overreach and a violation of the Federal Vacancy Reform Act, and so do our counterparts in the Senate.

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

Mr. Chairman, in September of this year, 13 Republican Commerce Committee Senators sent a letter to President Biden urging him to immediately replace Ms. Carlson and appoint a new nominee.

The letter highlights that since Ms. Carlson's nomination is a violation of the Federal Vacancy Reform Act, all the agency's actions while she has held herself out as acting administrator should be voided.

This is an unacceptable situation for the Department of Transportation. Congress represents a coequal branch of government, and this administration isn't a monarchy. Congress must hold this administration accountable, and I urge all Members to vote for my amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Mr. Nehls from Texas, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds being made available for the Federal Transit Administration's Electric or Low-Emitting Ferry Pilot Program.

This $250 million program simply serves to further Joe Biden's radical climate change agenda and fund Green New Deal pet projects to support coastal elitists in blue States.

As an example, the San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority received $3.4 million to construct a new zero- emissions ferry. The Casco Bay Island Transit in Portland, Maine, received $3.6 million to replace a passenger ferry with a new ferry equipped with a diesel hybrid propulsion system. The Kitsap Transit in Kitsap County, Washington, received $7.7 million to replace a diesel vessel with a new, environmentally friendly battery-electric passenger- only ferry and necessary charging infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on. This is not the taxpayers' burden to bear these individual pet projects that I just named.

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

Mr. Chairman, those words are just another banner of pet projects. This is what the public is sick and tired of in this country, especially when we are $33 trillion in debt.

Overall, ferries play a minor role in the United States transportation system, providing roughly 1 percent of the public transportation trips in 2019--1 percent. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act more than tripled the annual dedicated ferry funding, setting aside $2.3 billion, with a b, for ferry funding.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, stop this boondoggle, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment reduces the salary of Julia Gordon, who is the Assistant Secretary for Housing and the Federal Housing Commissioner, to $1.

Ms. Gordon has a long history of anti-police rhetoric that makes her unfit for public office. Among other things, she retweeted an inflammatory post that described police officers as ``the people killing us.''

She also suggested in a letter that she wrote--not a tweet or a retweet--that cases of police violence are not just outliers but ``. . . stem from flawed and biased systems that require structural change.''

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

Mr. Chairman, in response, it is her words that are inflammatory in a day and time that is uncalled for. My view is shared by the National Sheriffs' Association, a leading law enforcement group that opposed her nomination.

Ms. Gordon also has a troubling history of denigrating her fellow Americans residing in southern States, as I do. She retweeted an article that asserted the South has rejected nearly everything that is good about this country and has become just one big nuclear waste site of extremely radicalized resentment. That is unheard of.

We should not spend another dollar on paying her salary. By the way, she makes $158,500, and when you add all the other things with it, she is probably closer to $200,000.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to adopt my amendment, and I yield the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits use of funds for the consideration of the social cost of greenhouse gases--and I don't know how they define social costs--in the development and implementation of budgets, Federal procurement, or environmental reviews.

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

Democrats use the social cost of greenhouse gases metrics to justify sweeping climate policies and strict regulations. This impacts everything from purchasing goods and services, conducting environmental reviews of all kinds, and levying climate penalties against private businesses.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Mr. Chair, as Sheriff Rutherford said, the social cost of greenhouse gases is an extremely inefficient policymaking tool that can be manipulated.

The Biden administration continues to use unproven figures to attempt to

justify its radical environmental policies that drive up the cost of every family in this country today.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits the use of funds for the implementation of the rule entitled ``Equal Access in Accordance with an Individual's Gender Identity in Community Planning and Development Programs.''

My amendment defunds an Obama administration's Housing and Urban Development rule that requires equal access for individuals in accordance with their gender identity in shelter programs that are funded from HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development. This means women and young children can be housed in shelters with a male stranger simply because these men identify as women.

Mr. Chairman, think about the impact this has on residents of female- only shelters when men who claim to be women are allowed to share bathrooms and shower access.

These concerns are not hypothetical. In California, nine homeless women filed a civil complaint after a homeless shelter enabled sexual harassment because a male identifying as a female entered the shelter and showered with a woman. In Alaska, a faith-based shelter filed a lawsuit because female residents would rather sleep in the woods in extremely cold temperatures than get harassed alongside a biological male.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is amazing we even have to debate this. It just shows that my friends on the opposite side of the aisle support the perpetrators of the crime rather than the victims of the crime.

Forcing women and children to share their private spaces with biological men is wrong. It is dangerous in any setting, but especially in a setting as intimate and vulnerable as a homeless shelter.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

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

Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment prohibits funds from being

used to purchase or lease a vehicle for use by the Secretary of Transportation.

Two years ago, Secretary Buttigieg was gifted with a taxpayer-funded Mustang Mach-E for dedicated use. The retail value of this electric SUV was valued at more than $40,000 and proudly assembled in Detroit, Michigan, USA, the auto capital of the world.

No. I am just kidding.

The Ford Mustang Mach-E has since been recalled for battery issues. Apparently the battery cannot handle owners flooring it. It was made in Mexico by foreign workers.

Putting aside the Secretary's own tone-deaf decision to use taxpayers' funds to purchase a not-made-in-America vehicle, Mr. Buttigieg's noted proclivity for the finer things in life apparently extended to any mode of transportation.

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

Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ogles), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, if there is one thing that my colleagues, Republican or Democrat, can agree on, it is that government corruption undermines faith in our Republic, and none more than this present administration.

It would, therefore, be astounding to see or hear any Democrat attempt to justify opposition to this simple amendment that would prohibit funds for air travel by the Secretary of Transportation, or any other, in economy class on a commercial flight.

In February, we learned that the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Transportation was opening an audit into Secretary Buttigieg's extensive use of private jets. Despite the Secretary's own rhetoric on the need to combat global warming, in the first 2 years of the Biden administration, Mr. Buttigieg took at least 18 flights using taxpayer-funded private jets.

Make no mistake, there is no excuse for Secretary Buttigieg to waste taxpayers' money on private planes when commercial options were readily available to him.

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

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Mr. Ogles, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, access to affordable, reliable cars and trucks is critical to every facet of American life.

Instead of ensuring that Americans have access, the Biden administration has included a multifront fight against the internal combustion engine as a centerpiece of its war on American consumers.

On this front, it is the new corporate average fuel economy standards, known as CAFE, for 2027 to 2032, which ratchet fuel economy standards to require automakers to meet a fleet average of 58 miles per gallon.

You might as well put a top on a riding mower. Good luck with trying to get that kind of mileage.

Based on EPA's list of most efficient vehicles, no vehicle for model year 2023, even including the small hybrids, reaches 58 miles per gallon. A bicycle would probably be over 58 miles per gallon. There is no path to reaching a fleet average, which would include larger vehicles, that high in less than 10 years.

These standards will fail to increase actual vehicle efficiency because automakers already know that the goal is unachievable, and they won't waste their time trying to comply.

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

Mr. Chair, this is more than just words. This is going to force American taxpayers to pay fines for falling short, which will increase the price of any new car with an internal combustion engine by thousands of dollars.

Biden has made it clear all along that his goal isn't to improve gas- powered cars but to eliminate them in favor of electric vehicles. If you talk to any car dealer, no one is buying them. Unless they had subsidies, they wouldn't be selling.

For many drivers, EVs simply aren't a viable option. They may not have a garage and may rely on street parking. They may live in an area where the electric infrastructure can't support the fast charging of an EV. They may drive long distances where, when you run out of electricity, good luck.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I have been sitting here for about an hour listening to the debate back and forth on amendments. The amendments the Republicans are putting up are wanting to put some fiscal sanity back in this House. My good friends on the left are wanting to spend more money. The priorities and the cancer in this country is the bankruptcy of America. The amendments I have will offer to cut programs that need to be cut.

Amendment 108 prohibits funding for the American Climate Corps. My amendment would prohibit funding for the American Climate Corps that the Biden administration recently established through executive order. This costs, by the way, $30 billion. The Biden administration describes the American Climate Corps as a workforce training and service initiative for careers in clean energy and climate reliance economy. As part of the administration's Justice40 goal, the Corps will focus on equity and environmental justice. The American Climate Corps will cost, as I mentioned, $30 billion.

Instead of funding Democrats' woke climate agenda, why don't we focus on

a pro-growth agenda that spurs the economy and prioritizes American energy independence?

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

Mr. Chair, I met a lot of the young people in the Corps. They are good people. They build bridges. They build roads in our national forests. Now, to task them with stopping storms and stopping hurricanes, that is preposterous. They do active work. To say they can effect that is just, it is laughable if it wasn't so serious.

Democrats want to focus on social movements and further entrench environmental justice in the bureaucracy. These priorities are misguided and harmful. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and ensure that we don't waste more valuable taxpayer dollars and resources to fund the Biden administration's radical climate agenda.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this is another spend-a-thon by my friends from the left. My amendment would prohibit funding for the rule titled, ``Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards.''

My good friend, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller) and her family are big time farmers in Illinois, and anybody that farms the land--let me tell you what this is going to affect. As far as the actual vehicles, it affects all models in model year 2027.

EPA last tightened the NOX emissions standards for heavy- duty vehicles in 2001. The new standards are 80 percent more stringent than the current rules. The examples of heavy-duty trucks, it is going to affect every farm in this country. It applies to engines used and a broad spectrum of heavy-duty vehicles, including trucks from class 2b. That is the Ford F-250 through the class 8. These are semitrucks. It affects mobile homes. It affects schoolbuses. It affects pickup trucks and vans. The cost is from $2,568 per vehicle up to $8,304 for new equipment on semitrucks.

The American Truck Dealers estimates it is more likely a $42,000 increase. That is per truck. Talk about putting people out of business. Talk about attacking farmers and everyday Americans. This overreach of government could reach over $55 billion in the lifetime of the program.

I urge my colleagues on the left to reconsider this vast overreach of government.

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

Mr. Chair, the compliance cost is unbelievably high. Owners and operators of trucks will be forced to leave the market or keep less safe trucks on the road.

According to the Truckload Carriers Association, the rule outpaces available technology and would worsen the already tight equipment market.

I hope everyone that is tuning in tonight listens to what this amendment will do to every American in this country, regardless if you are a farmer. If you just own a pickup truck, this is what we are talking about.

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

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment would prohibit funding for policies that advance the Biden administration's radical diversity, equity, and inclusion agenda.

Specifically, my amendment would prohibit the use of funds for the Department of the Interior's Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Civil Rights. This office's goal is to promote equity and justice for all Americans. What does that mean? I think what they mean is they want equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity. What this does is further entrenches environmental justice in the bureaucracy in and of itself.

From the military to corporations to Federal agencies, we have seen time and time again that the DEI mission fosters tribalism in the workplace, undermines our shared American identity, and distracts from the missions of our Federal agencies.

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

Mr. Chair, I close out by saying the cancer in this country is the $33 trillion in debt. Companies have to expend funds for this, which the interest alone is over $20,000 per second. Woke programs have got to be dealt with. The only way you deal with them is cut their funding.

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

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment would prohibit funding for the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. This is another bureaucratic nightmare that businesses are having to put up with.

This amendment would prohibit funds from being used by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases. This group was originally convened by the Obama administration before being disbanded by the Trump administration and reimposed through Biden's radical climate Executive Order No. 13990. Democrats use the social cost of greenhouse gas metrics to justify sweeping climate policies and strict regulations that are vague and have no ending to the cost.

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

Mr. Chair, I close by saying that by boosting the climate cost of projects, regulators can use the social cost of carbon to derail everything from energy to infrastructure projects. Agencies can also use a higher value to justify new regulations on everything from power plants to appliances in the home. This administration has attacked every appliance known to man, including the gas stove.

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

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

Mr. Chair, what my amendment does is it reduces the salary of Tracy Stone-Manning, director of the Bureau of Land Management, to $1.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale), my good friend.

Mr. Chair, I will add that you are not firing anybody. You are just reducing their salary to what, in the minds of this body, they believe that it is worth. A dollar is plenty of money for what this lady does. By the way, she makes $148,500.

In the words of Bob Abbey, who was the first BLM Director under President Obama, he said that Stone-Manning's involvement with tree spiking should disqualify her from leading the agency.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will reduce the salary of Michael Regan, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, to the large sum of $1.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller), my good farmer friend.

Mr. Chair, I just take issue, a dollar is--we are providing a person an opportunity to volunteer, which is a tremendous opportunity. Mr. Chairman, if you want to be serious about combating emissions and supporting good environmental policies, why don't we start with getting countries like India and Communist China to reduce their pollution? Nobody says anything about that from the left.

This administration is only interested in creating unfair, costly, and burdensome regulations that will kill American jobs. I am a developer. The gentlewoman mentioned solar panels. We priced them.

Mr. Chairman, guess where most of the components of solar panels are made?

China, which is not exactly a friend.

Mr. Regan's salary is a whopping $183,000. Like I said, we are promoting volunteerism and doing good work for mankind.

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

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment would prohibit the funding for EPA's Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Workgroup. This group is, in their own words, committed to fostering an inclusive and respectful culture and improving justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. It commits to training and educating members on the implicit biases and historical environmental injustices.

Mr. Chair, you can look on their website to a page of resources with hundreds of woke documents. I will read just a few for my colleagues: The Whiteness of America, ``Remaking Manhood: The Battle Against Dominance-Based Masculine Culture,'' and Greed's Not Good: 10 Movies That Expertly Criticize Capitalism.

This is the one thing that has made America the greatest country in the world.

Another one is 23 Movies for Those Days When the Patriarchy's Got You Down. Another one is Inclusive Scientific Meetings. I don't know what that is.

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

Mr. Chair, I just urge my colleagues to accept my amendment. If there were a salary I could cut, I would cut every bit of it. Taxpayers don't deserve this type of supposed work encouraging these types of things that are being done in this country.

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

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

Mr. Chair, my amendment gives another member of the Biden administration's paid employees a chance for volunteerism and doing well for mankind.

It reduces the salary of Deb Haaland, who is the Secretary of the Interior, to a dollar. She is currently making $221,400. She holds extreme land and energy views, like support for the Green New Deal and opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.

We are being forced to buy from OPEC countries that hate America that are funding Hamas now, and that is what this lady was for, doing away with the Keystone XL pipeline.

She has used the power of the Department of the Interior to implement her radical agenda at the expense of hardworking Americans.

Under her leadership she has shut down pipelines, delayed federally mandated onshore and offshore leases, repealed commonsense regulations, shuttered mining projects, and much more with no regard for how these actions have and will continue to raise energy costs, eliminate American jobs, and harm our national security and increase reliance on foreign energy sources.

We should not spend another dollar of taxpayer money funding her salary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale), my good friend.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dedicated public servant, Teri E. George, whose remarkable career with the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) exemplifies unwavering commitment and tireless dedication to the protection and security of the Carolinas and our great Nation.

Ms. Teri E. George's career began in 1993 with U.S. Customs. Her decades-long career has been marked by steadfast loyalty to her responsibilities. a deep sense of duty, and an unwavering commitment to the core principles of public service. Her retirement on December 31, 2023, is a milestone that marks thirty years and eleven months of exceptional service to our country.

In 2003, with the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, Ms. George seamlessly transitioned to the Customs and Border Protection agency . Her adaptability and ability to excel in a dynamic and ever- changing environment are a testament to her competence and leadership within the organization.

Ms. George's contributions to CBP have been significant, with the majority of her careel spent as the Supervisory Mission Suppo it Specialist for the Area Port of Charlotte. In this vital role, she oversaw crucial functions, including budget management, personnel actions, logistics, and facilities for ports of entry in North Carolina.

Ms. George's work as the Supervisory Mission Support Specialist ensured that the necessary resources and infrastructure were available to facilitate the essential operations of Customs and Border Protection across the Carolinas. Her tireless efforts helped to maintain the efficiency and effectiveness of CBP operations, safeguarding our nation's borders and enhancing our homeland security.

The dedication, expertise, and commitment that Ms. Teri George displayed throughout her career are commendable and deserving of the highest recognition. Her contributions have left an indelible mark on the Deparlment of Homeland Security and the United States Customs and Border Protection, further enhancing our nation's security and prosperity.

As Ms. George embarks on a well-earned retirement, I extend my heartfelt gratitude and best wishes for the next chapter in her life. I want to express deep appreciation on behalf of the whole community for her unwavering commitment to public service and her outstanding contributions to the security of our Nation.

Her legacy will continue to inspire those who follow in her footsteps, and her dedication to public service will remain a shining example to all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding citizen, Mr. Barry Chastain, a remarkable individual who has devoted over 38 years to federal service. Currently serving as the Area Port Director for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in North Carolina, Mr. Chastain's contributions to the Carolinas and our Nation are immeasurable. In his capacity as the Area Port Director, Mr. Chastain shoulders the responsibility of overseeing six international ports of entry in North Carolina, where he manages a workforce of more than 150 dedicated employees. These ports collectively process over 3.5 million passengers and handle over 4 billion dollars in imported goods annually. Under his vigilant leadership, the seamless flow of legitimate trade coexists with stringent security measures to safeguard our national interests. Mr. Chastain serves as the senior CBP representative to all federal, state, and local law enforcement partners in North Carolina. His ability to foster cooperation and collaboration among these agencies is integral to the safety and well- being of our citizens.

Mr. Chastain's illustrious career extends beyond his current role. His previous leadership assignments within the United States Department of Agriculture's Plant Protection and Quarantine Division in North Carolina exemplify his unwavering dedication to protecting our agricultural and biological resources. He also served as the Officer in Charge in South Carolina and Eastern Georgia, where he provided leadership and innovation to shield our natural resources from invasive plant pests and foreign animal diseases.

Mr. Chastain's career within Customs and Border Protection includes various leadership roles, such as serving as the Assistant Area Port Director for Trade Operations and the Assistant Area Port Director for Passenger and Tactical Operations. In these roles, he managed international passenger clearance programs, trade processing, maritime and military clearance operations, and led all CBP enforcement programs for the Area Port of Charlotte.

Mr. Chastain's commitment to national and regional security extends to his involvement in high-profile national projects, including the Democratic National Convention, the G-8 Summit, and numerous FEMA Region IV hurricane response events. His capacity to manage complex and critical tasks on a large scale is a valuable asset to our nation. Moreover, Mr. Chastain has excelled in establishing stakeholder partnerships and currently serves as an Executive Steering Committee Member of the North Carolina Joint Terrorist Task Force (JTTF). His contributions to this task force are crucial to our state's security efforts. Mr. Chastain's outstanding career in federal service, his commitment to national security, and his exemplary leadership in Customs and Border Protection are truly commendable. The Carolinas and our Nation are fortunate to have such a dedicated public servant. We extend our heartfelt appreciation for his remarkable service.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment would prohibit funding for the Biden administration's rule titled, ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Manufactured Housing.'' It would prohibit the Department of Energy from carrying out regulations that increase the regulatory burdens.

This is a topic that I am very familiar with. I met with the manufacturers of some manufactured housing. For those who don't know, manufactured housing is built in an enclosed environment. What they have done with the passage of the regulations would put the most affordable housing out of business, like changing the rafter sizes from 2 by 2s, 2 by 4s to 2 by 10s or 2 by 8s, 2 by 6s. It is just not practically feasible to do this.

Who would be against the title of an energy conservation program? What this does is much deeper than what this title says.

In May 2022, the DOE developed the energy standards for manufactured homes that would raise the price of new manufactured homes by, in total, thousands of dollars, which would be passed onto the homeowners from cost increases that is far in excess of any return that they would get from the energy savings. Since then, the costs of these DOE standards have become even higher as mortgage rates have increased dramatically.

The standards would limit consumer choices and severely threaten the affordability of new manufactured homes, and this is the most affordable home that the country is now putting on the market. Stick- built homes or building custom homes, as we did in the old days, are just not feasible now.

Manufactured housing represents one of the best opportunities for helping families realize the American Dream, and it counts for roughly 6 percent of the housing stock, this being the largest source of unsubsidized affordable housing in the country.

In South Carolina, one in five South Carolina families lives in a manufactured home. The average price of a new manufactured home is $75,000. The median income of a manufactured home buyer in South Carolina is about 30,000. The availability of affordable manufactured homeownership is in jeopardy if this new regulation is put into effect. We shouldn't trade off housing affordability for the sake of energy efficiency, which will limit the dream of homeownership.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment would prohibit funding for policies that advance the Biden administration's radical DEI agenda, diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Specifically, my amendment would prohibit the use of funds for the Department of Energy's Office of Scientific Workforce Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. This office's mission is to promote diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplaces. Now, even science must bow to equity and inclusion. Science should be rooted in fact and research, not wokeism.

We have seen what happens when DOE prioritizes diversity and inclusion over all else. It results in hiring nonbinary nuclear officials like Sam Brinton, who uses they/them pronouns to address his cohorts.

It is time to be serious. We cannot waste taxpayer dollars funding an office of science whose sole purpose is to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion over science.

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

Madam Chair, I think my good friends on the left don't realize the cost of DEI is borne by the businesses in this country now more than ever when they are paying double and triple for gas and have supply chain shortages, interest rates at a 40-year high, and inflation that we have never seen the likes of.

We have seen what DEI does in the military. The military is down 25 to 30 percent. If you want a definition, define for me the pronouns ``they'' and ``them.'' If you are referring to your fellow coworkers as ``they'' and ``them,'' does that make sense? No, that is the stupidest, craziest idea to even entertain.

People are trying to put food on the table, trying to protect their loved ones, and you are really promoting this with a price tag? You all ought to be ashamed of yourselves for doing this at a time when America is struggling like never before.

It has a price tag to it, and to even have to discuss this is really unbelievable in today's world.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this is my amendment, which is similar to what we talked about before on the DEI lunacy. My amendment would prohibit funds from being used by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases.

The interagency working group was originally convened by the Obama administration before being disbanded by the Trump administration and reimposed through Biden's radical climate Executive Order No. 13990. Democrats use the social cost of greenhouse gas metrics to justify sweeping climate policies and strict regulations.

I will add that President Biden, when asked what the main concerns and threats for America are, mentioned climate change. We have people being blown up over in Israel, and his focus is climate change.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and ensure we don't waste valuable tax dollars and resources to fund the Biden administration's radical climate agenda.

The other thing I would add is we have to, for dollars that are just vaguely named in these bills, see where the money actually goes. I think America would be astounded.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I am glad the gentlewoman mentioned forest fires. If you talk to any forester, this is something we could have a direct impact on.

Do you know how much thatch is causing a lot of these fires? Thatch, in a lot of cases, is this high, and the environmentalists won't let them cut some dead trees and won't let them take the thatch out. How stupid is that? It defies logic.

You mentioned the oceans. Try to explain to anybody in this country how man is going to control the oceans.

We are all for clean water and clean air, but the price tag that is put on these programs that are paying some bureaucrat to give his opinion is, again, lunacy at its highest at a time in this country when Americans cannot afford it.

I promise in your district, if you talk to your constituents and put the price tag on it, I think they would have a different opinion than your President saying that climate change is the biggest existential threat in this country. There are far greater things than that.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, this is similar to the other amendments we have been talking about. This particular amendment, 49, prohibits the use of funds for the consideration of the social cost of greenhouse gases in the development and implementation of budgets, Federal procurement processes, or environmental reviews.

I don't know how you calculate that, but the dollars are going toward it. President Biden is directing agencies to consider the social cost of greenhouse gases in the development and implementation of budgets in the Federal procurement process.

Democrats use the social cost of greenhouse gas metrics to justify funding sweeping climate policies and strict regulations.

Where is it legitimately going to? To my good friends on the left, if it were coming out of your paycheck, I think you would probably have a different opinion of where the money should be used.

This is, again, similar to what we have been talking about. It is similar to what we face in the Financial Services Committee where groups are demanding banks, banks that loan money, fill out 500-page reports on the carbon imprint that banks have. How stupid is that?

Again, this is down the same lines we have talked about.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I wish during a lot of the hearings I have been to and the advocates for us humans controlling the climate and those like Al Gore who says, ``the oceans are boiling''--he literally said that--it fits right in line with this radical agenda that America can't afford now.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment is similar to the others that I have proposed. It prohibits funding for the American Climate Corps that the Biden administration recently established through an executive order. Thank God it is not binding after his administration is gone.

The Biden administration describes the American Climate Corps as a workforce training and service initiative for careers in the clean energy and climate reliance economy. The corps will focus on equity and environmental justice.

Instead of funding Democrats woke climate agenda, why don't you focus on a pro-growth agenda that spurs the economy and prioritizes American energy independence?

Imagine if this administration reversed course and instead of buying it from OPEC countries that hate America, maybe buying it from our country where we have a 100-year supply, if not more, and become energy independent.

I am in the construction business. I haven't seen too many trucks that operate on batteries. When I get on a plane, I don't see too many airplanes flying on batteries or solar panels, much less the batteries that are made predominantly in China, which is a country that doesn't like us.

I urge passage of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I agree with you. The people that joined the corps, they are well-meaning people.

They work. They build trails, as you mentioned. They fix houses up. Their motives are pure, or they wouldn't do that. It requires physical labor. I have met them on-site.

What this does has nothing to do with the good that they do. It just burdens them. In America, we have become the country we were in the past not by guaranteeing equal outcomes but by guaranteeing equal opportunity.

What I want to do is grant the opportunity for people to join the American Climate Corps to reach their highest potential.

It is not putting the money or making them fill out some crazy form like the banks are having to do. For those who have been in the private sector, they would be with us at every level to stop this kind of rampant spending of our tax dollars.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment cuts the salary of the Secretary of the Department of Energy, Jennifer Granholm, to $1. The job that she has done is far below standard by any measure.

She testified and promoted a company in Greenville--my State, not in my district but my State--that she was a former board member on and requested funds from the American taxpayer.

I have learned now with bureaucrats who make wrong decisions, the only way you deal with them is to cut their salary. I recommend that her salary be cut to a dollar.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. James), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the rich history and 150th anniversary of Grace United Methodist Church in Union County--a testament to the enduring spirit of the faith and community among all its members.

Early Methodism found its roots in Union County thanks to the tireless efforts of the renowned Methodist missionary, Francis Asbury, who visited Union County between 1788 and 1802.

By 1826, a ``new'' Methodist church had already been established on North Enterprise Street. Regrettably, it was eventually demolished in 1893 to make way for the Union Cotton Mill facilities.

In 1871, the dream of constructing a stone church was realized, largely due to the generous donation of granite by Benjamin Dudley Culp. The church was fittingly renamed ``Grace'' in honor of this contribution.

Colonel John L. Young, a dedicated church member, businessman, and builder of the Union and Spartanburg Railroad, oversaw the construction. By 1873, the church had taken its current form.

In 1919, further expansion and renovation work transformed Grace United Methodist Church into its present appearance. The center tower on the front was removed, and the belfry tower was raised and given a lower roof. On the right side of the sanctuary, a new section of pews was added, complete with a full basement and rooms on the main floor for a parlor, choir room, and Sunday school classes.

The architectural integration of these changes was so skillful that the addition became virtually seamless. A significant milestone was achieved in 1968 when a new Casavant organ, boasting twenty-one stops, twenty-eight ranks, and 1,476 pipes, was dedicated to the church.

The stained-glass windows in the church add to its beauty and significance. Four unique windows on the left side of the nave are particularly meaningful. The first window features a crown and cross, symbolizing celestial light. The second window displays an anchor, representing hope and fundamental truth. The third window showcases tablets with the Ten Commandments, a reminder of moral laws. The fourth, known as the Holy Bible window, depicts an open book, symbolizing accessibility to all and honoring the memory of Mary Elizabeth Greer, made by her sister, Cornelia Greer Walker.

As I reflect on the history of Grace United Methodist Church, I want to recognize the profound impact it has had on the spiritual and social fabric of Union County. Grace United Methodist Church stands as a timeless testament to the enduring power of faith, community, and the unwavering dedication of its members. May it continue to inspire and uplift the hearts of those who gather within its hallowed walls for generations to come.

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

Mr. Chair, what my amendment does is it eliminates funding to the tune of $470 million for ARPA-E, Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy; $470 million.

What this Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy is designed to fund are high-risk, high-reward projects in which the private sector would never invest in.

Since it is taxpayers' money, what this proposed amendment does is to cut funding because it doesn't do the job that the dollars that they expended it to.

The problem is that ARPA-E does not always seem to follow its own guidelines. The Federal Government has awarded several ARPA-E grants to companies and projects that are neither high risk nor something that private industry cannot support. In other words, they don't need the crutch.

These problems with ARPA-E were identified by the GAO, the Department of Energy Office of Inspector General, and the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Of the 44 small- and medium-sized companies that received an ARPA award, the GAO found that 18 had previously received private-sector investments for similar technology. It is a duplicate.

The GAO found that 12 of those 18 companies plan to use ARPA-E funding to either advance or accelerate prior funded projects.

I am in the real estate business. That is like paying me double to build you a house or a shopping center. How much sense does that make? It doesn't.

Mr. Chair, in your world, it pays double to do one surgery. How does that work out? It is taxpayers' money. It should never have been funded in the first place.

High-risk, high-reward programs are not necessary, especially when there is a bias to fund technologies that have already received funding to make the program appear on the surface successful. Congress should restructure the DOE to conduct the basic research that the private sector would never undertake and create a system that allows the private sector, using private funds, to tap into that research and commercialize it. Federal labs should allow basic research to reach the market organically.

Until that happens, we should defund ARPA-E, just as the Trump administration did. The market is the best place to determine the merit of an investment and whether it is a good or a bad investment. If a project cannot find private support, it is a good indicator of its prospects for success. Certainly, a lack of private investors alone does not justify using taxpayers' money to support a project.

Indeed, technologies that lose private financing as they move closer to commercialization are likely the worst bets for taxpayers' money, since professional investors have already determined them to be losers.

What you find out on grants such as this, if you really analyze the line items, it goes to overhead. What is overhead?

That is paying salaries of people with jobs that you can't have an outcome for. I have seen these. That is why a lot of the grants that are written are vague; they can use the money wherever. This isn't like it is a $50,000 investment, it is $470 million.

At the time when our growing national debt has surpassed $33 trillion, we cannot continue to use taxpayers' dollars to fund this useless research.

I think the last figure I heard one of my colleagues mention, that we are paying $20,400 per second in interest on the $33 trillion. That is just the interest, not counting the principal.

As I mentioned, ARPA-E does not follow its guidelines. It is loosely interpreted. They can use the money wherever they want. My question is: Why ARPA-E funding and not private capital?

If it is that good of a project, let the private sector invest in it. You have sharp investors that know what they are doing, they could determine whether they want to risk their capital.

In short, this project should be defunded. It is at a time we can't afford it. I would urge the cut of this $470 million project, for something that yields no benefit to the taxpayers, and I urge adoption.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tempore, I rise today to recognzie the outstanding work of the Wilson Family in Lowrys, South Carolina and their dedication to providing locally grown produce for over 140 years.

Cotton Hills Farm was given to Joseph Wilson and Theodosia Abel as a wedding gift by the bride's father in 1880. It has been passed down multiple generations and is now run by JEB Wilson along with his brother, Pete, and his father, Jeff.

For 100 years, cotton had been the primary crop planted on Cotton Hills Farm. Starting in the 1940s, JEB's grandfather started planting peaches as well. Today, the family farm has expanded to pumpkins, peaches, watermelon, and cantaloupe. JEB Wilson has proudly said, ``basically anything that can be grown in South Carolina, we grow it.'' The family also operates three retail locations in Chester County, South Carolina and sells wholesale produce.

Conservation and sustainability have been a key element to the long- term success of Cotton Hills Farm. The Wilson family is constantly looking for ways to improve the farm and keep it sustainable for years to come.

I would like to recognize that the entire family is also very accomplished in their community. Jeff is a long-serving member of the Soil and Water Conservation District in Chester County and currently serving as the vice chairman. Additionally, JEB and Pete have been named Conservationist of the Year in Chester County. JEB credits the family's success to their adaptability to challenges and willingness to try new farming methods that will continue to decrease their environmental impact.

The Wilson family continues to be devoted to their farm and are looking forward to passing it down the family line. On behalf of the 5th District of South Carolina, it is my most sincere pleasure to recognize Cotton Hills Farm and the Wilson family for their great service to our state. Please join me in recognizing the farm on its advancements in agricultural innovation and conservation.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tempore, I rise to celebrate the thirty- five-year journey of Domtar's Rock Hill Converting Plant, a cornerstone of South Carolina's industrial and community landscape. Established on October 3, 1988, the Rock Hill plant marked Domtar's commitment to the Southeast's expansion. They constructed a paper mill in Bennettsville, South Carolina, and concurrently set up a converting plant at Rock Hill's Tech Park, complete with a rail spur for convenience.

Recognizing the importance of education and workforce development, Domtar partnered with York Technical College. They generously donated a commercial printing press, in addition to fostering skills among students and offering employment opportunities to graduates.

Starting with thirty employees and three machines producing 102 tons per day, the plant has grown monumentally since then. Today, it employs fifty-three individuals, operates eight machines, and boasts an annual capacity of 65,000 tons.

Over the past thirty-five years, the plant has received numerous safety awards, highlighting its dedication to ensuring a secure and healthy workplace for its employees. In 2021, the plant achieved an extraordinary milestone by being awarded twenty-five years without a lost-time injury, a significant accomplishment in the manufacturing industry.

The Rock Hill Converting Plant is not just about business; it's about community. The plant and its employees regularly contribute to nonprofit organizations, both large and small, demonstrating their commitment to investing in the welfare of the area they call home. The employees have generously donated their time and energy to support education, sustainability, and humanitarian aid initiatives, further cementing the plant's role as a responsible corporate citizen.

Domtar's Rock Hill Converting Plant stands as a beacon of growth, safety, and community engagement. Over the past thirty-five years, this facility has not only played a vital role in the local economy, but has also become a source of inspiration and pride for the South Carolina community. It is with great honor that I recognize the accomplishments of the Rock Hill Converting Plant and look forward to witnessing their continued success in the years to come.

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

Mr. Chair, I cannot believe I am up here having this debate, particularly at this critical time for our military--$1.4 billion in 2022 for money spent on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

A woke military is a weak military. The military's sole purpose is to provide for the defense of our great Nation. Our military's focus should be the protection of the American people and our freedoms, not liberal feelings.

Therefore, my amendment would eliminate any offices of diversity, equity, and inclusion in the Armed Forces and the Department of Defense.

Woke ideology undermines our readiness in a variety of ways. It undermines cohesiveness by emphasizing differences based on race, ethnicity, and sex.

We recently had 160 retired flag officers write a letter to Speaker McCarthy and House Armed Services Committee Chair Rogers about the dangers of DEI and the opposition to it in the military.

The officers wrote: ``We respectfully request that Congress, pursuant to its constitutional powers `to raise and support Armies' and `to provide and maintain a Navy,' take legislative action to remove all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs from the Department of Defense.''

Another one: ``Our military must be laser focused on one mission: readiness, undiminished by the culture war engulfing our country.''

DEI is dividing, not unifying, our military and society.

Another one: ``We have fought for our Nation and are sounding the alarm that DEI poses a grave danger to our military warfighting ethos and is degrading warfighting readiness. Social engineering, commonly called wokeism, has no place in our military.''

Finally: These indoctrination programs differentiate servicemembers along racial and gender lines, which runs completely counter to the military imperative to build cohesiveness based on common loyalties, training, and standards.

What is more, the Army missed its recruitment target by 25 percent in 2022 at this critical time in the history of this great Republic. This is a Bud Light level of failure.

Mr. Chair, I urge that this amendment be adopted in light of an administration that has completely left our Nation vulnerable.

President Biden told a group of overseas Air Force airmen that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had determined that the greatest threat facing America was global warming, a claim that the Joint Chiefs had to walk back.

He didn't mention Russia. He didn't mention China. He didn't mention the threat of the debt that has engulfed this country. He mentioned global warming.

As I mentioned, the DOD spent $1.4 billion on their equity action plan. That is money we don't have, and it just adds to the national debt.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is just more liberal gibberish. $1.4 billion? Sir, you tell these young people behind me, you tell them instead of building ships, instead of building airplanes, instead of protecting cybersecurity, you are going to really pay for transgender operations. Hogwash.

You try to make that case to anybody in this room, and they would laugh--well, it is so serious, they wouldn't laugh.

Let me tell you some other things that I am sick and tired of-- feelings. Talk to the military Gold Star mothers who have lost their children. Tell them what you just said on this House floor.

An Admiral told midshipmen at the Naval Academy that they need to read ``How to Be an Antiracist,'' a book that teaches the only remedy to pass discrimination.

Another one. Military recruitment videos in recent years have touted the military's inclusivity to LGBT members. They use a rainbow flag.

Enough is enough. Americans are tired of this. Why do you think there is a shortage of people entering the military who have to put up with this kind of thinking?

For this reason, we shouldn't even be wasting our time debating this thing, but it is what it is. Thanks to the Biden administration and their anti-military and anti-readiness, it is a time in America that we are in severe danger economically and security-wise.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, again, like the other amendment I have, I cannot believe we are sitting here debating this.

What my amendment does is prohibits provisions of gender transition procedures, including surgery or medication, through the Exceptional Family Member Program.

Let me tell you what the Exceptional Family Member Program is. It provides resources to military families with special needs.

This program is designed for military spouses, children, and other dependent family members who require ongoing medical educational services such as individuals with autism, asthma, chronic respiratory illnesses, Down syndrome, and many others.

The military has tried to politicize this matter, and my amendment ensures that we reserve the valuable programs and the dollars for these programs, which would go toward the intent of what it was put in for in the first place, which is to help families with special needs and prevent the further dissolution and misguided dollars spent on something like gender transition procedures.

My amendment also prohibits the change of duty station simply for the purpose of providing a child with easier access to these procedures.

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

Mr. Chair, let me tell you the dollar amount spent for the past 5 years--$15 million. That is $15 million for surgery for a man who can't

decide whether he is a man, or a girl who can't decide whether she is a girl. Imagine that.

You tell those families that have children with Down syndrome, you tell those families that have severely autistic children you are going to spend it for changing genders?

I don't mind somebody questioning their gender but pay for it yourself when you have to have it, not on the backs of our brave military families.

In the past 5 years, $15 million was spent to treat 1,892 transgender troops. Well, isn't that something? You want somebody who is trying to decide if they are a man or a woman on the firing line?

Is that really a question to decide in the military? There was $11.5 million spent on psychotherapy and $3.1 million for surgeries.

The price tag for individuals getting this surgery and treatments after have ranged from $8,000 to $100,000. Related healthcare coverage is only going up.

My point is, I think, to make this argument, particularly with dollars that could be spent helping meaningful children who have disabilities should be made. To spend this money that we don't have just really spits in the face of our military families.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, I will just say that it is this kind of thinking that has the military in a demoralized state.

It is this kind of thinking, this kind of rationalization of our hard-earned tax money that has the military recruitment numbers way down.

It is this kind of woke thinking that is penalizing families that want to serve this country, families who have children with these disabilities who need the care that they would deprive them of because they want to fund somebody who doesn't know what gender they are.

It is this kind of thinking that America is sick and tired of. Ask any military family, and they will tell you the same thing.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment reduces the salary of Kristie Canegallo, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, to $1.

A little background on who she is:

She has served as Chief of Staff at DHS since January 2022.

She recently took on the role of Deputy Secretary in July of this year.

Her job is to oversee the agency and work to advance the Department's mission and organizational priorities.

Her salary in 2022 was $183,100.

As stated, her job is to oversee and enforce the mission of DHS, which is to safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values.

Dereliction of duty, as this is simply not the case.

She is the number two individual at DHS. Her job is to assist the priorities of Mayorkas in securing our homeland, our values, and our people. She has simply been asleep at the switch and has not done the job.

Our homeland is less secure now than it was when she came into this role. In her first year in her role at DHS, over 2.76 million illegal individuals crossed the border. These were just the ones that they came in contact with.

In addition, 1.4 million individuals have been encountered, according to DHS, since January 1 of 2023.

We are witnessing an invasion of our homeland before our very eyes, and my Democratic colleagues are acting like it is a normal Wednesday with business as usual.

Is this effective leadership? No, it is not. This is a crisis in this country. This is an invasion. It is against our Constitution. It is against our core values that this country was built on.

Thus, that is the reason I am asking to cut the salary to $1, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, as we look at the challenges this country faces, we look at the reasons why our border is unsecure, why our national security is at risk, and it is because of the inaction of people in prominent roles such as Ms. Canegallo.

The only reason that she is in the job is for political reasons, which is to keep the power of the Democratic Party.

These illegals are getting drivers' licenses, they are getting Social Security numbers, and it is completely against everything that this country stands for.

For that reason, I hope Members will support this.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment reduces the salary of Kimberly O'Connor, executive secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, to $1.

Her role is executive secretary of DHS where she oversees the management of written communication intended for and originated by the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of DHS.

Why should we implement the Holman rule regarding her salary? She cosigned a letter led by the House Oversight Committee from November 2, 2022, to Secretary Mayorkas about the abject failures at the southern border.

In her letter it was stated that: We have written DHS 15 times this Congress to conduct oversight over the border crisis. Again, we request documents and information to understand the Biden administration's plans, if any, to secure the border.

Her role is to manage written correspondence for Mayorkas. She can't bother to do her job and give timely and adequate responses about the abject failures at the border, so why do our tax dollars deserve to go to pay her salary?

She continues to not give the committee and Members answers to their questions. Failure to get us answers from DHS on the border is unacceptable, and it is creating a crisis at the border.

Madam Chair, I urge the cutting of her salary, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I urge that her salary be cut, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment reduces the salary of Blas Nunez-Neto, assistant secretary for border and immigration policy, to $1.

He has worked at DHS since 2021. He served as an assistant secretary for border and immigration policy.

The reason to implement the Holman rule to reduce his salary is dereliction of duty to uphold the mission of DHS, to safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values.

The border and our homeland have become less secure in his capacity of border policy at DHS.

Considering these facts of the crisis and invasion at our border, we think this individual is inadequately doing his job. Why should our tax dollars continue to pay him?

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I urge the reduction of the salary of this individual to secure our borders, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting here, my colleagues on the other side saying, shutdown, shutdown, shutdown; that is all you hear.

What about the shutdown that occurred for the COVID virus for over a year and a half? What about the shutdown that kept children out of school for over a year and a half?

It is outrageous that here we are on this floor trying to pass legislation to cut spending to put money back in the pockets of the taxpayers.

Folks, we are in an economic crisis. We are in a national security crisis. The fact is my colleagues are continually against a shutdown, which is never good, but in this case, we are fighting for the American people.

As Representative Roy mentioned with Homeland Security, go to the border. Go to the border and see what is happening there. See the rape trees. See the people coming across this border that now number in excess of the 5.2 million from my State of South Carolina.

Think about the medical crisis. We don't know what they are coming with. Think about the hundreds of programs that they are automatically going to be enrolled in.

Think about the Social Security numbers and the driver's licenses that are given to illegals that occurred in New York City. Think about the flights paid for by taxpayers' money to go all over this country illegally.

It is un-American, it is an invasion, and my good friends on the other side of the aisle will pay a price as they are being booed in different parts of the country because of leaving this border open, leaving this country unsecure. We have never faced this kind of crisis that we face right now just on that issue alone.

On the spending issue, I would like for those listening today to realize it boils back to our $32 trillion, $20,000 per second it is costing the taxpayers.

They don't want to cut anything. They want to go on with a bloated Federal Government and continue spending as we have done before. We are saying no.

I am proud of my colleagues. We will sit up here and fight if it takes all night long. It is a sad day that we are arguing over things that should be common sense. It is un-American what they are trying to do.

Now, the four appropriations bills, the Homeland Security bill, tying H.R. 2 to it, is exactly the right thing. My good friends on the other side of the aisle talk about reduced funding. They are not enforcing anything.

Mayorkas is not enforcing anything. Why pay him? All this does is say: Unless you enforce the border and include

it, we are not paying Mayorkas a dime for homeland security.

Look at the Department of Defense. Look at the cuts, yet the increases overall which we have given our Department of Defense. The FDA, we have made some legitimate cuts on the FDA on some things that should have been.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Good for calling the Special Order.

Folks, for those listening, we are at a pivotal point in the history of America. I have never felt the weight as I do now to save the Republic that I grew up in, to save the opportunity to realize your

God-given talent, and to realize the goals and aspirations that each individual has.

Folks, I feel like it is under threat, and I know it is under threat since I was first elected in Congress in 2017.

We can all talk about what we are going to do and what we want to do. Folks, we are at a pivotal time. We have to do what it takes to save this Republic.

As Congressman Good said, basically, the debt is rampant. What is happening to this country at every level is, in one word, evil. I can't think of any other word to describe what we are going through in America that is evil that threatens the democracy that we have known for 240 years.

Now, what do I mean by what is evil about what is going on? What is different now than years ago? Let me ask each one of you watching: When have you ever seen a country that basically has no borders? When have you ever seen a country that is letting everybody from every country in--no checks, no balances, come in and enjoy the fruits of this great Republic? When have you ever seen the lawlessness that is taking place in America? When have you ever seen the criminals being basically protected over the victims that they have victimized? When have you seen that? When have you seen Americans scared to use their voice and to express their outrage?

As Congressman Good has mentioned, when have you ever seen, and I think the last date I heard was 2008, when there has been a steady decline in the take-home pay of Americans.

When have you ever seen our school system under attack? When have you ever seen young children who are being surgically--I am trying to think of the word to use.

Surgically destroyed, as you see today, for the sake of a dollar by a medical professional.

When have you ever seen a sitting leader of the free world, a sitting President, give $9 billion to a country that will blow us up every day of the week? When have you seen that?

I don't think we have. Folks, I have gone over just a few things that are different than it was yesterday. It is: Wake up, America. Wake up to what we are facing.

I was just having a conversation with Congressman Higgins on what we face now. We are up here. We got here Tuesday, yesterday. We will leave tomorrow. We do not have a budget. We do not have a top line on the 12 appropriations bills. What do we have? You tell me. I am a sitting Member of Congress. I don't know.

All I do know is I am not willing to spend this country into oblivion and continue to support what has been going on by this administration.

I am simply not willing to do it. I am not willing to give more money to an executive office that is promoting lawlessness in this country.

South Carolina has 5.2 million people. We have exceeded that on the illegals that are coming into this country. They are going to different cities all over this country, and I guess the ones that are at the forefront are in New York City. When I heard Eric Adams talk about the crisis they are in, where was he when he declared New York City a sanctuary city? Where was he when he said, how are we going to pay for this? Where was he when he told the school districts that have been overrun by illegals that are taking the place of people who have been in America who have paid taxes and who have contributed to our economic system? Where was he? Now, he is complaining he wants a bailout.

That is all to say it is our time to shine. It is dependent on each one of us to answer the call.

Now, how do we do that? Well, we insist on fiscal sanity. Economic security is national security, and we have to insist now to have regular order, which is what we thought we had when we voted for the Speaker in January, regular order, having the 12 appropriations bills on a conservative, downward spending trend, and a budget like every American business and every American family has. What do we have now? Nothing.

Now, what is up to us? It is up to us now to do whatever it takes to make sure we have a fiscally sound budget, to make sure each of the 12 appropriations is less than the pre-COVID levels, to have a border that is secure that is enforceable, and to have the wokeness out of the military that is destroying the readiness of our great military people all across this country.

My message to each of you tonight: Get active in your communities. Get active in telling your Congressmen that if it means shutting the government down before you get it right, shut it down. Shut it down until you get it right.

It is easy to spend other people's money, but we want to give it back. That is one thing about the Freedom Caucus and other Members that are with me tonight, Congressman Good and Congressman Higgins, we want to give you money back.

We are not going to add to the continual debt that is bankrupting our system. The cancer in this country cannot be cured by an aspirin.

What I am asking each one of you today is to take ownership in your communities. Take ownership from the local level, from the city council, school council, Statehouse, and up. Take ownership in it. Let your voice be heard.

Do you know what is at stake? One word: Freedom. Freedom is at stake. Let's answer the call, as we have always done. The onus is on us.

God bless each and every one of you. I thank Congressman Good for allowing me a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, where we are right now is we have a great opportunity to save this Republic. In the words of Winston Churchill, who at the depths of the lows of Great Britain, said: ``It is not enough that we do our best; sometimes we must do what is required.''

We have got to do what is required. That is going to require courage, that is going to require stamina, and that is going to require the one word that we all live under, this one flag, we are one people, representing freedom. God bless everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable individual, Robert Justice, whose lifetime of service and leadership left an indelible mark on our community and Nation. Mr. Justice devoted 43 years to the Boy Scouts of America, serving as Council Scout Executive and CEO for 21 years. His leadership led to the construction of a new Council Service Center and the Camp Bob Hardin Boy Scout Camp, at which he fostered strong community relationships, and promoted desegregation within Scouting units.

Earlier in his life, Mr. Justice served as the Director of Training at the National Executive Institute of the Boy Scouts of America, certifying thousands of professional candidates. In the Chief Cornstalk Council in Logan, West Virginia, Mr. Justice served as a District Executive and Field Director, ensuring Scouting programs thrived in an impoverished mining community.

In 1943, Mr. Justice enlisted in the United States Navy, serving in World War II. While in service, he continued to work with Scouts on military bases until he returned home in 1946.

As a member of the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Mr. Justice was recognized for his outstanding service and dedication to local food pantries. Additionally, he chaired the Eagle Scout scholarship committee, benefiting aspiring scholars. Mr. Justices' exceptional commitment to service included a membership in Rotary, where he was recognized as a Paul Harris Fellow.

Mr. Justice was also an active Mason and Shriner, contributing to charitable endeavors and fundraising for the Children's Hospital. Additionally, he served as the President of Parents without Partners in Spartanburg, growing it to the largest chapter in South Carolina.

Mr. Justices' service extended to Southside Baptist Church in Spartanburg, where he was a dedicated member since 1974, contributing his leadership and teaching Sunday School. In honoring the life and service of Mr. Robert Justice, we celebrate a life defined by selflessness, leadership, and a profound impact on his community and country.