Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be with my good friend from Texas, standing up for all Americans and all of America in the face of this place known as the swamp.

There was a time when the country revered Washington, D.C., and no one ever would think of it as the swamp. I was listening to your comments about World War II and visiting the museum this summer. I hope to visit it myself.

I think about just recently the use of the Defense Production Act. In the past, it was used to build tanks, airplanes, munitions, the equipment that the American soldier and servicemember needed to go fight tyranny, fascism, and totalitarianism and be successful.

This government said to the factory that was building a car, that was building some other machine implement: Whoa, hold on a second here, bigger calling here. We have to save the world from tyranny, so you are no longer going to build a car. You are going to build a jeep. You are no longer going to build something for agricultural production. You are going to build a howitzer.

Where are we in 2023? Well, we are going to use the Defense Production Act to force companies--there is no declaration of war, but we are going to force companies to build solar panels and batteries and electric vehicles, windmills, all sourced--my good friend from Texas already talked about where the sourcing of these raw materials come from. Even if you are not buying the solar panel from China, 90 percent of polysilicon comes from China, so we are forcing companies to build these things that, by the way, don't help.

If you are talking about carbon, it actually costs more to produce these things than it does just to produce the energy that they in turn produce. That aside, it is using the Defense Production Act to force companies in America to do this because of a political whim.

I make the argument that this is not needed and is not needed at this time, and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle don't agree. I am astounded. I am astounded that some Okie from Muskogee, a guy from Dillsburg, Pennsylvania, who has read the Constitution and says, my goodness, it is pretty obvious. The Federal Government is limited in its powers--limited. We are not supposed to be telling people what kind of car they can drive or if they are a business and want to produce one thing, and we are telling them, no, they are going to produce batteries instead because we demand it.

Today in a hearing, the Energy Department is proposing rules for new efficiency standards on dryers, washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerators, you name it. If you have a gas stove in your home, they are going to exclude 95 percent of the market. They are saying, well, it is not a ban. I say to myself: Man, I am just a guy from Dillsburg who used to work with his hands underneath a car. I went to vo-tech school. If I understand that the Federal Government shouldn't be telling me this, why doesn't the rest of the country understand it? Am I missing something?

I am not missing anything because when I did spend a week home, just like Mr. Roy did, the great Representative from the State of Texas, I can imagine what he heard. I will tell you what I heard. Time after time at the gas station, when I came out of the movie theater with my wife, when I am at the grocery store, people walk up to me, and they say: Keep fighting.

They don't even tell me what to keep fighting on. They know what Chip Roy knows, what Scott Perry knows, that this country is rotting from the inside. They can't necessarily explain how it happened or what it is, but they know that they can't afford their groceries. They know that they can't afford to move to a bigger home. They know that they can't afford a mortgage on a car. They know that when their parents had a house, the biggest bill they had was their mortgage, and the second biggest bill if they decided to take out a car loan was a car loan. Now, the second biggest bill people have is health insurance. Health insurance--I thought we solved that problem in the United States of America.

Do you know who sounds like they are getting rich? It is not doctors. It is somebody in the middle. It is bureaucrats siphoning off all the money.

This town created it. This town solved the problem that it created by making the problem worse. Now my bosses and Chip's bosses, my constituents and yours, can't afford to live their lives in America and be healthy, take a vacation, have a decent car, a decent home, a decent education for their children.

They are making choices: ``Well, I don't know. My house has a gas stove in it. I can't afford to rewire it for an electric stove, but the bureaucrats at the Department of Energy''--I talked to her today. I said: Do you know what is involved in changing from a gas stove to an electric stove? Do you know what is involved? Well, she had no idea, but thank goodness my colleague on the other side of the aisle said, well, if you have to run electricity, we have a $4,000 grant provided by the Federal Government to do that.

The citizens who get up early in the morning, pack a lunch box, and kiss their kids good-bye are paying for that $4,000. They don't want to. They can't afford to. They want the $4,000 for their kids and their home, not the Federal Government to tell them how to spend it and what they are working for. It is absurd and obscene.

Mr. Speaker, I am thinking about Mr. Roy's comments. We say the Republic can't exist if our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to dismiss the calamity that is happening on the border, the human tragedy, because it is not a dismissal. It is a collaboration. It is part and parcel to aiding and abetting. It is part and parcel to being involved in and supporting the largest human trafficking operation in recorded history. That is what it is.

If my friends on the other side of the aisle think that there is some political favor in knowing that they are doing nothing about 10-year- old boys and girls being trafficked into unimaginable circumstances, then I sure hope that God is with them because they are going to need something for their souls.

That aside, look, I get the politics of it, but I, like my good friend and colleague from Texas, cannot help myself. I cannot help myself in thinking about the Founding Fathers who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor knowing that mankind, that men and women, were flawed, that they fell short of the grace of God, and that they knew that power was corrupting.

They set up this system--for my good friends on the other side of the aisle--not as a democracy but a republic, a republic with competing interests to check the power of government, the power of the avarice of man and mankind so that the individual was preeminent.

The Founders knew. The Founders knew what the difference was, and that is why they called it a republic. People stand up, and I am happy that they do, and they pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it stands. I would submit to you that many don't know what it means to be a republic. A republic means that individual citizens are preeminent.

I talk to my bosses, my constituents, and I ask them: When you can't buy the car that you want, when you are forced to subsidize the car that the other guy wants because he wants to virtue signal to you about how much more he cares about the planet, do you feel preeminent? They don't.

When they can't afford a home--Mr. Roy went through the price of new homes. Unimaginable. My children, I don't know how they will afford to be out on their own. I don't know how you start a business today. Yet, somehow we act like we are in a republic.

Mr. Speaker, our country is in trouble, and there is an urgency that Mr. Roy gets. There is the urgency that the people at the grocery store and the gas station and the movie theater, the people who get up early and pack a lunch box, they get the urgency. Do you know who doesn't? Folks in this town who somehow told themselves, well, look, if we save $12 billion and we spend $4 trillion, somehow that is a good deal.

Look, I am not a math whiz, self-admitted, but I can do arithmetic. We spend over a trillion dollars in a month around this place, so if you are saving $12 billion to spend $1 trillion, let alone $4 trillion, is that a good deal? Only in Washington. I mean, literally, Orwell thought he was writing fiction. He thought he was writing fiction. It is coming to fruition, and we are living in it.

We can't seem to convince our colleagues of the urgency of this situation, the peril that the Republic is in when people are not preeminent, when we lie to our citizens and tell them they can buy an electric lawn mower and it is just as good as your gas lawn mower.

I watch my neighbors mow half a lawn. Do you know why they mow half the lawn? Because they ran out of power and have to charge the thing back up. They mow it the next day.

Look, if that is your choice, God bless you, but we are lying to our citizens about all of this. This town is lying, and I for one won't stand for it. I will not help them pass bills that bankrupt our country, don't secure our border, and don't secure the virtues of liberty for our posterity--my children and theirs.

If they want to vote for it, they can deal with their constituents, their bosses, and the good Lord, but I am not going to bankrupt my country.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't have said it better. I watched a movie that has been out for some time, but the question from the gentleman to his wife, he asked what he should do in a situation, and she said it is not what a Senator would do, not what a leader would do, but it is what a free man would do. That is the decision.

That is what drives me. That is what drives my colleague. That is what we think should drive everyone here.

Sure, we would love to have the approval of the body, of our compatriots here, but what is more important to us is that we do the right thing on every occasion, not because it is easy, not because it is tough to message it back home, or not because somebody is going to not have one of their programs funded at the level they want it funded at. We are way beyond that now.

Our country is perilously close. We are borrowing money to pay our bills. We don't even print the money anymore. They just create it digitally. We don't even print it, it is so much, and no one around here seems to care. When we talk about saving $100 billion in the face of them spending $4 trillion, they recoil.

How can we do that? Six months ago, we were spending that amount of money, and you would think that we were asking them to literally give their firstborn child or their right arm to try to get somewhere closer to living within our means. It is unacceptable.

The time is now. The urgency is now. You cannot be free if you can't afford to live free. You are not free if you are not making your own decisions. That is where we are, Mr. Speaker. It has to stop here. It has to stop now.

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

Mr. Chair, for nearly two decades, brave American servicemembers gave their blood, sweat, tears, and many made the ultimate sacrifice, to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, fighting terror and ensuring our national security. In a few short days of abject incompetence from President Biden and his administration, those gains were erased.

After 3 long years, the Biden administration has yet to take any accountability for its despicable withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan. I still struggle to grasp the level of abdication of leadership and sheer dereliction of duty that occurred in Afghanistan on that day.

To this very day, it should infuriate every single American to see the hateful and terrorizing Taliban regime regain control of Kabul once again, touting our American weapons, aircraft, and machinery in a mockery of our longstanding fight for the freedom of Afghanistan.

While the underlying bill does have a section prohibiting the transport of currency to the Taliban, which I applaud, by the way, this amendment goes further by prohibiting any funding to the Taliban.

I mean, truth is actually stranger than fiction. We fought these people for 20 years. In their mind, we surrendered. In the world's mind, we walked out, abandoned the fight that Americans gave their blood, sweat, and tears for, and now we are paying them. It would be some kind of clown show if it weren't so sad.

I ask my fellow colleagues to support this amendment to refuse any kind of support to this hideous regime, especially since the special inspector for Afghanistan reconstruction recently confirmed to the Oversight Committee that he cannot assure that American taxpayer dollars are not going to fund the Taliban.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Luna).

Mr. Chair, I remind everybody that this is the National Defense Authorization Act. It has to do with the military. If you want to keep spending money and sending money to Afghanistan, God bless you. Then do it in State and Foreign Ops or do it in Intel. Do it somewhere other than in the National Defense Authorization Act.

This is about the defense of our country, about what is important to us and our military, not spending money in Afghanistan that should be spent on troops from the United States.

Yes, we absolutely do want to tie the hands of this Commander in Chief. He has absolutely no clue what he is doing. He is the one that walked out of the battle, gave everything to Afghanistan, gave everything to the Taliban, gave premier weaponry to the number one terrorist organization on the planet.

You want to send them more money? If you want to do that, you can vote for that, but don't do it in the National Defense Authorization Act. People wear the uniform with the flag on their shoulder in defense of this country, in defense of our ideals, not so that you can spend money on whatever quixotic crusade that you are on in Afghanistan that you have already failed at and now you are trying to make amends for.

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

Mr. Chair, let me speak to that. If there is no funding in here and no authorization for spending any American tax dollars in Afghanistan, then you certainly won't mind an amendment that does nothing.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chair, reclaiming my time.

I don't think the American people trust this President to spend any of their money in Afghanistan on the Taliban. This is about the Taliban and spending tax dollars.

People get up in the morning, while it is still dark out, and they pack their lunchbox. They don't even see their kids before they go to school, and they go out to work to make a living and pay their taxes. They dutifully do that. They want to support their country, including the national security of their country.

I bet this is what they don't want to do: Spend their hard-earned tax dollars on the Taliban to persecute women and children and not let them go to school

and hang up their adversaries on poles and crucify them and all of those kinds of things. That is what they don't want to pay for. They don't trust this President to make the right decision, because the last time he had the opportunity to do that, he screwed it up.

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

Mr. Chairman, that money is being spent right now on the Taliban and people are dying. Americans don't want this blood on their hands. They don't want to spend their tax money on the Taliban. Yet, 20 years to defeat the Taliban, and they walked away.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply prohibits the obligation of funds for promotion of, or preference for, sustainable building materials, including low-embodied concrete or asphalt, or net- zero emissions in military construction.

Let me be clear: this does not prohibit the use of those materials. You can still use them. It ensures a fair playing field for all types of construction materials, including ones that we have a long history of knowing about and knowing what their integrity is without the government's thumb on the scale.

We don't need the government's thumb on the scale. We know what works, and we don't need to be experimenting with things that might be unsafe.

The Biden administration is already demanding so-called green concrete and asphalt standards across the whole of government. They have committed to a governmentwide effort to buy clean, including through construction materials. I don't know, buy clean? I don't know what you think is dirty about concrete, it comes out of the ground, there is aggregate in it--Portland cement.

I don't know what is unclean about stick-built construction made of wood grown all across the country. Hopefully, it is grown across this country and not coming from China.

Despite GSA issuing the first nationwide green concrete and asphalt standards, according to their 2022 sustainability plan, environmentally preferable paving hasn't saved any money at the initial six job sites.

Furthermore, it is unclear whether the technical changes in concrete mixtures, in other words, replacing Portland cement with things like fly ash and hemp, are durable enough for any and all scenarios.

Even the loudest voices advocating these technologies worldwide acknowledge the inability for the free market to adopt these technologies on its own.

I am going to quote the World Economic Forum because we love them so much, they are for America. In their 2023 report, it said: ``It is a chicken and egg situation: If . . . firms and their clients as well as policymakers don't prioritize''--put their thumb on the scale for-- ``the use of low-carbon concrete in buildings and infrastructure projects, many manufacturers will be loath to allocate capital expenditures for materials production. And until low-carbon cement and concrete products are produced at greater scale, their availability and cost will be a concern for the industry.''

You know what the answer is?

The Federal Government is going to demand it. That is the answer.

Again, if green construction materials somehow become more cost effective than traditional building materials, they will be used in private and public projects alike.

I am going to give you a scenario in my hometown where they used fly ash underneath the asphalt at new government construction. After about 6 months, when the asphalt on top of it all cracked because it was expanding and contracting due to heat and moisture, they tore it all back out and put the old stuff in that works.

I am not saying that we shouldn't endeavor to find new things that are better. What I am saying is that the market will figure these things out without the Federal Government forcing us to accept things that we don't know about, cost more, and we are unsure about the long term viability.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment doesn't prohibit the use of any of this material--not what the chairman said and not what my friend from California is going to state. It

doesn't prohibit any of that. All we are saying is that the Federal Government shouldn't put its thumb on the scale and demand and require that we use these products. The market will work it out. The engineers will work it out.

The sustainability over time of using these products will ensure the cost effectiveness and the integrity of the construction. We can't wait, we are going to force this on everybody whether they want it or not, and when it fails, they are going to come back to this place and say: Well, we need more money to fix these things that we screwed up 10 years ago by using this stuff that wasn't ready for prime time. I am going to remind you when the time comes because I am going to be voting against all that funding.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I know my good friend is from California so I have to restate things over and over again, but this prohibits the obligation of the preference--the preference--for sustainable building materials. It does not prohibit the use of these materials. They can be used. It just doesn't say that the government is going to put its thumb on the scale.

By the way, all we are doing in this NDAA without this amendment is saying the taxpayers are going to bear the burden. You folks up there are going to bear the burden of seeing if this stuff works, how long it works, and how expensive it is.

The railroads, yes, absolutely, because there wasn't a railroad. Nuclear energy did not exist without the government. That is a little different from things that already exist and things that already work.

Mr. Chair, 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. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of research development, testing, and evaluation funding for electric vehicles, electric vehicle charging, and photovoltaic technology in the NDAA.

For the past decade, the Department of Defense RDT&E funding has been

squandered on wasteful, ineffective green technologies at the expense of enhanced readiness and lethality.

This misguided push by the left and this administration has only worsened this misallocation of resources in their dangerous efforts to force the American people to abandon the forms of energy and transportation that allow for our prosperity and security.

This effort has now moved in a dangerous direction toward the procurement of electric tactical vehicles without regard to the numerous drawbacks of EVs compared to the internal combustion engine vehicles.

What happens when the batteries die on the battlefield and our soldiers, sailors, and marines are stuck for hours while the battery is recharging in a sandstorm? How does prioritizing the green energy cult over the safety and lethality of our warfighters promote our national security?

More concerningly, the component minerals necessary for these technologies are almost entirely controlled by our enemies in Beijing. That is great. The supply chain for our military comes from China, giving our literal enemies complete control over our military supply chains and our ability to disrupt the defense of our Nation.

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

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

As someone who did serve and did use the vehicles for over 3 decades, I rose from the bottom to the general ranks, so I would say at some level, when you are a GO, you are in top leadership.

Not one person in those over 3\1/2\ decades ever told me--not one--we are not going to be able to win this fight without an electric tactical vehicle. Not one.

As for the first prisoner in Iraq who made a wrong turn driving a fuel truck, it wasn't because they ran out of fuel. It was because they made a wrong turn. I know where the wrong turn was made because I served in Diwaniyah. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is that we shouldn't be spending our R&D money from the military on things that can be bought off the shelf once they are proven.

If the military does want to buy this stuff, let the contractors prove it to them so that the taxpayers don't have to pay for all the failures along the way, and even more importantly, so the servicemembers in contact don't have to pay with their lives for the failures along the way.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's remarks, and I certainly live better because satellites exist in space. Unfortunately, I have to live with the fact that the satellites in space are powered by Chinese-made solar panels.

When the chairman can tell me that the solar panels are all going to be made in America without slave labor from the Congo or from East Turkestan, then maybe this wouldn't be germane, but I don't think we should be dependent on our enemy for our power or our satellites.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas, for bringing up this subject.

Each one of us feels maybe differently. I don't know whether people know this or not, but there is actually a United States Flag Code. There is a decorum that we are supposed to follow when displaying the flag: how you wear it, if you wear it. The flag is not supposed to be festooned. The flag is not clothing.

The flag, the standard of America, the standard of freedom, and the standard of liberty recognized around the globe, is second to no other flag at all. To have it fly flanking the Pride flag on the White House--my friend said he was at a loss for words. I too am.

I communicate home every day. Just this morning, I talked to my wife. I let her know I love her. We get on with our day, and we reconnect in the evening.

This morning, I reminded my children--not thinking about what was going to happen at the White House, having no clue--but I reminded my children that tomorrow is Flag Day, make sure you get up early, get the flag, and fly the flag in the front of our House because it is important that America and my community know that their Representative respects what our country is about and its standard.

It is a new low every single day. My friend from Texas has talked about it as appropriately and as particularly as anybody can, the destruction of this country, evidenced in so many different ways. Every day you wake up, you turn on the TV, you open a newspaper, you listen to the radio, or you talk to somebody, and you say to yourself: I can't believe this is happening in America.

Every day you think we have reached the apex of the nadir, the lowest of the low. Every day the left takes us to a

new place of a new low of a new disrespect of a new destruction of the country that we love.

So I am very, very proud to stand with my friend, the gentleman from Texas, to say that there is an urgency to saving and to restoring this Republic.

We always stand up speaking of the flag and pledge allegiance to the flag, and we say: ``to the Republic for which it stands.''

Most people, I would guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, don't know what a republic is. I am going to school you really quickly here: A republic is a place where the individual citizen is supreme and is sovereign, and their views, represented by the people they elect, are supreme and sovereign.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in a country where there is some agency-- where no one was elected and there is no accountability--that says: You are not going to be able to drive the car you choose and you are not going to be able to buy a stove to cook your family meal unless the government approves, is that a republic?

I would argue that it is not. I would argue that it is not, unfortunately.

So I am proud, I am happy, and I am gratified to stand here in the people's House with my good friend from Texas and say that I, too, understand the urgency. I too, will not accept any more. I, too, will withstand the ire of some of my colleagues here if it means defending the people at home who sent me here to defend them from the tyranny that emanates from this town, this building, and this institution by the uniparty or by the establishment or whatever you want to call them that feathers their nest with the hard-earned dollars of the people whom I represent at home who can't afford their groceries, a new house, a new car, or to send their kids to school.

I am sick of it. I'm going to do everything I can with the moments that I have every single time I have a moment so that I don't have to look back and say: I wish I would have.

I am not going to do that.

Every single moment of every day where there is fight in me and there is a fight to be had, I am going to be in it supporting those folks and defending those folks back home from Pennsylvania's 10th district and, quite honestly and quite literally, across the great United States of America.

I will stand by.

Well, as you know, I am in the same position as you with the bill. We never thought--look, we got together, this House, Republicans stood united, passed the Limit, Save, Grow Act. We stood united, and it was supposed to get us in the room.

We knew it wasn't going to be perfect. We always knew that. We never expected to get everything we wanted. We understand that President Biden didn't want any of it. We understand that Chuck Schumer couldn't pass any bills over there and wasn't going to agree with any of it, but we thought we would get something from it, something.

It was $1.5 trillion for a date certain, a number certain for said policy. We lost on both ends of the deal. It is $4 trillion, uncapped spending, and none of the policies. The REINS Act, to stop the unbridled regulatory state, that is not there. Work requirements that would actually save us money, not saving us money. Rescissions, where we took money and were going to send it back to the Treasury, that didn't happen. We rescinded it, but we are going to spend it. That is not saving money.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. We are not talking about the Clean Water Act. We are talking about the waters of the United States of America, Mr. Speaker, and definitionally what has happened here is the administration didn't like what was in the rule and the regulations, and it has changed the definition.

They didn't like it, so they changed the definition such that under this rule, nearly every single property

across the entire United States that is subject to one drop of rain is now open to enforcement by the Federal Government--not your State government, and not your local government--the Federal Government coming in to tell you that you are a polluter and that you are misusing your land because a drop of rain landed on it.

People say: Oh, you don't really mean a drop of rain.

Yes, I do mean a drop of rain. You see, Mr. Speaker, it is the EPA that will determine the definition on a case-by-case basis arbitrarily, which is what they want.

That is why it is important that we override the President's veto.

You see, Mr. Speaker, he didn't veto on behalf of the United States of America. The United States of America sent the people to this Chamber to vote on what they wanted, and we passed the Congressional Review Act to say that we don't want the definition changed.

The President doesn't like that.

Half of the bureaucrats who work in Washington, D.C., probably don't even have a yard. They probably live in a high-rise. They don't even have grass, but yet they are going to tell you how you are going to live your life and how you are going to use your land based on the Federal Government's rule.

Threats of imprisonment under ambiguous terminology and threats of financial ruin is what belies this bill and the American people if we allow this to go.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption. We must override the President's veto. We must stand for the American people and individual property rights which are the bedrock and the foundation of the United States of America.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk as approved by the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Chair, this amendment simply ensures that no undue influence can be wielded by the Chinese Communist Party using an existing provision, which I think reflects the overall sentiment behind this anti-CCP and forced labor provision of the entire bill.

The underlying section allows the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to accept and expend funds from non-Federal entities in order to pay for staff and information technology system development to expedite permit processing. They are authorized to accept funds in fiscal years 2023 through 2025.

This amendment prohibits those Secretaries from accepting contributions from non-Federal entities owned by the Communist Party of China or a person or entity acting on behalf of the Communist Party of China. Seems pretty common sense.

There are already provisions in the bill which would prohibit the CCP's involvement in certain parts of our energy market. They should not be allowed to participate in this one any more than they do in the others. There is no reason that our government should be accepting money from this well.

Let's remind ourselves that we are not talking about the people of China who wish to breathe free, like all people in the world do. We are talking about the Communist Party of China. We don't need anything from them.

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

Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague from the other side of aisle that we are finally willing to get together, Democrats and Republicans, and be tough on the Communist Party of China.

Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the chairman of the full committee.

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk approved by the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Chair, this amendment simply extends existing reporting requirements. The underlying section allows the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to accept and expend funds from non- Federal entities in order to pay for staff and information technology system development to expedite permit processing. They are authorized to accept funds in fiscal years 2023 through 2025.

In the original bill text, both Secretaries are required to submit annual statements to the committees of jurisdiction explaining why one or both of the following scenarios occurs:

They do not accept funds contributed; or

They accept but do not expend the funds contributed.

This amendment adds the requirement that both Secretaries submit a report to the committee of jurisdiction that includes, for each expenditure authorized:

The amount of funds accepted, and

The contributing non-Federal entity.

I know most folks probably don't read these reports, and they throw them in a pile. However, for future oversight efforts, it is important for the U.S. Congress to both specifically enumerate that agencies retain this information and then require them to provide it to us so not only we can see it but the American people can see how the money is being spent and who is spending it and who is giving it.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his comments. Again, the provision also exists. All we are saying is that we should be able to--the American people--should be able to follow the money. If there is a report that says this is where the money came from and this is where it was spent or it wasn't spent, then we can follow the money and we know. That is all we are asking for. That is all this does.

It doesn't slow anything down. It doesn't speed anything up. It just says you are capable; you are able. There is a way to follow the money.

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk as approved by the House Rules Committee.

Mr. Chair, the FAST Act provides for certain projects to be covered, which means projects that meet statutory requirements can gain voluntary access to a permitting timetable that contains all the necessary Federal environmental reviews and authorizations in one centralized location.

The underlying text ensures certain Defense Production Act projects also receive that covered status unless the project sponsor opts out. This amendment specifically excludes the Defense Production Act projects related to solar panel and EV projects from that preferential treatment.

This amendment does not alter the actual authorities provided in the Defense Production Act; it just says that the administration--any administration--can't get special treatment for projects that have absolutely nothing to do with national security.

Solar energy is often unreliable and cannot compete without subsidies. EVs cannot compete in the competitive market without subsidies.

Mr. Chairman, as far as I know, Congress hasn't declared war since I have been here. Using wartime authorities to subsidize these technologies simply doesn't change those facts. Worse yet, the projects empower the Chinese Communist Party and exploit their regime of slave labor.

Roughly 50 percent of the world's polysilicon necessary to produce solar components comes from Xinjiang and Turkmenistan where they have the slave labor operation. Industry representatives have actually acknowledged the major disruption caused by this Congress' efforts to stop forced labor in the region. We should try to stop it every way we can, and this is one of the ways. Again, the solution is not to abuse wartime authorities to prop up domestic industry incapable of making a profit without generous taxpayer subsidies.

Finally, while this amendment is relatively narrow in scope, I hope we have a broader conversation about the Defense Production Act on our side of the aisle to prevent abuses from this and future administrations.

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

Mr. Chair, again, this is about using wartime powers, and we haven't declared war.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman and would echo his gratitude for the staff. There are long nights and a lot of details to be worked through. To get these things right, we rely on folks that oftentimes are more the experts than we are. We sure appreciate their sacrifices on our behalf and on behalf of the Nation.

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk that has been approved by the Rules Committee.

Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the unelected and unaccountable Delaware River Basin Commission, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, and the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River from improving hydraulic fracturing regulations more stringent, more stringent than those passed by the duly-elected State representatives and Senate in which the regulation is to be implemented or enforced.

According to the Energy Information Administration, last year, residential natural gas prices were the highest on record. That is awesome. I am sure consumers love that.

The best way to combat these record-high prices is with more competition; simply, more supply and demand. It is to produce more natural gas in America in places like my home State of Pennsylvania, the second-largest natural gas producer in the Nation.

Unfortunately, again, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the Delaware River Basin Commission have instituted a hydraulic fracturing ban for a portion of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, stripping away property rights and mineral rights from Pennsylvanians in contravention of the will of their very own legislature.

The result is a prohibition on the development of critical shale plays in eastern Pennsylvania that can bring desperately needed natural gas to market and the unconstitutional taking of mineral rights of all Pennsylvanians.

Using this playbook, radical environmentalists and unelected bureaucrats will next prevent hydraulic fracturing in the Susquehanna River Basin and the Potomac River Basin, as well.

The threat of this expansion undermines investor confidence and exploration and development projects throughout the Commonwealth and further restricts domestic natural gas production.

To be clear, this amendment simply clarifies that these three commissions cannot impose restrictions more stringent than those passed by the State in which the regulation is being implemented or enforced.

It makes no changes to the ability of States to regulate hydraulic fracturing as they see fit, as their legislatures see fit, as their citizens see fit. This means

it would have zero impact on existing fracturing bans in the State of New York.

Instead, this amendment simply makes clear that Pennsylvanians can use their property and mineral rights as they see fit, subject to the Pennsylvania laws passed by their elected representatives, the way it is supposed to be done.

Enough is enough already. It is time to stop this underhanded attack on property rights, representative government, and State sovereignty and restore American energy security.

Opposition to this amendment is support for a hydraulic fracturing ban and for higher natural gas prices for your constituents and your citizens.

I urge my colleagues to do the right thing and rein in these unelected bureaucrats waging war on Americans in their very homes and support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong).

Mr. Chairman, if you don't want to vote for this, I get it. You can tell your constituents at home that you stand for people that are unelected. Most folks at home have never even heard of the Delaware River Basin Commission. They don't even know about interstate compacts.

Here is what they know: They want to live their lives, and they want to vote for elected officials to make decisions that are important to them. If it is so dangerous, how come it is banned here but not there? In the rest of Pennsylvania, we do it.

Mr. Chairman, this is just taking the people's rights away, their voices away from their elected officials, and it is literally the definition of tyranny.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that has been approved by the Rules Committee.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment repeals section 115 of the Clean Air Act. This vital amendment protects the autonomy of the States over their own energy sectors by ensuring that unelected, unaccountable EPA bureaucrats cannot seize control over these vital industries under the guise of emissions reductions.

The Constitution clearly reserves this power to the States, and it is long overdue that we bring Federal policies back in line with the very Constitution that we swore an oath to.

Section 115 gives EPA the authority to impose emission reductions on the States if the administrator finds, based on the word of some international organization--just based on their good word--that American air pollution endangers the public health and welfare of another country. Imagine if we could do that to China? The administrator determines that that country will lower their emissions a commensurate amount.

Put a different way, section 115 allows the EPA to rely on the credibility of the same international elites who misled us about COVID to force our

constituents to change every aspect of their lives because some European nation thought it would be great to do the same thing. Now, we would have to do the same thing.

This is no longer a hypothetical.

Since President Biden reentered the Paris climate agreement, it can be argued that these conditions have been met and EPA can immediately impose devastating requirements as it was argued when the Obama administration first entered the agreement. Subjecting such an important sector of our economy to the whims of foreign bureaucrats is downright reckless and hands U.S. sovereignty over to a foreign ideologue--not even foreign governments, just foreign bureaucrats.

Removing the broadly written language in section 115 is the only way to prevent the delegation of nearly unlimited power over State energy sectors to the EPA bureaucrats and removes the ability of international organizations to meddle in our energy sector.

It is vital that we prevent this Federal power grab before it imposes devastating economic consequences by empowering the States to meet the needs and interests of their own citizens.

Language to prevent the use of section 115 of the Clean Air Act has passed the House three times under Republican majorities: Twice in the 115th Congress and once in the 114th.

To those who view this amendment as premature because the administration has not yet acted under section 115, the impact was never questioned in the past. How many times do we have to wake up and say, well, I didn't think they would do it? I didn't think they would actually defund the police. I didn't think they would have the IRS show up at the guy's house when he was testifying in Congress.

Heaven forbid, I didn't believe they would actually try and ban my gas stove. I thought they were just kidding around. They didn't really mean it. They do mean it.

We know the administration is going to do so because the radical environmental groups that control their agenda have come out and said it.

Here are a couple examples. The League of Conservation Voters: ``While there has been limited use of section 115, numerous scholars have advocated for its use as a pathway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, particularly since the Paris Agreement.''

How about Foreign Policy for America: This amendment would undermine EPA's authority for ``its potential future applications to greenhouse gases.'' Yeah, we want to undermine their authority and make the authority of the States preeminent. The authority of citizens should be preeminent.

Preemptively removing this authority from the administration before they can act is vital to U.S. sovereignty and our economic well-being.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), since I know he wants to speak favorably about me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 15) authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the National Peace Officers Memorial Service and the National Honor Guard and Pipe Band Exhibition.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Con. Res. 15.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have introduced this resolution along with Ranking Member Titus of the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.

This resolution authorizes the use of the Capitol Grounds for the 42nd Annual National Peace Officers Memorial Event to honor law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

These men and women put on their uniforms each day to serve and protect our communities and our families.

Violent crime continues to be a daily tragedy in this country, and we have seen it, as a matter of fact, again today.

It is critical that we recognize that police officers are doing an extremely difficult and dangerous job day in, day out, 365 days a year, to keep Americans safe.

To all the law enforcement officers who put on the badge each day, who wear it with honor and distinction, we say thank you, and we support you.

This resolution is just one small way we can demonstrate our support for these officers and their families and honor the men and women who lost their lives in the line of duty in 2022, including, unfortunately, 19 individuals from my home State of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this resolution and reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I reiterate not only my support but my thanks to the gentlewoman from Nevada for her support of H. Con. Res. 15. And most importantly, for my thanks and support for the men and women who put their lives on the line each day to protect our communities and families.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Graves for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a case of no good deed goes unpunished.

Now, the ranking member, a good gentleman, and I can agree that we all want clean water. But this is just simply a Federal Government overreach. That is all it is. And, oh, by the way, I will remind everybody that it is only 2 months ago my friends on the other side of the aisle controlled this body, the other body, and the Presidency.

If they wanted to pass a law, then why didn't they?

It is because they can't pass a law.

This isn't about the Clean Water Act because the Clean Water Act still exists. This is about a rule made by bureaucrats down the street to control the water in your backyard.

Mr. Speaker, if you have a child's swing set where they have hollowed out underneath the swing set, don't you dare fill it in, otherwise severe penalties--criminal imprisonment--can be imposed on you.

This is absolutely outrageous, unnecessary, and must be stopped.

Mr. Chair, as the designee of Congresswoman Virginia

Foxx, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer Dr. Foxx' amendment to prohibit censorship while acting as an employee performing activities under taxpayer-funded time. We want to prohibit censorship while you are acting as an agent of the Federal Government using taxpayer dollars.

Public-sector unions already make liberal use of the so-called official time policy--in my opinion, to the detriment of the American people. That is not what this is about.

However, it is important to get a context here of how much time we are talking about. Take the Department of the Treasury, which houses the IRS. In fiscal year 2019--going back a few years--employees spent nearly 350,000 hours receiving taxpayer funds while doing and conducting union activities.

I know in our office, especially during the pandemic, we often had to intervene with the IRS on behalf of our constituents who couldn't get their refunds back and couldn't get answers. Yet, 350,000 hours were used by these same people.

Mr. Chair, that is the equivalent of 40 years of time in 1 year conducting union activities. Those are the 350,000 hours that the employees at the IRS are not answering taxpayer inquiries.

Let's look at the Department of Veterans Affairs. VA employees spent over 500,000 hours in 1 year wheeling and dealing for their own union interests while our Nation's veterans stood in line. We have heard about the waiting list and the backlog. I don't know, maybe we can do something with that 500,000 hours, which is 57 years accumulated in 1 year.

We are not here to talk about these excesses. We are here to talk about censorship being conducted while on official government time. While I object to the entire practice, I hope even my colleagues who support taxpayer-funded lobbying can agree that those employees should be expressly prohibited from censoring the American people while on official time. That is it.

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

Mr. Chair, just to comment before I yield some time, if the bill is redundant, if this isn't happening anyhow, then you shouldn't be opposed because it will affect no one.

Regarding the 87,000 IRS agents, we are not talking about hiring 87,000 process workers to go through claims. We are talking about 87,000 agents to come to your home to investigate you. That is what we oppose.

We want it to be done efficiently, and maybe if they weren't spending so much time on themselves, they could spend time on the American people.

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

May I inquire of the time remaining, Mr. Chairman?

What is awesome, Mr. Chairman, is that finally we can actually have amendments on the floor. We can have debate. Let's face it, as my good friend, my colleague from New York says, he is disappointed that his amendment or some amendment didn't make it through. But for the entire time of Speaker Pelosi's last reign of terror around here where we ran the place like an armed prison camp, there were no amendments on the floor--not one.

The gentleman might not agree with the amendment, he might not agree with the process, but at least the American people's voices are heard because amendments are on the floor now, and we are debating them right now.

This is a good amendment, it is required, and it should be required because we can't have government officials censoring their citizens while using taxpayer dollars to do it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill requires the President to have prepared for the American people and consider the inflation impacts of all major executive orders. This provides transparency to the American people of the economic impacts of such executive orders.

At the Rules Committee last night, the minority raised concerns that these requirements would apply to a limited number of circumstances. This amendment actually appeases these concerns by lowering the threshold at which an executive order is considered major for the requirements of the bill from $1 billion to $1 million.

This reduced threshold will ensure the President is required to assess the inflationary impacts of significantly more executive orders than the underlying bill would require, which actually increases the amount of transparency provided by this bill.

I am sure the minority would agree with increased transparency. They

asked for it just last night. They asked for it just in the last debate over the last amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure we have all heard from our constituents about the impact of inflation. This amendment allows us to expand our efforts to address their concerns.

While some of my friends on the other side of the aisle might say, well, we need a different index, or we need an additional index, here is what the American people don't need: They don't need some report of progress or you name whatever you want to name it.

What the American people know is this: When they go to the store, everything they are buying costs more. It is unaffordable. When they go to the gas station to try to fill up their tank, it costs them more. When they go to the lumberyard, when they go to the bank, when they try to buy a new home, everything costs more.

They don't need some index to tell them that the cost of living is going up and something is causing it, and one of the things is this. Regardless of which party is in power in the executive branch, executive orders would maybe actually reduce the cost of inflation. We need to know that, too. We just want to know what the answer is regardless of which way. This amendment would provide for that.

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

Mr. Chair, I will just say this. I am not from Maryland, and I don't live around the beltway here, where everything is just fine. I live up in Pennsylvania, where $1 billion or $1 million is a lot of money to hardworking people who get up in the dark of night and head out to work. A million dollars is a lot of money, and they would like to know where we are spending it here.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

Mr. Chair, let me just say this. There were no disparaging remarks about Maryland, only the fact that people in Pennsylvania understand the value of $1 million or $1 billion, and they want to know how it is being spent in Washington, D.C. It is their government. The citizens of the United States, it is their government, and it is their tax money.

This amendment seeks to provide that transparency so that they know the effect of executive orders coming out of the White House, how it affects their wallet. They should know that. We should all be for that.

If you want to discuss the Inflation Reduction Act, you can call any bill here anything you want to. You can call it kids are beautiful and the Sun is going to shine today. But here is what I know: In central Pennsylvania, where I live, the good citizens that I represent are paying $5, $6, $7 for a dozen eggs. They are paying $6, $7 for a pound of hamburger. They can't afford to drive to work. They can't afford to pay their energy bills. They are having a hard time paying their mortgage.

That is inflation, sir. That is inflation, to the good gentleman from Maryland. Part of that is caused by the White House's edicts that impose

things on the American people. They want to know and have the right to know what that is so they can inform their votes.

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

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

Mr. Chair, as we all should know by now, this bill requires the President to consider for any major executive order the impact of the executive order on inflation. I mean, the President is the President of the United States and the well-being of every citizen should be of the President's concern, and I believe it is.

When the American people have been suffering this inflation for years, it makes sense to require the President, no matter which party, to at least consider the impact of his actions on the American people, because they don't have any choice in the matter till the next election.

This amendment requires for executive orders that are found to have an impact on the Consumer Price Index--we have got to have some measure, right? Most people recognize the Consumer Price Index--a detailed description of that impact so that we can all be on the same page and we can all reference the same data point.

Folks, this is common sense, and it is reasonable. The way this bill is currently written, I support the bill. The statement prepared by the President must simply include whether it has an impact on inflation and maybe the impact is to lower inflation. That would be awesome.

I think we are going to have to wait a couple years until we get a President that actually does that. So be it, we will accept that, even this legislation under a new President that lowers the cost of inflation by executive order.

The current bill doesn't talk about the extent of the impact, which is what this amendment seeks to remedy. This amendment requires that statement to provide actual information on the extent of the impact regarding the Consumer Price Index.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Comer), chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), my friend, talks about increased bureaucracy, the increased bureaucracy of informing the American people.

My goodness. My goodness. I have never heard that from my friends on the other side of the aisle, ``increased bureaucracy.'' I mean, all they do around here is infuse more government into our lives with every single thing they do.

The gentleman talks about the medical situation and price-fixing. He doesn't call it price-fixing, but that is what it is. It is price- fixing. More bureaucracy taking more drugs off the market, more lifesaving research off the market, but they are good with that.

They talk about 12 million new jobs, but don't talk about the fact that in one of the reporting periods a million jobs were created but then it was only months later we find out that only 10,000 were created.

Oh, and that first report? Right before the election. Interesting how that happened.

He doesn't want to talk about that or the workforce participation rate. He talks about lowering inflation. You can talk about that all you want to but people that pay for things don't experience it. So you can say it is true, but the reality is that it is not true. All these years he has been saying it is unnecessary to do this.

My goodness. My good friend from Maryland is a member of the legislature. You would think he would want to preserve the power of the legislature instead of handing it to the executive branch, which is what this place has done for years upon years.

Now we have a chance, and my friend wants to hand yet more power to the executive branch instead of preserving the power of the branch that he serves in.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the opportunity and would just tell the body and everybody listening: Not since World War II, and that crisis that our country had to deal with, has the cause of socialism and Big Government been advanced more than during the declaration of this national emergency.

People might disagree with me, but let me make it real for you. The Federal Government and State governments used this national emergency to stop people from working in their businesses, stop their businesses cold and force them to inject something into their body if they wanted to go to work, if they wanted to go to school, if they wanted to travel. If that is not Big Government and oppression, I am not sure what is.

People say, well, what does it matter?

Well, there are more than 120 special statutory authorities granted to the administration that are now going to go away. Everybody says: Well, he is going to do it on May 11. Well, he said last September he was going to do it then.

What is taking so long?

The rest of the country knows that the pandemic is over, and they know that the national emergency should be over, as well. They know that part of the 122 special statutory authorities includes allowing the President to suspend a prohibition on testing chemical and biological substances on unwitting human subjects--think about that--or allowing the President to shut down or take over radio stations or freeze any asset or financial transaction.

Indeed, the pandemic is over. The President announced it last September. The Senate, just in November, just a couple months ago, voted to end it overwhelmingly.

For anybody that is concerned about title 42, the statute governing title 42 does not make any mention of the emergency declaration.

It needs to be ended. It needs to be ended now. Americans need to be free and not oppressed by this Federal Government and these extraordinary powers that have advanced the cause of socialism like no other time in our history.

I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman, No. 41.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington for offering this much-needed bill.

This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is about trust. It is about trust because we have been told--the American people have been told--that the President is doing all he can to make sure that gas prices are low, that your diesel prices are low. That is indeed absolutely not the case.

Of course, using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve reserved for issues of national security or natural disaster, instead using it for political purposes to drive down the price of gas just prior to the election, is not the reason for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, yet that is how it was used. So this bill seeks to remedy that.

We need some teeth in it, Mr. Chairman. We need some evidence from the Secretary of Energy that the Secretary will actually support increased and Federal lands leased when they draw down on the strategic reserve.

So this amendment requires the plan to include the list of actual parcels planned to be offered for lease and, for each parcel, its size, location, and any permits and approval necessary for the access and production, because we simply can't take their word for it.

They will tell you, oh, well, we have got 9,000 leases. What are y'all complaining about?

Meanwhile, you can't get a permit for the lease to go on to the leased land and actually do the exploration and the operation. You can't get a permit, so the lease is meaningless. They never mentioned that. The 9,000 leases might as well be meaningless, and that is why there is a trust issue here.

So this bridges that trust issue and says, well, okay, if you have got a plan, and you have got leases, and you have got parcels, that is great. Let's see them, and let's see the permits associated with them that will actually allow us, in America, to go get our resources, the natural resources given to Americans by the good Lord to go use so that they can drive down their own prices and live in their communities in a way that is affordable.

This administration tells us all the time they are doing all they can, but they are not doing all they can when they tell you they are going to outlaw your gas stove and require you to buy an electric vehicle, by the way, which they can't support charging, but that is another story.

We need them to provide the permits and the approvals necessary to access the land.

Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Johnson).

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

Offered By: Mr. Perry

Amendment No. 52: Page 2, beginning on line 9, amend

Offered By: Mr. Perry

Amendment No. 54: Page 2, beginning on line 9, amend

Offered by: Mr. Perry

Amendment No. 41: Page 3, line 9, strike the closed

quotation marks and the final period.

Page 3, after line 9, insert the following:

``(4) Requirements.--The plan required by paragraph (1)

shall include a list of parcels planned to be offered for

lease, including, for each such parcel--

``(A) the size of the parcel, by acre;

``(B) the location of the parcel; and

``(C) any permits and approvals necessary to access the

parcel and produce oil and gas on the parcel.''.