Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am honored and proud to recognize Mr. Terry Gendron (Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Amry Retired) upon the occasion of his retirement after invaluable years of tireless, faithful, and selfless service to our Nation.

Mr. Gendron comes from a family of service. Not only did his mother serve in the Army as a frontline surgical nurse in World War II, and his father was career Army Infantry who served in WWII and Korea, but he and all three of his brothers wore the uniform as well. While Terry would rather talk about his family over himself, his service warrants its own illustrious recognition.

Terry enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1975. He graduated Officer Candidate School in 1977, and served in myriad command and staff positions until he earned an Honorable discharge after more than 22 years of loyal service on December 31, 1997. His awards and honors include--but are not limited to--the Meritorious Service Medal (4th Award), Army Commendation Medal (2nd Award). Army Achievement Medal (2nd Award), Army Good Conduct

Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon (2nd Award), Expert Infantryman Badge and Parachutist Badge.

After several years in the private sector, Terry accepted an opportunity to serve our Veterans in the capacity of Department Service Officer for the Pennsylvania American Legion, wherein he assisted Veterans all over central Pennsylvania. In 2016, he continued his service to our Nation and Veterans by earning the position of Director of Veterans Affairs in York County, where--amongst various other missions--he maximized benefits for Veterans and Family members to improve their quality of life. He tirelessly worked to ensure that every Veteran in York County (or surviving spouse) had a conversation with an accredited service officer to ensure any earned military/ medical/health benefits were realized ASAP. His dedication to our Veterans continued via positions on several boards and memberships, to include York County Veterans Outreach, Veterans Memorial Gold Star Health and Peace Garden, Four Chaplains Memorial of York County, and Pennsylvania American Legion Post 945.

In addition to his professional pursuits, Terry dedicated himself to education, He's earned a Bachelor's degree in Resource Management from Troy University, a Master of Science in Logistics Management from the Florida Institute of Technology, and graduated from the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College.

Mr. Speaker, I'm honored and humbled to commend Terry Gendron (LTC, USA Ret.) on his well-earned retirement. His vast record of nearly 50 years of faithful, tireless, and selfless service to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States of America sets the standard by which we all should be judged. I wish him Godspeed on his pending cycle trek across our beautiful Nation, and for many more years of great adventure, health, happiness, and prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I'm honored and humbled to recognize Mrs. Betty Alford on the auspicious occasion of her 100th Birthday on January 12, 2024.

Mrs. Alford grew up in Wormleysburg, Pennsylvania, growing up through some of the most triumphant and trying times of our Nation. In 1957, she married her husband, William, with whom she shared 43 wonderful years until his passing in 2001. Betty and William have three children--Brent, Brian, and Kathleen--two wonderful daughters-in-law, four grandchildren, and six great-grandchildren.

Throughout her life, Betty has been known for her generosity and kindness. She volunteered at Health South physical therapy clinic, and the Helen Kraus Animal Foundation well into her 90s--and is the epitome of the phrase ``age is just a number.'' She's also worked at Nationwide Insurance, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and served countless students at the cafeteria of Hillside Elementary School.

Betty's selfless activity, huge heart, outstanding work ethic, and tireless service to others mark her as the shining example of community service and truly making a difference in the lives of others in myriad ways.

Mr. Speaker, I'm privileged to recognize Mrs. Betty Alford on the blessed occasion of her 100th Birthday. She is the standard by which we all should be judged, and on behalf of the 10th Congressional District, I wish her continued God's blessings.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 707.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to begin by thanking Chair Foxx for her hard work in an effort to try to right our country and the committee that she so artfully presides over.

This amendment, Mr. Chairman, simply adds international organizations to the bill's definition of foreign source, including them in the bill's reporting requirements. It uses the definition found in 22 U.S.C. 288, which reads, in part: ``a public international organization in which the United States participates pursuant to any treaty or under the authority of any act of Congress authorizing such participation or making an appropriation for such participation.''

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, Americans are all too aware of the influence of international organizations such as the United Nations or the World Health Organization. As just one example, the World Health Organization was one of the so-called authorities trying to dismiss the lab leak theory, with the assistance of prominent academics and the Chinese Communist Party.

Many of our adversaries, such as China and Iran, are active participants in these organizations, much to my dismay and to the dismay of many Americans.

The fact that Iran was appointed to chair the United Nations's 2023 Social Forum, a conference focusing on human rights, would be laughable if not for Iran's own very grave human rights abuses, which are serious, to say the least.

I am concerned that should the excellent policies in this bill become law, our adversaries will instead attempt to funnel money to college campuses through international organizations. This amendment would address that possibility and shed even more light on these foreign gifts received by American colleges and universities.

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

Mr. Chairman, my good friend and colleague talks about protecting national security and implies that somehow this amendment would imperil that. I don't understand how letting Americans know more about who is providing funds internationally to our universities in our country imperils our national security.

We should know who is trying to attempt to influence not only what is happening on campuses but the very minds on those campuses, whether it is Confucius Institutes or an organization antithetical, maybe anti- Semitic, from the Middle East that is sending endowments and funds to American universities to influence the minds of those who are participating in education at those universities. It is important not only for citizens to know but, quite honestly, for our Federal Government and the security agencies to know.

Mr. Chair, I remind my good friend on the other side of the aisle that I had a bill some time ago to require this reporting, which is already required in many aspects and many respects, but universities, even with the requirement, don't keep the information and don't report any of it at this time.

Isn't that a peril to national security?

If we actually want to strengthen security in our country for our citizens, then I urge adoption of this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman on the other side of the aisle, but, again, transparency is key. Universities have become, unfortunately, as we have seen in our public media on this very day and on these very days, hotspots for international insurgent activity in our country, things that are antithetical to our country and our way of life, things that we have never seen before, anti- Semitic chants on American university grounds.

If those things are being stoked, inflamed, encouraged, and paid for by international organizations at all, then Americans ought to know that.

Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize Officer Craig Helm on earning the 2022 Springettsbury Township ``Officer of the Year.''

Officer Helm joined the Springettsbury Township Police Department in November 2015. Throughout his career, Officer Helm has served tirelessly in enforcing the laws of the Commonwealth. In 2022, he made 37 criminal arrests, 188 traffic contacts, 400 incident reports, and investigated 46 traffic accidents. His outstanding work in DUI investigations previously earned him the ``DUI Top Gun'' award.

Officer Helm frequently serves as the Officer in Charge (OIC) during shifts, and is poised and professional in his leadership. He leads by example, and always volunteers to cover a shift when manpower issues arise. His frequent guidance and support to newer officers, providing them with everything they need to ensure successful outcomes, earned him selection in 2022 as Field Training Officer.

In one of his most notable and heroic actions in 2022, Officer Helm was dispatched for a shooting while serving as the OIC. He arrived on the scene and immediately began dispensing lifesaving first aid to the victim, while simultaneously directing officers to secure the crime scene. His leadership in commanding the situation resulted in the Criminal Investigation Department identifying the suspect, who eventually was charged with attempted homicide.

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged and honored to recognize and commend Officer Craig Helm on earning the 2022 ``Officer of the Year'' for Springettsbury Township Police Department. He is the standard by which we all should be judged.

Mr. Speaker, I do agree. Whether it is in your personal life, your business life, your family life--anything at all--your family, the people, your colleagues around you, the people that you work around demand some deliverable. Deliverable might be showing up on time with a good attitude, but at least you delivered something.

I remember that speech from my good friend, the gentleman from Texas, because I watched it. He started out and he said: What the hell is wrong with this country?

Well, nothing is wrong with this country. The problem is with this place.

There are a lot of good people on this side of the aisle, and maybe we haven't produced a deliverable, but I would also say this: There has been no help, no help at all from the other side of the building, the other side of the aisle or down the street at the White House; no help at all.

I have car manufacturers now coming to see me and they are saying: Well, we are forced to build these electric cars; nobody wants them. Then when they don't have anything else to buy, they buy them. And then they don't work, so they bring them back in and they trade them in for something else, and then they sit there and we can't sell them. Congressman, what are you going to do for me?

My goodness, Joe Biden is the President.

The regulators, every single day another rule, another regulation, they just keep coming and coming.

Members of Congress, I don't know that we are irrelevant, but if we are not willing to stop funding these agencies that keep on prevailing against the American people, well that is what we are going to be.

The Founders made each body to jealously guard its own power. Instead of jealously guarding our power, we

have given it to bureaucrats; nameless, faceless people that have an agenda that pass rules with the force of law. These rules that spend all this money make your Thanksgiving dinner more expensive.

My mom went out to get a turkey for our family. My mom makes a turkey for our family and we all get together. She called her son up to say that the turkey costs $70.

Mr. Speaker, from lettuce to lumber, people can't afford in America just to live their lives. They can't afford their bills; they can't afford groceries; they can't afford gas in their car; they can't afford their credit card payments while they try and just live the life that they have lived.

As the slide or the poster over there shows, their bills have gone up that much. They are paying, between the government and the increased cost, an extra month of their pay; every year an extra month for things that they didn't have to just 3 years ago.

This body is the only one that has the power of the purse. This is the only body that can control the spending that is driving up every single cost, every single cost. It starts here.

If we don't have the courage--we can have the conviction--people vote for their Member saying: Well, this guy said when he goes to Washington, he is going to fight the swamp. He is going to fight the bureaucracy. He is going to fight the spending. However, when the bill shows up on the floor and we see the amendment up there, oh, my goodness, every single time you get 100 votes, 150 votes.

Mr. Speaker, it takes 217 to pass these amendments to cut spending. If you said you are going to cut spending at home, then your opportunity happens right here on the floor. If you are not going to do it here, if you are not going to vote that way, don't go home to your constituents and say, I am sorry you can't afford lettuce and a holiday turkey. I am sorry you can't afford your bills: your car payment, your home payment, your insurance payment, your heating bill. I am sorry you can't afford it--because I didn't do anything to help you. Your opportunity, the leverage, the moment is here. It is now.

We have been working on spending bills for months, and the reason that we can't pass them here is because we are spending too much.

Oh, by the way, that is a fight among this side of the aisle that actually some of us want to do something to save our constituents from this overbearing weight of the Federal Government and the regulatory agencies--and I have to say this to my good friend from Texas--with no help whatsoever from the other side of the aisle. No help.

Mr. Speaker, there is no reason that we should do it. There is not a person in this Chamber on that side of the aisle or this side of the aisle that agrees with Vladimir Putin, the Russian Federation, the invasion of Ukraine, the atrocities that have been committed there. There is not one person that agrees with it.

At the same time, our country is under assault, our country is being invaded, and our country can't afford its bills.

Before we have the audacity, the temerity to demand, under force of law, that our citizens get up in the morning, go to work, and pay their taxes to pay for the pensions and the salaries of government workers in Ukraine--my goodness, are we tone deaf to the fact that the people in this country, the people in the gentleman from Texas' communities, and the people that I represent, can't afford to pay their bills? They can't afford to pay their bills.

None of us agree with what is happening overseas in regard to Ukraine, but we have a duty. We were not elected by Ukrainian citizens. We were elected by United States citizens, American citizens that are paying their taxes under penalty of law.

They will be thrown in jail if they don't pay their taxes. It is the height of insult and injury to tell them you have to pay your taxes and you can't afford a holiday meal, but you can rest assured that that money is going to go over to Ukraine to pay for their salaries and their pensions.

The American people are sick of it. They sent us here to do something about it, and every time we have an opportunity, every single time we have an opportunity, we need to seize that opportunity.

Quite honestly, it just comes down to this, Mr. Roy, when the Senate demands this, when the President demands it, the Speaker of House, this Republican majority, respectfully, just says no.

That is correct.

Of course not. My constituents, my bosses, just like your bosses, were vehemently opposed to that last December's cram-down of all this money to all kinds of things, omnibus spending, everything in there. They didn't want it, and as a signal to what we would do if we governed, Republicans, every single one, voted against it.

Now, 9 or 10 months later, we are supposed to act like, well, we didn't get our work done so we are just going to continue that, but don't worry about it. Forget about what happened 9 or 10 months ago.

The American people have not forgotten. Do you know how I know they

have not forgotten? Because I was at the grocery store on Monday before I came here, and a woman came up to me with her grocery cart. She recognized me and said: Don't the people that you work with grocery shop? Don't they know how much this costs?

She knows, and she demands that we do better and that I be accountable and not vote for things I voted against 9 months ago and just act like they are okay. They are not okay 9 months later.

I imagine my district is just like yours.

I visited a local construction company with 400 hardworking Americans. Men and women come in. They have steel-toed boots on, jeans, jackets with stains on them. They come in out of the cold. They don't have time to worry about what amendment or bill you got passed through the House but there was no signature.

Here is what they worry about, to my friend from Texas, and I think your bosses feel the same way: We sent you to Washington to make our lives better. My prices are going up. My selections are going down, and my choices are going down. The government is imposing itself on me about whether I want to install a gas stove in my home or whether I want to speak out about my political views and not end up on some list, or if I want to go deer hunting today and worry that I got the wrong ammunition or that my gun isn't configured so that the Federal Government doesn't come arrest me.

They say: We are counting on you to do this, so don't come home and talk to us about amendments and bills and ``I had a meeting with,'' because it doesn't affect my life. All the things that are happening to me every day from this administration are affecting my life. I am sick of it, and I am sending you down there to stop it.

There is always some excuse. When we have the House or the Senate, or we have both and the Presidency, there is always some excuse for why it can't be done.

I will tell you this. There is no excuse for the radical march of the left creeping into everybody's life, into every decision that you make, into everything you do. It just keeps happening.

Our bosses are not down here in Washington, D.C. They don't understand committee rules and the process here on the floor. What they understand is that they are getting up in the morning when it is dark outside, packing their lunch, and kissing their kids good-bye before they get on the schoolbus, and they don't know why this is happening to them, but they sure know it is happening.

They think about the extra costs every single week when they are trying to manage their budget. They are like: ``We are making more money, but we still can't afford to live the way we did. We can't afford our food. We can't afford, heaven forbid, if the car breaks down.'' No, they don't understand why.

What they demand, to the good gentleman from Texas, is results, is some product. They don't care about why it can't be done. They are not asking for everything to change overnight. They know we didn't get here overnight, but they want something, some win, to show them some light at the end of this tunnel, but there isn't any. I haven't seen one yet.

Mr. Speaker, before I go, I will say that the gentleman from Texas is right. We have to unite so that we can be effective against these forces of evil that are destroying the American Dream. It is not uniting for the sake of uniting. It is uniting around a purpose.

Our bosses are very forgiving. They are very gracious. They understand if you fight the good fight and you lose. What they will not accept, what they cannot accept, and what they should not accept is not fighting at all or surrendering before the fight even begins.

Mr. Speaker, that is our job. Our job is to defend this Constitution. My constituents, my bosses, know I carry one with me every day.

It is a piece of paper, Mr. Speaker. It cannot defend itself. It relies on the integrity, fortitude, courage, and conviction of good people willing to come here to serve and fight on its behalf, like the good gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment halves the funding for the taxpayer-funded activists at the National Labor Relations Board.

The National Labor Relations Board is supposed to act to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by private-sector employers and unions. Unfortunately, under the Biden administration, the NLRB has been filled with labor activists who seek only to empower union bosses at the expense of employees, employers, and consumers.

Moreover, their recent actions represent substantial executive overreach to implement a radical agenda so toxic that it could not be achieved by this administration when they had both Chambers of Congress or by the Obama administration with a filibuster-proof majority.

The fact that this agenda is so radical and out of touch with the American people that it has been routinely rejected by the people's Representatives should be the end of this conversation, but it is not. Instead, the Biden administration seeks, through executive fiat, to impose the PRO Act that failed to pass legislatively.

Just this year, the Biden NLRB has issued the following PRO Act provision by fiat: Joint employers standard, which destroys the franchise model and eliminates independent contractors; ambush elections, which shortens the timelines for elections to prevent employees from making fully informed decisions about whether to unionize or not; and card check, which eliminates secret ballot elections and ensures union bosses can intimidate and lie their way into certification.

Immediately after taking office, President Biden fired the NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb, even though he had 10 months remaining in his term and he was replaced with an Acting General Counsel, an end- around to the constitutional advice and consent process.

This radical acting official rescinded pro-employee memos that: protected employee's rights not to fund union activity; provided injured workers with remedies when they were injured due to union malfeasance; and challenged neutrality agreements as improper efforts by employers to support a union and eliminate the right of its employees to decide whether or not to organize.

These actions laid bare the truth that the NLRB is not living up to its mission, nor is it looking out for the interests of its workers. Instead, it is implementing a radical, deeply unpopular agenda through extraconstitutional means at the behest of leftist special interests. Stand up for the American people and stop this madness.

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

Mr. Chairman, I do applaud the chairman of this committee for making the cuts to the NLRB that he has made. They should be made. Obviously, the NLRB is running amuck. They must have too much time on their hands or too many resources.

Did my colleague on the other side not hear the list of infractions?

It would be absolutely fine if the NLRB focused on unfair labor practices and dealt with that. That is their mission, but that is not their focus.

Their focus is expanding the force of big labor everywhere that they can and shutting out the little guy and removing the choice of average citizens of how they want to work and how they want to be represented, which is why they need to be hemmed in. That is just the simple fact of it, and if it takes it back to the point where they are only focusing on unfair labor practices, then I think we will have done our job well.

This amendment actually strengthens the chairman's position in negotiations with the Senate when this bill comes to that negotiation.

Mr. Chair, I urge all Members to vote in favor, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman. Just because we could increase the funding and there was an agreement to increase funding across the board to some level doesn't mean we have to. I know it is a news flash to everybody in this town, but next month in December we are going to be $34 trillion in debt. We simply can't afford it.

I don't mean to be pejorative about the NLRB, if my colleague on the other side thinks this is pejorative. These are just the facts. These are things they have done. If the gentlewoman doesn't like them, don't blame me. I am pointing out what they did, which is why we need to take action here and rein this out-of-control agency in.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds for the Mine Safety and Health Administration to finalize, implement, or enforce its proposed silica rule.

The Mine Safety and Health Administration's proposed silica rule is overly broad and fails to account for the differences among facilities that fall within MSHA's jurisdiction. It is the old one size does all, fits all, whether you like it or not.

While this silica rule may make sense for certain types of mines, the across-the-board application of this proposed rule threatens to impose significant regulatory burdens on an industry that is vital to our Nation's economic health.

Companies throughout the industry have worked proactively to address these issues through various measures that ensure employee safety while limiting the cost to producers. Unfortunately, the one-size-fits-all approach taken by MSHA fails to include an applicability threshold, which would ensure it only applies where it is necessary to improve safety. It fails to ensure that the medical surveillance provisions are employed on a risk-based basis.

These drafting failures by MSHA ensure maximum regulatory burdens while minimizing the safety impact of the rule, something one would expect from an administration that is hell-bent on ending mining in America.

Let's leave no doubt among anybody who is listening or viewing: That is exactly what the administration wants to do.

We call them rare earth minerals. Mr. Chairman, they are not rare. They are from the earth, but they are not rare. We are just not allowed to go get them in America. We have to import them from China or let China use slave labor in the Congo to bring them to the United States of America because we won't get them ourselves. We are then bound by China.

Most concerning, MSHA's reported economic analysis falsely claims that it will not have a significant economic impact--as usual, the normal lies from the Federal Government.

The cost estimate so vastly understates or underestimates the cost to operators that it calls into question the abilities and motives of those doing MSHA's economic analysis.

According to the National Sandstone and Gravel Association, MSHA's estimates of exposure control costs in particular are vastly inaccurate. Significantly, one member company's 2023 budget for exposure controls is approximately equal to the MSHA annual estimate for all metal/nonmetal operators. Based on communications with 13 member companies, costs for exposure controls will vary widely but on average are $920,000 annually, with a median of $225,000.

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

Mr. Chairman, I talked to you about the true cost of the rule. Given the true cost of the proposed rule, it will put mines out of business, which is really the intent of this rulemaking by the MSHA.

The absurdity of this cost estimate necessitates that MSHA stop its rulemaking process until it gets it right. This amendment would do this and prevent MSHA's assault on American mining.

The gentlewoman, my colleague, says it is about workers' lives. It is also about their livelihoods, which are going to be taken from them.

People in America have the right to make a choice. They have a right to

make a choice, and when faced with the facts, the fact is that this rulemaking underestimates the cost vastly and is intended to put mines out of business--put mines out of business. We don't mine much coal in America anymore.

I come from Pennsylvania. It used to be a great coal mining State, but not only is that happening, the opposition--my friends on the other side of the aisle--is demanding everybody electrify their lives, electric vehicles only. That is what is coming. They are shutting down copper mines in the United States of America.

When was the last time a new mine opened up? They are not going to allow it, Mr. Chairman. They are not going to allow it, which is why this amendment is necessary.

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

Mr. Chairman, my friend from the other side would like you to believe that mining companies want to kill all their employees. I assure you they do not. I also assure you that we won't go to a position where there will be no regulations. We will have appropriate regulations with the appropriate costs assigned to them. That is why this amendment is necessary. That is why it is needed.

I urge Members to vote in favor of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds for the National Labor Relations Board to implement, administer, or enforce its representation case procedures rule, which imposes ambush elections for unionization.

This rule imposes ambush elections, which significantly shorten the times between the filing of a petition for a union election and the election itself.

This limits the ability of the employer to spread the truth about what unionization truly means and prevents employees from going into the election with enough time to truly consider their vote.

This rule was attempted by the NLRB in 2014 under the Obama administration, which was litigated for years before being remedied by the Trump administration in 2019.

This rule seeks to return to the 2014 election schedule along with other concerning provisions. Among the concerning provisions that would return is a requirement that within 2 days of the issuance of a direction of election, employers provide personal contact information of prospective voters to the unions.

This requirement that employers provide employee information to the union subjects the employees and their families to intimidation, coercion, and threats. What if the employees don't want their information given out? Well, too bad. The unions are going to get it. They will be visiting your home.

These provisions were also included in the PRO Act, a bill that failed legislatively when Democrats had the White House and control of both Chambers, and like the Obama administration, this administration seeks an end around, to end around the legislative branch and impose an agenda too unpopular to become law. They want to just do it by executive fiat. We don't have a king in this country. That is why we have a legislature.

More fundamentally, this is yet another example and a disturbing trend of the NLRB--the activist, the leftwing, radical activist NLRB-- trying to remove the rights of employees to determine their own fate by rigging the game in favor of leftist Democrat special interests.

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

Mr. Chairman, as I said, the ambush election simply shortens the time between the filing of a petition for a union election and the election itself.

Nobody on this side of the aisle has any issue or problem with collective bargaining or the ability to unionize, but unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle just want to move more quickly. I would characterize it this way: You have to vote for it to find out what is in it. We are used to that from my friends on the other side.

We want people to understand and have the time to understand and to know what the election is about. There is no reason to rush into it. There is no reason.

What is the reason to rush into it? Learn the facts, and then decide what is best for yourself. The people should decide, not the union bosses, and certainly not this place jamming it down their throat.

Unions are associated with creating the middle class, and they have done a great job at doing that. Unfortunately, in some cases, the NLRB has outlived its usefulness, and this is one of them. This is one of them. People have every right in the United States of America

to unionize. They don't have to do it in 2 days, though, and that is what my friends on the other side of the aisle wish they could force and impose upon us. We are Americans. We can figure it out.

We are Americans. We can figure it out. We are not dummies. We don't need to vote for it to find out what is in it.

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

Mr. Chair, maybe, just maybe, I don't know--this might be a foreign concept to my friends on the other side of the aisle, but maybe employees are pretty darn happy with the work environment they are in. If they are not, they have a choice to go somewhere else and be treated better. Maybe the market is working, and maybe that is why unionization is at one of the lowest levels in history.

But because they want those union dues--let's get right down to it. Because my friends on the other side of the aisle want those union dues so they can funnel them into campaigns for elections, they are going to try and force these elections, these ambush elections, on our employers to increase union participation where it is not needed, it is not wanted, and it is not helping anything.

Mr. Chair, it is an easy vote to vote ``yes'' for this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the use of funds for the National Labor Relations Board to implement or enforce the Cemex decision, which imposes a backdoor card-check scheme. This ruling threatens to take away secret ballot elections for unionization, including requiring an employer to recognize a union if the NLRB alleges unfair labor practices in the lead-up to the election.

Just think about that, because I am sure there are a bunch of antiunion people working at the NLRB. Card check allows for a union to be certified once a certain number of employees sign cards in favor of petitioning for a union election.

Rarely do unions garner as much support in secret ballot elections as they do with signature cards. Part of the difference in support is that the employers hear competing arguments about the merits of unionization. More concerning, the signature card process exposes workers to mob-like tactics to pressure employees into signing unionization cards.

During an organization drive at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, employees alleged that the UAW used misrepresentation, coercion, threats, and promises to get card signatures. Say it isn't so. It never happens, of course not, because there is no money involved.

Secret ballots insulate employees from these despicable tactics and allow them to express their true desire regarding the union question without concerns for the safety of themselves and their families.

Fundamentally, we all understand the importance of secret ballots and protecting elections from coercion, threats, and corruption. That is why we hold secret ballot elections for public office. For whatever reason, the minority feels it is important to exempt their special interests in the unions from this fundamental truth to rig the game in their favor to make up for plummeting unionization rates around the country.

Moreover, this move by the NLRB is a usurpation of legislative power under both the Obama administration and the Biden administration. Democrats have attempted and failed to pursue card check legislatively because they can't win it.

Rejected by the elected representatives, the unions and their lackeys on the NLRB are attempting to pursue this by executive fiat. Again, we don't have a king in this country.

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

Mr. Chair, allowing for secret ballot union elections free of coercion, intimidation, and threats should be a pretty easy concept to support, regardless of your party or union status.

Now, my good friend from the other side says blocking enforcement will equal uncertainty. No, it will not equal uncertainty. We will keep going just like we are going right now. Unions are sometimes being elected in businesses and sometimes are not. That is what is occurring right now.

What won't be happening is that there won't be the coercion and the intimidation and the showing up at the home and the showing up when you pull into the place of business demanding that you fill out the card because they know who you are and they just demand you do it by card as opposed to secret ballot.

Americans understand secret ballot, because it preserves the anonymity and

saves them from the coercive tactics that we saw in the unions back in the 1970s. I remember it. I remember watching it on TV, the murders and the coercion. I watched it and so did she.

There is no reason that we can't use a secret ballot. It has worked for this long. It continues to work well, and that is what we should stick with.

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

Mr. Chair, the chairwoman talks about the violence against workers from trying to form unions. Of course, we know the labor history, but this isn't the 1800s. It is not 1910. It is not the Pinkertons and the Vanderbilts and the Carnegies. It is 2023.

Mr. Chairman, for goodness' sake, do all the States that have right- to-work laws--are all those people so miserable that they are leaving those States for States that force almost unionization unilaterally?

No, it is the other way around. Oh, by the way, if you know labor law, you know that labor unions are actually allowed to break the law with impunity. That is the reality. That is the truth. Read the law. They are allowed to do it.

There is no reason that we can't have a secret ballot to unionize.

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

Mr. Speaker, on November 7, 2023, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted Yea on Roll Call No. 547; Yea on Roll Call No. 548; Yea on Roll Call No. 549; Yea on Roll Call No. 550; Yea on Roll Call No. 551; Yea on Roll Call No. 552; Yea on Roll Call 553; Yea on Roll Call No. 554; Yea on Roll Call No. 555; Yea on Roll Call No. 556; Nay on Roll Call No. 557 and Nay on Roll Call No. 558.

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

Mr. Chairman, ever since its ill-advised inception and inclusion in the Dodd-Frank Act, Republicans have been largely unified about many, many issues with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Its unconstitutional, unaccountable leadership structure has been litigated before the Supreme Court. Its unaccountable funding structure--chiefly, the fact that its funding comes from the Federal Reserve and not the duly elected Members of Congress--will likely be addressed during the Court's October session.

None of us know, nor should we presume to know, what the Court will decide on the latter issue. Nevertheless, as written, the underlying bill addresses concerns with the funding structure by funding the CFPB through the regular appropriations process.

This amendment retains that provision at a level of zero.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to me somehow this country made it a couple hundred years without the CFPB, and now we can't wake up in the morning without it.

The CFPB operates off a fundamentally flawed assumption that our fellow Americans, the little guy, is a rube and they lack the agency and the intelligence to choose products and services that fit their needs and, instead, must be infantalized while further empowering a government that does not have their best interests at heart.

Their vilification of mundane services provided by banks and credit unions leaves our constituents with fewer and more expensive options.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds).

Mr. Chair, I remind everybody that the CFPB was an all- Democrat conference. There were no Republicans.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Chair, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces the amount available for salaries and expenses of the Federal Trade Commission to FY19 levels at just over $306 million.

It should come as no surprise that I disagree with the Biden administration's weaponization of the Federal Trade Commission.

Much like other Biden administration approaches to financial services regulation, the FTC policies under Chair Lina Khan threaten to disrupt entire sectors of the American economy by moving away from the consumer welfare standard toward arbitrary metrics that aim to break up companies--or stop them from merging--simply because they are too big.

I mean, we can't even be bothered, as my friend on the other side of the aisle says, with the consumer not having the capacity to determine what is in their best interests, which is affronting enough. I mean, all us dumb rubes out here in America, we don't know what the heck we are going to do without the government to tell us what to do. We can't even do that now. We just have to come up with arbitrary things that we don't like and then weigh in.

The FTC has targeted the following standard businesses and business practices, citing several concerns, including, the charging of advertising and other fees to sellers that sell on Amazon or advertise using online platforms.

Mr. Chairman, when you want to buy something, it is going to cost you something. Somebody has to pay for that. That is how business is done.

Other FTC concerns include the use of noncompete clauses in contracts, and the idea that mergers themselves--rather than downstream effects on consumers--negatively impact consumers.

Unfortunately, this government seems focused on killing successful American business instead of staying out of its way.

Most, if not all, of these practices are agreed upon in contracts between two willing parties. If you don't like what is in the contract provisions, whether it is a noncompete clause or you have to pay for your advertising, there is a simple remedy not involving the government: Just don't sign the contract. It is pretty easy.

In the last couple years, the level of FTC salaries and expenses has increased from just over $300 million to $430 million in FY23. That is $130 million in extra salaries and expenses. I don't need to tell everybody here, I hope, but we are $33.7 trillion in debt--the last time I checked the debt clock, 2 days ago--and there ain't no end in sight.

As my young daughter told me when she looked at the debt clock for the first time, she said, Well, it doesn't stop. Yeah, no kidding. It doesn't stop, because this place just keeps spending like there is no tomorrow. If we keep going, there might not be a tomorrow for this country.

I appreciate that the bill's author wrote it at a lower level than FY24. It shouldn't be too tall a request to lower that number even further to prepandemic levels when, oh, by the way, just a couple years ago, the government was still too big and was spending more money than it took in then, especially given the questionable tactics of this administration's FTC.

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

Mr. Chairman, the good gentleman from the State of Maryland says, well, you are on your own. You are on your own. I don't know.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Well, the gentleman said it over and over again--you are on your own, implying that we are saying you are on your own.

In 2019, we were on our own somehow, I guess, because that is what this goes back to. Somehow, we made it to 2023, by the grace of God, I guess, because the good gentleman also refers to the twenties, so I imagine it is the 1920s.

Well, it is the 2020s, and things have changed a little bit. I know that my good friend from the other side of the aisle and I are a little bit older, but neither of us were around in 1920. Things have changed a little bit.

Now, as a young man, I pumped gas for a living. I do know the difference between gasoline and diesel and kerosene because I have a nose, and I can read.

Sure. Do mistakes happen? Do people put gasoline in diesel and diesel in gasoline? They changed the size of the nozzle, by the way, in case you can't figure that out. If you can read, and most people in America can read, they can figure it out.

The point is, we are not a bunch of rubes, and we don't need the government to figure out all this stuff for us.

We don't need the government wiping our rear end every time we go to the bathroom, but that is what you would have us believe, that that is what we need, that Americans are so dumb, they can't do it without the Federal Government.

Somehow this country survived a couple hundred years, and not only survived, became the greatest country on the planet, and it wasn't because the Federal Government was wiping our rear end the whole way.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the use of any funds in this act for so-called transit-oriented development.

Contrary to the claims of proponents of such communities, they do not increase ridership on transit lines. Rather, they just ensure taxpayers subsidize development that would likely happen anyway.

Moreover, like transit investment generally, they do not create economic growth. Instead, these communities just subsidize the growth that would likely have occurred naturally.

This is a giveaway to developers in large urban areas, as most areas do not have the population density to support these communities. It does not address the more fundamental issue plaguing our Nation's transit systems than driving down ridership, which is the problem. Doing so will only result in wasted Federal resources that would be better directed toward core highway and bridge projects.

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

Mr. Chair, the gentleman says that Federalism is good sometimes but not other times, and States' rights are important sometimes but not other times.

Let me be clear: We are not talking about the transit lines themselves. This is transit-oriented development.

Let me break it down for everybody here. There is a transit line running somewhere. There is not a lot of ridership on it, so we have to boost the ridership. What that means is that we are going to subsidize some developer to build housing or whatever other development adjacent to the line to hope that those people will then get on that transit line. That is what is happening here.

You know what happens next. We subsidize the development. Then, the people who get into that development take their cars to wherever they are going and don't ride on the transit line.

If you have to have transit lines, God bless you. That is awesome. If you want to ride them, God bless you. That is awesome. There is no reason whatsoever that this is a Federal requirement or a Federal nexus at all to build developments next to transit lines.

If States and localities want to do that, if they want to subsidize them, God bless them, too. They should do that, but people in Pennsylvania shouldn't be supporting transit-related development in California any more than people in California should be supporting it in Illinois. That is no Federal nexus.

If Illinois wants to do it, they should. If Pennsylvania wants to do it, they should. We shouldn't require every taxpayer in the country to pay for transit-oriented development to boost ridership on the lines that don't have any so that we can justify the lines and then build more lines without any ridership.

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

Mr. Chair, this is an awesome idea. I am glad that the gentleman can walk 15 seconds outside his door and get on the train and, as he says, more quickly and safely get to his destination. That is great. That is good for him.

If my colleague wants to pay for that, he should. If Illinois wants to pay for that, they should. I shouldn't have to pay for it.

By the way, while my colleague is talking about quicker and safer, of course, there are no metrics to support any of that.

I have no interest in riding mass transit. My daughters get on the bus every morning, and I remind them, as they are standing up there at the bus stop in the freezing cold waiting for the bus, that I hope they enjoy their mass transit. I hope they enjoy their public transportation because it is inefficient. It is not getting them there more quickly.

Riding in America's cities on mass transit, my colleague said it is safer. It seems like crime is on the rise in every single city. It is not ``seeming so,'' it is so. It is not safe. It is not safe here in the Nation's Capital to ride on transit. It is not quicker. It is not safer. I am providing the same metrics to prove my point that you provided to prove yours, which are none.

Mr. Chair, this is about federalism. This is about subsidies and boondoggles and things that we can't afford while we are $33 trillion in debt.

If somebody wants to build, if some developer wants to build next to the transit line because they think it will

help them sell their properties in their development more quickly, they should do that. Taxpayers shouldn't be involved.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to finalize, implement, or enforce the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rule mandating automatic emergency braking systems on new commercial vehicles.

Isn't that wonderful, another mandate? Making the world better, making America better, making us more free, making everything more affordable, except it is not.

The IIJA, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, required the Department of Transportation to issue a mandate for heavy-duty trucks to be equipped with automatic emergency braking systems. It also required the DOT to consult with the commercial vehicle user community and address any existing deficiencies with automatic emergency braking systems before issuing its mandate.

The issue is that DOT has failed to meet both requirements, or any requirement.

There are real and legitimate concerns about false activations of the systems that remain unaddressed and must be dealt with before proceeding with any requirement.

Moreover, an integrated safety system with an automatic emergency braking system can add up to $5,000 to the cost of a single truck. Oh, but it is always worth it. It is always worth it. We are going to be more safe if we have this stuff.

Meanwhile, we can't get anybody to drive a truck anymore. That is why we are looking at automated trucks without drivers in them because we have depleted the truck driving industry. We have driven everybody out because they can't afford to get in or stay in.

With fleets operating on exceedingly tight margins, this mandated cost increase presents a barrier to entry for new market participants. It will also likely result in extending the life of current vehicles, causing these operators to miss out on the safety improvements of newer trucks that they won't buy.

I know it is counterintuitive, but when these rules are made, they never think about the additional cost that the truck owner or the person that wishes to buy a truck or replace a truck is going to have to incur. They just assume, well, they will just spend the extra $5,000.

This is not where it ends. This is just one system. There are multiple systems on these new trucks and all new equipment. They just keep adding and adding.

Well, I don't understand why the cost of everything goes up. I can't figure it out. If you are on the left you can never figure those things out. It is because of you and the things that you do. That is why.

Moreover, this will likely result in an older truck fleet in the U.S., which is actually probably more dangerous because people are not going to replace trucks because they don't have the extra $5,000. I know you think all truck drivers are made of money, but they are not.

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

Mr. Chairman, my good friend from Illinois says that we ought to just go through the rulemaking process.

However, as I told you, there are real and legitimate concerns that have not been addressed, and that is why you go through the rulemaking process. It is not just a perfunctory, well, we asked for your input, and we got it. Now we are just going to disregard it and do what we want to anyhow, which is exactly what the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is doing, which is why we cannot fund this.

It is our government. The government serves us. It is not the other way around. It is just another example where we act like we are Oliver Twist begging for more gruel. The gruel is ours, Mr. Chairman, and we should not have to beg for it as the citizens of this country. This government belongs to us, not the other way around.

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

Mr. Chairman, my colleague says that we should respect the rulemaking process. Maybe some of my colleagues here in Washington don't understand, don't recognize, won't acknowledge that this government has gotten too big, and the rulemaking process is really meant to shut out voices across America.

It is we here in Congress who should be making these rules, not unelected bureaucrats who have no accountability to the people that they impose these rules upon. It is we who should be doing this.

By the way, there were some folks who came in, they said, We oppose your amendment. We want this emergency braking system on trucks.

I said, Well, how about on your trucks?

Oh, no, no, we don't want it on our trucks. We want it on their trucks. We want it on someone else's trucks.

Everybody wants someone else to pay the freight until it comes to their doorstep, then they are not interested.

Mr. Chairman, this government is too big. This is an example of it. 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 amendment reduces the funding level for the National Surface Transportation and Innovation Finance Bureau to the fiscal year 2022 level, saving $6.75 million.

This office was created by the FAST Act solely to help entities apply for Federal subsidies for transportation projects. It has become so complicated, and there are so many different programs, that now we have to have an entity that navigates interested parties through it.

In fiscal year 2022, this program was funded at $3.8 million. In this House bill, just 2 years later, it is funded at $10.55 million.

Let's think about that. We are lending out so much money from the taxpayers that we need to use taxpayer dollars to create an office to assist people looking to take those loans.

This office is supposed to streamline and improve the application process for DOT's credit assistance programs, according to the Department of Transportation website. These programs, which include TIFIA and RRIF credit assistance programs, have very favorable terms for the borrower. Unfortunately, they have unfavorable terms for the taxpayer.

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

Mr. Chairman, these programs, unfortunately, often finance projects that have little or no value to interstate commerce.

This is the Federal Government. The Federal Government exists to do things that the State and local governments can't do, but yet the State and local governments can do these things. They just choose not to. I don't blame them. Why would they when the Federal Government will pay for them?

I will give you some examples:

It includes $606 million in TIFIA assistance to the Moynihan Train Hall project in New York City to relieve congestion at Penn Station.

It includes $99 million in TIFIA assistance to the city of Bellevue, Washington, for 12 multimodal roadways to support the new Bel-Red neighborhood in the heart of the city. It is great for those cities. I am sure it is wonderful, but that project alone included 25,000 linear feet of sidewalk and 21,000 linear feet of dedicated and separate bike lanes, all within one city.

They weren't crossing State lines. People in Pennsylvania are paying for the one in Washington, people in New Mexico, Florida. They are not there, though. They just get to pay for it.

It also includes $908 million in TIFIA assistance to a regional rail project that only traverses through three counties in Texas.

What region is that? I guess that is the Texas region, right? It is not the Southwest. I mean, it is technically, but this doesn't cross any State lines. There is no interstate nexus here. There is no reason for the Federal Government to be involved.

I am sure these projects and many more funded by these programs are appreciated by the residents of these areas. I am absolutely certain of it. I am also sure that I am in the minority when I say there should be fewer of these programs to redistribute taxpayer-funded subsidies across the country. We simply can't afford them. We simply can't afford them.

I know I am going to be a broken record, but we are going to hear the broken record of $33 trillion in debt and climbing every single day at exponential rates unseen before in history. At a bare minimum, instead of creating an increasing funding for an office to manage the web of bureaucracy of these subsidy programs, why don't we actually cut these programs, especially the duplicative ones?

My colleague on the other side of the aisle says it exists to help them apply and successfully develop projects. I am sure it does. I am sure they develop the projects just to receive this money. That is why they do it, because this thing exists. Maybe the project wouldn't exist if it weren't for this first.

He says it requires expertise. I am sure it does because it is complicated. It is so complicated that we have a bureau now just to navigate these things for grant recipients and would-be grant recipients and funding recipients. We can't afford this. We don't need this, and I urge adoption.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, let's be clear. The gentleman who spoke just before me that just rode the train in from New Jersey today should have no problem with this amendment because it does nothing to the Northeast Corridor. However, what it does do, it cuts the over $776 million in funding for the National Network of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.

I understand that the President has an affinity for passenger rail, especially Amtrak. Amtrak's 15-year vision released in 2021 mirrors that enthusiasm, plotting out an ambitious 39 new routes in the next 15 years. The problem is, it can't be said enough here in Washington, we are out of money. We are borrowing money to pay these bills.

The behemoth IIJA passed just a few years ago contained billions in funding directly for both the Northeast Corridor, which the good gentleman from New Jersey just talked about, but also the National Network.

This doesn't include billions of dollars going to passenger rail grant and loan programs at DOT, many of which Amtrak has been and remains eligible for at this moment. It doesn't include it. This amounts to at least $4.4 billion for Amtrak across both accounts. They are already getting that, $4.4 billion per year, preauthorized, prepaid. Why in the world would we continue to pump money into a budget line item that will automatically get generous support for the next few years at least? Like I just said, $4.4 billion.

Furthermore, this ignores that sucking chest wound of Amtrak's finances. Even before the pandemic, Amtrak's ticket revenue wasn't meeting its operating expenses; and now after the pandemic, numbers look even more grim. In FY22 Amtrak ran an astounding $886 million operating deficit, $806 million of which was from the National Network, easily the lion's share. We simply must stop the bleeding.

While I didn't vote for the Biden blowout infrastructure bill, it did contain a supplemental appropriation of $3.2 billion per year for FY22 through FY26 for Amtrak's National Network. They are already getting that $3.2 billion.

This amendment simply cuts $776 million contained in this bill, the bill that we are trying to move today, this bill, from the National Network.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we absolutely do need investments in passenger rail, but private companies won't do it because it loses money. Amtrak is happy to do it because it is not their money. It is our money. It is our taxpayers' money. They get up early in the morning while it is still dark out, pack their lunch, and head off to work so they can pay the taxes for an operation that lost $886 million in FY 2022--$886 million.

You know who lost their job when they lost $886 million of the taxpayers' hard-earned money? Nobody. Nobody lost their job. It doesn't matter.

What happens is we came in and we are asking for more money. We already talked about the billions they are already getting, and this is adding insult to injury for everybody who has to pay for it.

It is awesome to have rails that go across the country. It is one of the founding principles of our country, opening the West. However, it wasn't the government that did it. It was entrepreneurs. It was people who speculated and risked their capital. Then the people who rode the trains paid for them. However, people who aren't riding the trains are paying for them, and they don't have any more money.

Do I want to see them close? I certainly don't. I don't want to see these lines ended and these services ended, but if we keep going, $33 trillion, I don't know when the breaking point is, but everything is going to end at some point. We could learn a lesson, trim the waste, fix things that we can fix, so we can avoid everything stopping, but I guess we are going to head over the cliff.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes over $130 million in transit infrastructure grants for the earmarks contained in this bill.

Even though many of my colleagues have chosen to request earmarks, or using the current euphemism, community project funding, I remain opposed to the use of this funding for local projects.

The corruptive and wasteful earmark process represents what I believe are the worst of our taxpayers' dollars being spent on projects that oftentimes have no Federal nexus whatsoever.

Take some of the grant projects being funded in this bill using transit infrastructure grants:

$1.05 million for the rehabilitation of the Baldwin Park Train Station in Baldwin Park, California. I am sure it is beautiful. I am sure the residents love it. People in Pennsylvania don't know where it is and don't want to pay for it.

$790,000 for the West Anaheim zero-emission microtransit project. I am not even sure what that is. Maybe I would be sure if I was in West Anaheim, but I am in Pennsylvania. I am not planning on traveling there anytime soon, but apparently my tax dollars are.

$850,000 for the City of Phoenix Valley Metro microtransit. The City of Phoenix is beautiful. I have been there. I haven't used the microtransit project, but I get to pay for it, and so do all my bosses.

$850,000 for the Norwalk Transit System bus stop equity project in Norwalk, California. I am sure it is beautiful. I am not sure what the equity project is. I would rather not pay for it, and neither would the folks that sent me here. They don't want to pay for it either because they don't have any money, and neither does this government.

Now, there is no doubt that some of the earmarks funded in this bill will benefit some folks around the country. However, again, many of them have no Federal nexus. State and local governments should be doing these things, not the Federal Government.

I bet nearly all of them are already eligible for some form of Federal transit spending anyhow. They don't need an earmark, and they can compete like everybody else on that boondoggle. We don't need this boondoggle on top of that boondoggle.

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand that it received guidance. It doesn't matter to me if it the received guidance.

As a matter of fact, it seems to me based on the examples I gave you that the guidance is flawed, which is why I voted against this when we started this session and we crafted the rules. I voted against all of this because I knew this was going to happen.

I don't cast any aspersions to Republicans or Democrats in this. I am not going to name any names. I am not mad at anybody here. I think it is bad for the whole country, and it is a bad way of doing business.

As to the safety aspect, I guess when you don't have any real argument to make about the projects themselves and the alleged Federal nexus, you throw the old safety--like, of course, everybody on this side of the aisle, we want to be unsafe. We love to be unsafe. We want everybody to be unsafe just like we like to breathe dirty air and drink dirty water, and people somehow believe that. Nothing could be further from the truth.

If the only way we can be safe is by bankrupting the country, I wonder how this country made it this far. We made it pretty far without bankrupting ourselves, but yet, we can make it no further.

I guess that is what we are going to learn here with this process on this bill. Too much money. Too much borrowing. We can't afford it. No Federal nexus.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, and I yield the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike the funds for the Capital Investment Grant Program.

For the past decade, the Capital Investment Grant Program has led to the misallocation of funds to the most expensive projects without regard to the project's financial viability or expected ridership, which would seem to me to be kind of important.

By overextending their resources in search of Federal grant funding, transit agencies fail to consider the impact this will have on their ability to provide existing services.

While this was true before the pandemic, it is of particular concern in the post-pandemic environment. FDA data shows 2023 ridership came in a little over 50 percent of 2019 levels, so there is little need to build out additions to the transit system before we can ascertain the long-term impact of the pandemic and the interest in public transportation generally on ridership.

People aren't riding, yet we are going to build more of this stuff. That seems, I don't know, a little counterintuitive to me.

Congress now has provided in excess of $100 billion in annual and emergency spending to public transit agencies over the pandemic era period.

There is a reason for that. We need to slow down and determine where future ridership is headed before we continue to throw good money after bad into capital projects we can't afford, are unnecessary, and will never be sustained.

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

Mr. Chairman, no one here is anti-mobility. We are anti- bankruptcy. We want everybody to be able to go where they need to go when they need to go there.

We can't afford these projects. The fact is the only way they can be done is if the Federal Government pays for them. It would probably be done no other way, which begs the question: If it is the only way they can be done, are they really affordable? Of course, they are not. It is how we ended up $33 trillion in debt, for things like this.

Again, we are not opposed to anybody, any State, any locality investing in their community to do these things. The Federal Government simply doesn't have the money to do it anymore.

The gentleman talks about the return on investment. Well, the return on investment doesn't come to these projects because if it did, they wouldn't be seeking all this money every single year.

Return on investment doesn't come to the taxpayers. We just keep spending and spending and spending. Somebody in this place, somebody in this body, somebody in this town has to pick somewhere to start saving some money.

We don't have any problem with the rest of everything we do picking the winners and losers, but there can never be any losers when it comes to funding in this place except for the taxpayer.

They get to lose because no one cares about them. I am here to say I care about them. We have got to stop this.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes $150 million in grants from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, known as WMATA.

This area that we are operating in, that we are speaking about, is full of highly educated professionals, many of whom work for the government or government contractors and associated jobs. Some of the surrounding counties in Maryland and Virginia have some of the highest median incomes per county in the country. It is pretty affluent around here.

Like many transit agencies, even before the pandemic, WMATA had an unsustainable budget outlook and operation, getting 53 percent of its budget through State and local subsidies--not through fares of all the well-to-do folks around the area riding, but through subsidies.

If you were to run a business where you only made 47 percent of your budget in revenues, you would be out of business pretty darn quick.

During the pandemic, most Federal agencies sent their workers home. Even so, WMATA received over $2 billion from pandemic-era legislation to keep it afloat. Nobody was riding because everybody was sent home, but this place sent them $2 billion to keep paying the bills when nobody was riding--only in Washington, D.C. Unfortunately, only in America.

We are now post-shutdown, and Federal workers are still not going to the office. A recent GAO report showed that 17 of the 24 Federal agencies surveyed used an average of 25 percent or less of their headquarters building capacity right here in Washington, D.C. That is 75 percent of the space in these headquarters buildings around here that taxpayers are paying for with no benefit because 75 percent of it is empty. Not only are they paying for a building nobody is in, but they are paying for a transit system that is taking no one to work in these places.

WMATA said that in May of this year, rail ridership reached only 50 percent of pre-pandemic levels on weekends and 89 percent on weekends. Mr. Chairman, 50 percent of pre-pandemic is half. It just now reached half of pre-pandemic levels in May of this year.

After Federal COVID relief for WMATA is exhausted, the Metro's budget deficit will be $750 million in fiscal year 2025 and $830 million in fiscal year 2026.

When is it going to end? When?

WMATA's leadership says that the deficit results from inflation, collective bargaining agreements, and, importantly, $288 million from decreased ridership.

Well, I can't do anything about those things, but I can try to do something about the exorbitant amount of money we are losing, that the taxpayers are sending into this black hole and getting nothing for it.

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

Mr. Chairman, reckless? We just heard from the gentleman right before me about how dangerous it is to ride in the National Capital's transit system. People come here and it is dangerous to ride on the transit system of their Capital. That is reckless.

This transit system is expecting to get this $150 million in grants, and they are still going to lose $750 million in 2025 and $830 million in 2026. They are still going to lose that even with the $150 million because they have no interest in trying to make this solvent.

Why should they? They keep on getting bailed out by the good people from around the country who can't even go to their Nation's Capital and be sure that they won't be beaten up, robbed, or worse on the transit system. It is unacceptable. There ought to be some accountability. There ought to be any accountability.

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

Mr. Chairman, this shouldn't be hyperpartisan. My friends on the other side of the aisle, I am sure they like taking the train. I am sure their constituents and their bosses do, as well. Having other people pay for it is an awesome circumstance. Everybody would want that.

We all like things for free, but things aren't free. We have to pay for things in this country, and we are out of money, Mr. Chairman.

It shouldn't be hyperpartisan, and it is not hyperpartisan. Those in this room would have you believe that, but there are people on both sides of the aisle who know that this thing is inefficient, wasteful, dangerous, and, yes, indeed, reckless.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are there three?

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is the place to stop the spending.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think that they should.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some more projects:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to take retaliatory actions against States that fall short of their EPA- mandated pollutant reduction goals. Importantly, this amendment would not prevent the EPA from working with States to restore the Chesapeake Bay.

For context, in 1985, the States in the Chesapeake Bay region recognized the need to address pollutants in the bay, and through their own initiative, came together to conduct clean-up efforts. These State- driven efforts were largely successful. Water quality improved almost 50 percent from 1985 until 2010.

However, in 2010, the EPA seized the States' authority to determine their own method of compliance and threatened to take over the water quality plans if the States failed to comply.

States are not inferior agents to the Federal Government. States are not servants to the Federal Government. This 2010 power grab, known as the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, directly contradicts the intent of the Clean Water Act, directly contradicts it. The Clean Water Act clearly acknowledges State authority in water quality and requires cooperation, not coercion, between the States and the Federal Government.

Now, these coercive methods have been tried and have failed. Water quality has not improved since the federalization of bay clean-up efforts.

It is imperative that we return the rights of the States to make their own water quality decisions and restore the local control that has been shown to improve water quality, to be effective, because the future of the bay depends on it.

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

Mr. Chair, I remind the gentlewoman and everybody that Pennsylvania and the other States are not ignoring the requirements. As I said, while they were working together without Federal involvement, without the coercive activity of the EPA, water quality was actually improving. It was actually when the Federal Government got involved that things stopped. It hasn't improved since that time. It worked until the Federal Government got involved with their coercive activity, and then it stopped.

This would just allow the States to go back to collaborative efforts, with the Federal Government, with the EPA, without the heavy hand of Damocles' sword hanging over their head trying to force them to do something that apparently and obviously is ineffective. It is ineffective.

We all have the same goal, to clean up the bay. The States have agreed on their own to do this, and they have been effective. What is not effective is the Federal Government's coercive activity. This amendment seeks to remove the ability for that coercive activity so that the requirement is just to work with the States to do what works and works well.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the EPA from using funds for actions pursuant to section 115 of the Clean Air Act.

Section 115 of the Clean Air Act allows the EPA to mandate State emissions levels to whatever level the agency deems appropriate if they find the following: U.S. emissions endanger a foreign nation, and the endangered nation has a reciprocal agreement to prevent or control these emissions in their own nation.

That sounds complicated and screwed up because it is.

Our EPA deciding what we do in our States based on their agreement with some other nation about what is happening in their nation shouldn't have an impact on our States.

This is a backdoor provision that allows the EPA to vastly expand its regulatory authority and encroach on the rights of the States to regulate their own energy sectors based on the actions of a foreign nation and a determination of the executive branch solely without any input from this branch.

It is irresponsible to allow unelected bureaucrats at the EPA to retain the ability to seize this expansive authority. If the U.S. Government wants to pursue such a policy, one that, in my opinion, is constitutionally suspect--be that as it may--it should be done through an explicit congressional delegation of authority on a case-by-case basis.

A similar amendment has passed the House during previous Interior- Environment appropriations packages. I know because I offered it. I am hoping that my colleagues will do the same on this one and take back our Article I authority and support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this goes exactly to the Paris climate accord. When section 115 was written, along with the rest of the Clean Air Act, that Paris climate accord did not exist. It is not a treaty. We haven't signed it, yet we are bound to it as long as the executive branch wants to use it and a foreign government says that our government is polluting their country.

It is absolutely absurd. It was never envisioned by the EPA. I think that they had good intentions, and I agreed with those good intentions at the time, but since the Paris climate accord has been agreed to by this administration, this is a dangerous precedent to set. It is dangerous to allow it to be there.

Again, as I said, this has passed in previous appropriations debates--this very amendment--and I encourage Members to vote in favor of it again to make sure that we are controlling our country, that States can control themselves, and that we don't rely on foreign governments to control our country.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment eliminates the funding for the Delaware River Basin Commission, the funding that is from the Federal Government.

Unfortunately, this bill provides nearly three quarters of a million dollars to the Delaware River Basin Commission, meaning that since 1998, the Federal Government has provided funding of some sort to this commission full of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats that have unilaterally, in this case, instituted a hydraulic fracturing ban for a portion of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, literally stripping away the property and mineral rights from Pennsylvanians in direct contravention of the will of the legislature.

These people aren't elected by anybody. They are not accountable to anybody. Most people have no idea who the people on this commission even are.

The result is a prohibition on the development of critical shale plays in eastern Pennsylvania that can bring desperately needed natural gas to the market and the unconstitutional taking of mineral rights of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Americans are having unelected bureaucrats take their rights away.

It is an attack on Pennsylvania energy and American energy. At a time when residential natural gas prices are near record highs, it creates significant inflation, cost-of-living increases for our constituents, and empowers our enemies abroad.

Now, instead of taking action to stop this unconstitutional seizure of State authority, as my other amendment that was not made in order would have done, or better yet, dissolving the compact altogether, this bill, as it currently exists, rewards the radical commissioners with money from the very taxpayers the Delaware River Basin Commission is attacking.

Providing funds to such an out-of-control, radical commission is a step in the wrong direction that incentivizes others like it to follow.

This amendment that I am offering would rescind this money and move it to the spending reduction account, ensuring that we do not further incentivize this commission to attack American energy and the rights of Pennsylvania while trying to pay off some of our $33 trillion of debt.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and send a message to these unelected bureaucrats by supporting this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague says that it costs mere pennies. These mere pennies add up to mere dollars. These mere dollars add up to thousands, eventually millions and eventually billions, which is where we are right now.

It talks about return on investments. It talks about it but it doesn't say what the return on investment is, because there isn't any return on investment.

It provides immense value, it is claimed. Yet, the value cannot be described. It cannot be quantified. No one knows what the value is.

Will the Delaware River Basin go away if the Commission were not there? Are you saying without the Commission there would be no safe drinking water?

The actions that this commission has taken are unfounded, unjustified, and are happening nowhere else. Yet, there is clean drinking water across the rest of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania without this commission banning public and private activity.

My colleague says it is necessary funding. Necessary for what? What are we getting for this? Somebody is getting something, but the people of Pennsylvania, they are getting the shaft.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would say I dispute the claim that they work in collaboration.

The Delaware River Basin Commission itself, in contravention of the Pennsylvania legislature, has banned the practice all over northern Pennsylvania. Hydraulic fracturing; banned it in contravention of the will and the wishes of the elected members of the Pennsylvania legislature.

I would say this as well: The Corps of Engineers can do this work whether there is a commission or not, or whether this money is here or not. The Corps of Engineers has wide latitude to do that work all across the country. They don't need our involvement.

Finally, the individual States involved in this compact, that is why they got into the compact. They charge people in the individual States all kinds of permit fees and regulatory fees to pay for this Commission. Yet, somehow the Commission can't survive without more money from the Federal Government. It is ridiculous, it is duplicative, it is costly, it is unaffordable, it is unnecessary, and it needs to end.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes $35 million in funding for the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations.

For those unfamiliar with this office, according to its website, it accelerates the market adoption of clean energy technologies and fills a critical innovation gap on the path to 100 percent clean energy by 2035 and net zero emissions by 2050.

I am going to characterize it a different way. Since the real market, the private market won't do it, you are going to pay for it under force by your taxes so that you can have less reliable energy as soon as possible, and we can be less energy independent. That is what it does, courtesy of your Federal Government.

It funds projects like long-duration energy storage and distributed energy systems to support the electric grid for electric vehicles, which are also being subsidized by your Federal Government under force of penalty of you not paying your taxes. It is astounding.

The Democrats continue to push this technology when the drawbacks of this so-called clean energy technology are clear.

The actual grid is being powered by solar and wind energy sources that are inherently unreliable and don't work when the Sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.

Battery technology storage is not there, and of course, all that stuff that I just talked about comes from China, and oh, by the way, built with slave labor, whether that is in Turkistan or whether that is in the Congo.

Your tax dollars are supporting it under penalty of law. Try not paying your taxes and see what happens then.

Vehicles powered by this grid are built largely using slave labor like I just talked about and our reliance on the Communist Party of China since they control all the necessary components in the mineral supply chains.

Not that we don't have them in America. They say they are rare earth minerals. Mr. Chairman, they are not rare.

We just can't mine them in America because the left doesn't allow that, so now we have got to buy them from China. That is another story.

Vehicles powered by this grid are built largely, like I said, using slave labor and the supply chains that go with them.

These vehicles have limited range. Their lithium batteries often catch fire. Those fires are more difficult to extinguish than traditional fires.

This office that I am talking about is also managing $2.5 billion for carbon capture facilities and greenhouse gas monitoring technology.

Mr. Chair, if these technologies were so great, why isn't the market already adopting and innovating without taxpayer-funded handouts?

My friends on the other side of the aisle will tell you these are critical investments, and they are not going to happen if the Federal Government doesn't do them. If we don't take your tax dollars and spend it on this, it ain't going to happen.

My goodness. Thank goodness that this country didn't become the greatest country on the planet without the Federal Government subsidizing all this stuff.

I don't know how Thomas Edison would have made it. I don't know how Ford Motor Company would have made it without the Federal Government. Somehow they did it, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that the chairman did not approve additional funds for these clean demonstration projects, but my amendment strikes all the funds for this office.

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

Mr. Chair, I certainly respect the good gentleman from Tennessee, and I thank him for the time.

I don't know. It seems like a lot of money still remaining for project management oversight. That doesn't seem to be billions of dollars' worth of spending to me; maybe millions, but not billions.

As far as advanced reactor research, I am proud to say that in the district that I represent, some of the fusion reactor research that is being done in France is being produced in the district I represent, which is awesome, but we don't need to be paying for it. France is paying for it, and we are providing some expertise and some material.

Oh, by the way, the good gentleman from Tennessee, much of the home of nuclear fission and nuclear energy is in the United States of America. God bless America. I think it is awesome. When have we built a nuclear reactor in the United States of America? I know the district that I represent just shut one down.

We are paying for all this research. Tell me where it is. What does it provide? What does it produce? It doesn't produce anything.

If it was building nuclear reactors, maybe I could see it, but it seems to me we are paying for it and putting the research on the shelf, or worse yet, giving it to France.

Mr. Chairman, I don't care what it costs. It ought to end. I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts $35 million from this bill for the Appalachian Regional Commission, lowering the funding level in this bill to $165 million.

The IIJA provided the Appalachian Regional Commission with an advanced appropriation of $200 million a year--the entirety of its authorization level for fiscal year 2022 through 2026, meaning every dollar provided under this bill is more than the authorization level. We authorize things here and then we pay for them. It is authorized at a lower level, and we are paying much more.

In other words, under this amendment the ARC would receive $365 million for the fiscal year rather than $400 million provided by this underlying bill. Even with this minimal cut under this amendment, the program funding is still extremely bloated, and its effectiveness remains unclear, as do all the regional commissions.

Moreover, this Commission's programs are duplicative of other Federal economic development programs and better addressed by State and local levels. In fact, the fiscal year 2018 budget justification identified that the Appalachian Regional Commission failed to show a strong link between grants and a positive impact on the communities they serve.

Worse, this year, the Commission's inspector general identified the massive increase in the Commission's funding over recent years as a threat to its variability to evaluate grant proposals, measure program performance, and conduct appropriate oversight.

When we were talking about the last one, we needed the money for oversight. This one, we have got so much money that they can't oversee it. This is your Federal Government at work here. The spike in funding threatens to worsen an already tenuous link between funding and success.

We simply must bring the funding level for the ARC, the Appalachian Regional Commission, down to ensure that it has the capacity to ensure it meets its mission.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, it just so happens that I had a hearing about a week ago on the Appalachian Regional Commission and all the other commissions. It is interesting that this has been around since the 1960s. There was a map of the Appalachian region, of which the home that I reside in looks on the south mountain of the Appalachian mountain range. I live right in the center of this thing.

What was interesting to me of the map that I looked at provided by the Commission since the 1960s, showed counties that had reached attainment. Well, none of them had reached attainment. It has been around since the 1960s. All the ones that hadn't reached attainment in the 1960s still haven't reached attainment in 2023. We are spending all this money, and we are not getting anything for it. Well, we are getting some things for it. You might be able to get a theater in your community, reconstructed with the help of the Federal Government, or a trail, which is awesome. These are great programs, and I am not here to argue that they are not.

What I am arguing is two things. It is not the job of the Federal Government, number one. These are things done by local communities and States.

Two, this is above the authorization. This commission was authorized funding. I don't dispute that. However, we are spending money above the authorization, and I do dispute that because we are $30-some trillion in debt with nothing in sight except more debt.

People say that we can't cut anything, that there is nowhere to cut. Well, we authorized this. This body authorized this at a lower level, and then we appropriated at a higher level.

When you don't have any more money, when you are borrowing money to pay your bills, it seems to me that it would be easy to say that we will just pull back a little here, just a little, and we will go to what is authorized, which is still a lot, hundreds of millions of dollars. I guess that is going to be a problem here, though.

This has no Federal nexus whatsoever. I will tell you, there are nice people working here. They want to do great things for their community. However, this is a boondoggle. This is spending money where other money can be spent and is being spent. This is a duplication of services.

Sooner or later, this town is going to have to realize the taxpayer doesn't have any more money to be bled out of their pockets to spend on things that are spent elsewhere for the same projects, local, State, et cetera.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts the funding to the Delta Regional Authority by $6.1 million, back to the FY19 level.

In FY17, the Obama administration sought to cut funding for the Delta Regional Authority by $3 million. The FY18, FY19, FY20, and FY21 budgets all sought to eliminate funding for the Delta Regional Authority, identifying it as duplicative of other Federal economic development programs.

Mr. Chair, just like I said before on the last one, it is the same thing here. I just had a hearing on it. These folks sat in front of me and made the same arguments.

The FY21 budget pointed out that the Delta Regional Authority, like others, is set aside for special geographic designations rather than applied across the country based on objective criteria indicating local areas and levels of distress that, again, don't seem to ever be addressed even though we spend millions of dollars.

We are $33 trillion in the hole. I don't know if you looked at the economics and the financials of just the last couple of months, how much more we have gone into debt in just the last couple of months. Something has to shock the conscience of this Congress because it is shocking the conscience of the American people who can't afford groceries, gasoline, car payments, or credit card payments. Heaven forbid you have to buy a new car. Heaven forbid you try to buy a new home.

We simply can't continue to allow for the rapid growth of parochial commissions that duplicate, literally just duplicate, other Federal programs undeterred. Regardless of the duplication of the Federal programs, most of the stuff looks like it is local programs or State programs--again, worthy things. The question is, is there a Federal nexus here? There is not in many cases. There is poor oversight, and we don't have the money to do it.

Finally, this is not a partisan issue. Democratic Presidents and Republican Presidents have all called for either the abolishment or the reduction of these commissions. Both have done it. It is not a partisan issue. It is a fiscal issue. It is a responsibility issue.

These things need to be dealt with. State and locals should do it if that is what they are. We don't have the money at the Federal level anymore for that.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, in closing, certainly, I congratulate the gentlewoman and her great State for the success of all the House of Representatives today and their contribution.

On this occasion, though, I must disagree. As I said, I just had a hearing with the Delta Regional Authority present, and she is right, it targets hundreds of communities, as do all of these commissions. They target hundreds of communities.

One of the things that was fascinating to me was I asked for the metrics by which anything is measured. What measure of success does anyone have? Is there some standard? Is there some way to know whether all of these millions of dollars that are being spent actually get us anywhere, actually fix anything, actually do anything other than: We made sure the grants all got out, and we helped with the grant writing. We fixed up the sidewalk. We fixed up the theater. We provided some healthcare.

Those are all awesome things that are all being provided by someone else, by the way.

What was the metric by which they measured their success? Close your eyes. What do you see? That is what I got back. Nothing. There is no measure of success here.

Mr. Chair, this is well intended. It is well meaning. However, it is unaffordable and unnecessary.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces funding for the Denali Commission by $2 million to the FY19 level.

The Denali Commission's mission for providing job training and other economic development services in rural Alaska can be better served by the 29 other Federal programs in which it duplicates the very same efforts.

The Obama administration sought to eliminate funding for the commission in FY12 because it was duplicative back then and did not select projects based on competition or merit. Say it ain't so, but it is so.

In 2013, the inspector general for the Denali Commission called for the elimination of the program. Some people say: Perry, you are just mean. You just don't understand. You just don't want to help poor people or rural people.

I came from a house with no running water, no electricity, and no plumbing. We had an outhouse out back. There was no insulation. There was no heat in it. The roads weren't paved. Somehow, I made it to Congress. It wasn't the Federal Government's job to fix my mom's house or get me to work.

In 2013, the inspector general for the commission called for the elimination of the program, like I said, stating that he recommended that Congress put its money elsewhere. I am happy to take his recommendation.

The Trump administration, likewise, sought to eliminate the commission in FY18, FY19, FY20, and FY21. It seems imprudent to continually fund yet another parochial commission in the face of two administrations--one Democratic, one Republican--and the inspector general's recommendation that we cease funding.

At a bare minimum, we should pass this amendment to keep the Denali Commission's funding flat at its pre-COVID-19 level and not allow for its continued growth. I am not asking to eliminate it. I am saying, oh my goodness, two administrations said it ought to be eliminated. The inspector general said it should be gone. I am not even taking their advice on that. I am just saying, let's save a little money here because we have this debt we can't afford.

Mr. Chairman, I have been to places where the country could no longer afford the debt that it had. You walk through shells of buildings just abandoned, walked away from by the workers who were there, that were once funded by their government. I have watched that in this town, right across the river at St. Elizabeth's, where they just shut the doors, couldn't afford it anymore, and walked away.

It is a tragic sight, but if we are going to keep going, it is not going to be just this place that does it. It is going to be all across the country. If we are going to be able to afford the things that we want, we are going to have to make some difficult choices.

We are taking in $5 trillion this year. We are spending $7.2 trillion. I am not a mathematician, but somehow that is not adding up to me.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will close quickly here. I sure appreciate the good gentleman from Tennessee. He has a lot to work with, and he has a lot of competing interests here. It is not easy. We certainly can appreciate that.

I want to point out that this is a regional commission, a regional commission like the other ones, like the Appalachian Regional Commission, like the Delta Regional Authority. Only this one exists in only one place, in Alaska. It is a wonderful place. Alaska is a great place, part of the United States of America, but tax dollars from across the country, including Pennsylvania, Tennessee, or Ohio, shouldn't go to pay for local projects that can be handled by State and local governments, especially when you are borrowing money to do it. We are out of money. We are out.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, apparently, I was the reasonable one in the room because this amendment offered by Mr. Norman would eliminate funding for the Denali Commission, and I can support that as well.

The Denali Commission is one of seven regional commissions that help direct Federal funds to State and local projects. However, unlike other commissions, the Denali Commission serves only one State--Alaska.

This has led some, including the Office of the Inspector General for the Denali Commission, to question the need for the commission since the Federal funds handled by the commission could easily be distributed to the State of Alaska and other local entities without going through the step of yet one more bureaucracy.

After all, State and local governments are more knowledgeable and better equipped than the Federal Government to address the needs of local communities. I think we all would recognize that.

Both the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office have raised concerns about the need for the Denali Commission, as have I.

Eliminating funding for the Denali Commission was also suggested, as you know, by the Obama administration and the Trump administration. At a time when our growing national debt has surpassed $33 trillion, we cannot continue to use taxpayer dollars to fund wasteful, unnecessary, and duplicative programs. With the Denali Commission's own OIG, Office of Inspector General, highlighting how wasteful the agency is, why don't we just listen and eliminate this unnecessary Federal agency.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank the kind gentleman from Tennessee for averring or implying that I am the reasonable one in the debate here, and I would, on behalf of the gentleman from South Carolina, urge adoption.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer this amendment to reduce funding for the Northern Border Regional Commission, or the NBRC, to fiscal year 2019 levels.

Like other regional commissions, the NBRC provides economic development assistance to projects in various States, in this case, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont.

These commissions simply serve as a slush fund, though, for parochial and regional projects with little to no national nexus as described in the other ones.

Let's take a look at some of the funded programs taken from the 2022 annual report, which is the latest report available: 304,000 to purchase the sound system for an auditorium in New Hampshire; over 350,000 to expand rail yard capacity in upstate New York; and another $350,000 for a sailing center on Lake Champlain.

I am sure they are awesome projects. I am sure their communities love them. I just don't understand why people in Ohio, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Texas, California, Georgia--you name it--are paying for this, especially when they can't afford the bills they already have as evidenced by a $33 trillion debt and a $2.2 trillion deficit this year.

Furthermore, the Biden administration's aim to inject their misguided diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility, and climate-related goals into these projects are not only unaffordable, they are just completely unnecessary.

Instead of pandering to special interest groups, we must pare back these wasteful programs that only serve as a boondoggle for a limited slice of America. This amendment does not zero out the commission's funding; it simply reduces the funding to pre-COVID, pre-Biden spending levels, which everybody on this side of the aisle voted against last December.

If you were against them last December, we are getting pretty close to this December, but I don't think a whole lot has changed. If you were against them then, you should be against them now.

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

Mr. Chair, I agree with my good friend from Tennessee. I agree with the gentlewoman, my friend from Ohio. It does seek to create jobs. That is awesome.

It is not the role of the Federal Government, number one. Number two, it is unaffordable. Number three, we have no way to measure the success.

Do you know how I know? Because I asked the folks that run these things. I asked them. What metric do you use to measure the success by which you use this money and what do we get out of it?

I received blank stares, unfortunately.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer this amendment to reduce funding for the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, the SCRC, to fiscal year 2019.

I don't want to leave anybody out here. I listened to them all. Yet again, this commission serves as a duplicative slush fund for parochial interests for projects in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.

Literally, by the way, in counties bordering Washington, D.C. We are talking about distressed counties, right? Some of the richest counties in the country right here are included in this regional commission.

From FY 2010 to FY 2020, the SCRC received $250,000 annually, all without having an appointed Federal co-chair. Did anybody get that?

Nobody was in charge but to get money. It is awesome. I guess that only happens in the Federal Government.

Now, after a co-chair was appointed in December 2021--unfortunately, whether you like it or not, just conveniently related to an influential politician in this body--that number is now a whopping $20 million in this bill.

Now, I am sure there is no coincidence. I just want to rely on everybody's integrity here, but there is absolutely no reason for the dramatic increase in funding, especially when these projects fund both projects with no national nexus like electric vehicle charging stations.

If you want to have them in your community, God bless you. That is awesome. Go pay for them. It is not the Federal Government's job to pay for that any more than it is the Federal Government's job to pay for your local gas station.

How about stormwater management? It is an important issue. I come from Pennsylvania, we have got a lot of stormwater. I am not asking the Federal Government to deal with it. We should deal with that at home, as well as green infrastructure, according to the SCRC's 2023 through 2027 strategic plan.

Our constituents do not have money for these projects that have no impact on their lives and, in many cases, drive up inflationary spending.

Oh, sure, they have an impact where you live if you live in one of these places, but if you don't, you get to pay anyhow. This is why we have State governments. This is why we have local governments.

The Federal Government is supposed to be there, obviously, but it is not the job of the Federal Government. Again, I ask my colleagues to consider reducing, not ending, the funding for this regional commission.

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

Mr. Chair, I, again, say this commission includes Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. I have been to every one of them. Many of the residents of Pennsylvania are moving to those States because they are doing pretty well.

We lose population compared to these States every 10 years, which is why we lose a seat in Congress every 10 years. We are spending money in Pennsylvania on these States. We are not spending in Pennsylvania; we are spending in these States, so our residents then move to these States for all the great things.

When I asked the regional commissioner how much money has been spent in the counties surrounding Washington, D.C.--because, as you recall, Virginia is included--how much money is spent on the counties right around Washington, D.C., some of the most wealthy counties in the country? I couldn't get the answer to that either. I don't know if they don't have the answer or they don't want to give me the answer, but that is unacceptable. That is unacceptable. The counties around Washington, D.C., can afford the amenities they have and they don't have to ask all these other States to pay for them.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to leave anybody out. We are getting to the end here. This amendment would be to have the funding for the Southwest Border Regional Commission.

Now, this Commission, which only had its first chairman confirmed in 2022 and only was funded starting in fiscal year 2021, funds projects in the southern border regions of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.

Incidentally, the first chairman was previously the Director of Economic Development and Special Initiatives for Senator Martin Heinrich, who continues a theme of politically connected chairman of these regional commissions, just to let you know.

I know that folks on both sides of the aisle care about the border. I believe that. However, the answer to solving border problems is to actually enforce our Nation's immigration laws, not to give $5 million to a commission that has not published a strategic plan and does not even appear to have a website.

I would think they could afford to have a website with $5 million.

The Commission received $250,000 in FY21 but is now being funded at $5 million in this bill for FY24 for literally no results.

Now $250,000 is a lot of money where I come from, and $5 million is even more. I can see inflation; I could see the cost of living going up. The people that I represent, their grocery costs are 20 percent up; fuel costs, electricity costs, everything they pay for is up, but not $250,000 to $5 million. That is a little bit more of a jump than everybody is used to.

Again, this amendment simply strikes this figure in half to a still exorbitant $2.5 million.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate my good friend from Arizona. We are sure happy to have him here, as well as the gentleman from Tennessee, and the work that they have done in collaboration with my friends across the aisle. None of this is easy, but only in Washington can you go from $250,000 to $2.5 million and still call it a cut because you didn't go to $5 million, which is what we are talking about.

I am not saying $250,000 is too much, but I am saying $5 million is too much, and saying we should spend $2.5 million, which quite honestly for me is too much, but I get it.

To the gentleman from Arizona's point, he is absolutely right, their States are being ravaged and destroyed by the Federal Government's refusal and obstinance to follow the law and allowing people to flow across the border illegally into their communities and destroy their communities.

This cannot be afforded. It can't be afforded by them and it can't be afforded by anybody else. The solution is not to spend more money there, to provide more services and encourage more people to come in illegally while this administration refuses to enforce the law.

I think the gentleman would probably agree with at least that sentiment at some point. I understand he is trying to do right by his citizens, and he should. The best way to do right by his citizens, and he has no control of this, neither does anybody in this body at this moment, is to actually enforce the law. The President can do that and clear up this whole disagreement on this side of the aisle and on that side of the aisle, but that is not going to happen any time soon.

You know what else is not going to happen any time soon, Mr. Chairman? We are not going to quit putting our country in debt and bankrupting it. We are taking in $5 trillion in revenue this year but we are going to spend $7.2.

While my good friend says this will have no impact on the overall cost of the bill, where I come from, $250,000 is a lot of money, $2.5 million is a huge amount of money, and $5 million is an obscene amount of money that most people don't have. While it might have a little impact in this town, it has a huge impact in my town.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't want to leave anybody out here on the abuse and the waste, and I know I am going to sound like a broken record so I will try and keep it short.

First, the Great Lakes Authority has only been authorized since 2022. It still does not have a Federal co-chair, it has no website, it has no programs funded. Yet strangely, it is still receiving Federal dollars to the tune of $5 million for projects supposedly in the watershed regions of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Yes, I said Pennsylvania, and I am from Pennsylvania, but when you can't afford things and you are wasting money, I don't care where you are from, you have to say something about it.

Mr. Chair, we have seen how the other commissions have gone. President Trump urged the elimination of three of them, and President Obama recommended cuts and elimination for the Denali Commission. With that level of bipartisan criticism of the existing commissions, I don't see why we need to dig ourselves even deeper with yet another one. I mean, there is not a lot we agree on in this town, but apparently there is some agreement on this. We ought to try and forge ahead with that agreement.

I know people in this building will scoff at the difference between $2.5 million and $5 million, but like I said, where I come from, $2.5 million or $5 million is a lot of money. It might not be to the President who buys beach homes with cash and all that stuff, but where I come from, that is a lot of money. That $2.5 million should not be going toward a commission that cannot even begin operations without a Senate-confirmed Federal co-chair. It shouldn't be going for that. There is nobody there to administer it.

Furthermore, all of us here know it is not going to stop at $5 million. This is just the beginning, Mr. Chairman. This Commission, like the rest, will balloon up to tens of millions of dollars if Congress, using the power of its purse, does not put its foot down. This won't be the only commission. I have been through them all tonight. Every other State and region is going to say, well, shoot, they have one. They have one over there. They have one down there. Why don't we have one? It is going to go.

Again, I would just remind everybody that we are just a little bit in debt--just a little bit--$2.2 trillion this year, $33 trillion overall.

Mr. Chair, somebody has to say no. Somebody has to say no.

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand and recognize the good, intended efforts, the heartfelt efforts of the committee members and on both sides of the aisle, certainly the Members representing the States involved. I understand and I recognize that, and I think they mean to do well.

There is nobody there to administer this. There is nobody present, but we are going to give them the money anyhow. We don't have any money to give, Mr. Chairman. We are borrowing money to give to a program with nobody there to administer it on projects that we haven't even seen yet. I don't know about you, but that seems like, to borrow an old phrase, putting the cart before the horse, or something like that.

People are going to say, well, we have to have the money so we can set it up. Okay, fair enough. The problem is we don't have the money.

Again, I don't mean to be a broken record here--I know I sound like one--we don't have any money, number one.

Number two, these are State and local projects. If you are showing me one that crosses State lines, and building a highway between Pennsylvania and Ohio or something like that, then we have a conversation going.

Now, there are already agencies and administrations to do that--we talked about that before--multiple agencies doing the same things, not just a couple, a couple dozen, but if that is not enough for you, just go with the fact that your constituents, your bosses, my bosses, can't afford this.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tempore, I'm honored to recognize Living Spring Harrisburg Church, a parish of the Redeemed Christian Church of God, as it celebrates 20 years of Christian ministry on November 4, 2023.

The Living Spring congregation was founded on November 2, 2003, under the distinguished leadership of Senior Pastor Tunde Oyelowo and his wife, Pastor Yinka Oyelowo. The Church, over the past two decades, has inspired faith, community service, and spiritual enlightenment. Its incredible growth from 8 to 500 members now represents 33 nations and a unique array of lingual and ethnic communities throughout South Central Pennsylvania.

The Church's vision of transforming lives, empowering people, and impacting communities is carried out through its 60,000 square foot, state-of-the-art International Center, accompanied by 8 flourishing local churches that extend to Lancaster, Lebanon, York, and Carlisle. The Church's reach, impact, and inspiration of unity and communal growth is yet another sign of God's enduring faithfulness and blessings.

Mr. Speaker Pro Tempore, on behalf of the 10th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, I'm honored and humbled to recognize Living Spring Harrisburg Church and 2 decades of success. Living Spring's cultivation of moral values, charitable activity, and community faith is truly the epitome of God's work, and I wish its community continued great health, happiness, prosperity, and success for many years to come.