Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted AYE on Roll Call No. 406.

Stated against:

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

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

To be clear, 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 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, such as the Paris climate accord.

This backdoor provision allows the EPA to vastly expand its regulatory authority and encroach on the right of the States to regulate their own energy sectors based on the actions solely of a foreign nation.

It is irresponsible to allow unelected bureaucrats at the EPA to retain the ability to seize such expansive authority. If the U.S. Government wants to pursue such a policy, one that in my opinion is constitutionally suspect, 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 and Environmental Appropriations packages. I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree that we need to work with other nations and our neighbors, everybody around the globe. We are living on the same planet, breathing the same air, drinking the same water, but the United States is a sovereign nation, and we don't bow to any other sovereign, let alone take their word for it or have them impose regulations on us as they deem fit, as they see fit.

That is what section 115 would allow. It allows a backdoor access to doing so through a reciprocal agreement, not even a treaty, such as the Paris climate accord. That is the issue here, an agreement that an administration may take, that not this body, not the body across the building, not the American people are signatories to. That is the purpose of this amendment.

As I said, Mr. Chairman, in the past, this amendment has been accepted on this very bill, this very same amendment, and so I would urge adoption once again this time.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, once again, this is just common sense. I don't know that back a long time ago when section 115 was written it was written with the idea that the Paris climate accord, not a treaty, but with the force of a treaty would occur, but in the case that it is and that that has now happened, we must make sure that we speak loudly and that any regulations and any regulatory authority come through the elected bodies of the United States of America, not through bureaucracies and certainly not through would-be treaties or agreements from foreign countries.

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 prohibits the use of funds to take retaliatory actions against States that disagree with the EPA- mandated pollutant reduction goals that have been imposed upon them by the EPA.

Importantly, this amendment would not prevent the EPA from working with States to restore things like the Chesapeake Bay, which is what the EPA is supposed to be doing.

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 cleanup efforts. These State-driven efforts were largely successful. Water quality improved almost 50 percent from 1985 to 2010 without the EPA's involvement.

However, in 2010, the EPA seized the States' authority to determine their own method of compliance and threatened to take over the water quality plants. This 2010 power grab, known as the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, total maximum daily load, directly contradicts the intent of the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act clearly acknowledges State authority in water quality and requires cooperation, which is happening through the Chesapeake Bay Commission rather than coercion between the States and the Federal Government.

These coercive methods have been tried and have failed. Water quality improvement has slowed, and last year the EPA acknowledged the 2025 goals likely cannot be met. The failures we have seen since Federalization of the bay cleanup efforts necessitate the reevaluation of this model and a return to the cooperative model that led to the early improvements and actual success.

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

Mr. Chair, let me clarify, prohibits the use of funds to take retaliatory actions--retaliatory. We are already working together. We are working with the EPA. As was said, this is a regional partnership and has been a regional partnership.

This isn't about industry getting a free pass to pollute anywhere. This is about the heavy-handed, coercive tactics of the EPA on States that want to do this, that got into this because this is what they wanted to do. We don't need the EPA.

By the way, go to some of these treatment plants, and do you know what the EPA's requirements are, Mr. Chairman? Beyond the limits of technology. They have to treat the water to beyond the limits of technology. Think about what that statement says. It says they can't get there from here, but the EPA is still going to fine them if they can't get there from here while

acknowledging they can't get there from here.

All we are saying is, don't spend money on the extortionary, retaliatory, coercive tactics. Spend the money, if you are going to spend it, on actually working together to clean up the bay.

Mr. Chair, I don't know what else you need to hear. We are not against the EPA. We are not against cleaning up the bay. We are not against spending the money to clean up the bay. What we are against is the retaliatory actions that don't help clean up the bay and waste our money.

By the way, since we are talking about it, while Pennsylvania continues to try to get beyond the limits of technology, that the EPA acknowledges, some of the other States in the compact aren't interested but aren't fined under these retaliatory practices. This is punishment to some States but not to others, which we see as unfair, as you might imagine.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I think I have made my point, and the fact that the gentlewoman is reserving means there is no other point to make, so I am happy to listen.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment strikes the funding for the Council on Environmental Quality.

Now, it sounds lofty and awesome. The Council on Environmental Quality was created by the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969 to advance environmental policies and to meet requirements under NEPA. Of course, it is duplicative because now we have the EPA. We create a new agency, but we never get rid of the other agency, and they both do the same thing.

This one is supercharged now. This administration has tasked the CEQ with developing policies on climate change, environmental justice, and Federal sustainability, all while creating more paperwork under NEPA that the previous administration actually worked 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. You can't get anything permitted. Things take years upon years. People say, why does it take so long? This is why.

They are also part of the left's apparatus that aims to shift America's entire way of life by meeting unscientific emission goals. They are not scientific. They are political goals. They are not scientific goals.

As written, the Department of Energy's own estimate for their gas stove rule shows that only 4 percent of gas stoves available on the market today meet the new standard, essentially forcing Americans to choose electric stoves without any--it is not based on science. They just want you to use electricity, not gas, and so they come up with the metrics.

This is part of this Council on Environmental Quality. We don't need them. We have the EPA. We don't need the duplication.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't know about significant delays. We are already experiencing significant delays. All these construction projects take decades to complete.

If we are going to just keep doing the same thing, which apparently that is what the gentlewoman on the other side of aisle wants to do, we are going to continue to experience significant delays.

Maybe this isn't the answer. I would be happy to hear what the answer is if it is not this, but doing the same thing isn't going to change anything. That is what we are looking to do, to make it more efficient.

The EPA can do this work. The EPA should do this work. We don't need both these agencies at the same time duplicating each other's efforts and wasting American tax dollars.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Mr. Chair, two summers ago, the EPA released a regulatory agenda which included the consideration of redesignation of ozone attainment in the Permian Basin.

This wholly discretionary action would impose new regulatory burdens, new regulations on the U.S. oil and gas industry, which will only worsen the cost-of-living problems that we already have and the high energy problems that we are already experiencing.

A nonattainment redesignation will have considerable, almost an unbelievable, negative local impacts that cannot be overstated. In rural America, the energy industry generates high-paying jobs for working families and is the driver of the Texas and New Mexico economies.

Additionally, the industry annually contributes over $20 billion to State of Texas local coffers to fund public education, emergency responders, hospitals, conservation projects, and more. If the EPA finalizes this redesignation, most rural communities in this area will face substantial economic hardship. Somebody is going to have to make up that money.

By the way, it is not just Texas and the Permian Basin. If you ever travel there, if you are in the airport, you will see people traveling to and from the Permian Basin because of the jobs there. They are going to the basin for the jobs. They are flying back to the East Coast. They will work a couple of weeks on and take a week off and go back to the East Coast, so it is not just the Permian Basin that is going to be affected. It is States like Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Georgia, where the men and women that I talked to when I was there in the airport were traveling to and from.

In May of this year, Representative Pfluger hosted the Region 6 Administrator to see the impacts of a potential redesignation and the actions producers are already taking to reduce emissions to record levels.

During her visit, it was made clear that the EPA does not have monitors on the Texas side of the Permian Basin. They don't even have monitors there. All the data that is being used to build the case for the nonattainment redesignation is based on either modeling or monitors in some other State, not even in Texas.

We have seen this before. That is why Representative Pfluger recently introduced the Show the Data Act, which mandates that any nonattainment redesignation by the EPA cannot be based on air quality monitor data from some other State, area, or counties being designated. They have to be in the county, in the State. That would be nice.

The Permian Basin is proud of its environmental record. Their producers have led the world in emissions reduction, innovation, and sustainable practices. Permian Basin producers continue to reduce emissions of ozone precursors while increasing energy production.

As a matter of fact, methane emissions intensity in the Permian Basin dropped by nearly 70 percent between 2011 and 2020 even as oil and gas production in the region rose by over 320 percent. They didn't need the Federal Government coming down there with monitors outside the area telling them how to do that.

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

Mr. Chair, I suspect that Representative Pfluger would be aghast at the claim that this is a legislative earmark. There is no money involved in this.

By the way, the air quality has continued to improve. Since 1990, ozone concentration has decreased by 25 percent and emissions of ozone precursors like VOCs and nitrogen oxides have dropped by 47 percent and 65 percent.

Let me just tell you, Mr. Chairman: This is how this goes. The EPA sets a level through the Clean Air Act, they attain it, and then the EPA just keeps lowering it and lowering it and lowering it. It is used by the left by people who hate the oil and gas industry, hate civilization, and hate energy to say that you can no longer produce because you can't attain it. That's what they do.

To say it is not going to have any effect if we put them in the nonattainment zone, it is not going to have any effect on the producers, on local businesses--if it is not going to have any effect, then why would you do it? It is going to have an effect.

They are going to be out of jobs. That is the effect. It is a thinly veiled attempt to curb oil and gas production, and it will destroy local jobs, State revenues, and, more importantly, our national security.

Do you think China or Russia, which country that is competing with us in the oil and gas industry, which country do you think is telling their producers that they are not meeting attainment? None of them. Do you think Iran is doing that?

We are buying Venezuelan oil. We are buying Russian gas in the northeast. It is absurd. Congress must not allow this to move forward.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits any of the funding from being used to carry out environmental justice activities.

Let me explain this to you. Environmental justice is nothing more than the synthesis of divisive racial ideology and radical environmentalism in the same package. This entire ideology is based on the notion that Federal environmental funding should be allocated based on immutable characteristics.

Biden's Justice40 Initiative directs 40 percent of Federal clean energy and energy efficiency spending based on ethnicity, migrant status, and income status.

How is that fair in America? I don't hear anything about the fact that poor communities are hurt the hardest by this administration's inflationary energy policy.

Just last year, the Census Bureau found that 36 percent of consumers say it has been somewhat to very difficult for them to pay their usual bills in the last 7 days. That is a 25 percent increase from the prior year. I hear it in my own district.

Environmental justice is just another way for this administration to funnel dollars, your tax dollars, to radical leftwing groups, including anti-Israel groups. I think that is important to note today.

In December of 2023, the Biden administration announced it would award $600 million in environmental justice funding. Fifty million dollars went to the Climate Justice Alliance, which organized anti- Israel protests in the Capitol rotunda last year.

What does any of that have to do with the environment?

Climate Justice Alliance's website has a ``Free Palestine'' web page that states: ``The path to climate justice travels through a free Palestine. . . . ''

I am sorry. I don't see the nexus.

Will my Democrat colleagues vote to send money to these groups, Iran's useful idiots, by opposing this amendment on the day that the Prime Minister of Israel came and addressed a joint session? I sure hope not.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't know about all Americans. As a matter of fact, many of the communities that I represent are lower income. They are struggling to pay their electricity bills, and I doubt that they have gotten $50 million or part of what the Climate Justice Alliance got.

Most of my constituents don't have time to run around protesting with ``Free Palestine'' signs the day that the Prime Minister of Israel was addressing Congress.

I will tell you this. Justice should not be based on ethnicity, migrant status, or income status. Justice should be blind in America. Unfortunately, we have gotten away from that, and this is funding it.

I suggest that we all vote in favor of this and have justice be blind and have all Americans and all citizens treated equally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'm honored to recognize the Dauphin-Middle Paxton Fire Company on the auspicious occasion of its 100th Anniversary on August 10, 2024.

Established in 1924, and originally the ``Dauphin Fire Company,'' the Dauphin-Middle Paxton Fire Company has served our communities tirelessly over the past century, around 60 square miles in Middle Paxton, and a population of over 5,000. The Company also generously provides assistance to Susquehanna Township, Lower Paxton Township, West Hanover Township, Duncannon, Marysville, and Halifax.

Through federal grants, hosting myriad fundraisers (like Bingo, chicken BBQs, etc.) and generous donations from the community, Dauphin- Middle Paxton Fire company has been able to modernize both its equipment and training to better serve its Citizens. Through the continued selfless service, dedication, and leadership of present Fire Chief Shane Swenson and distinguished Firefighters, the Company will continue to faithfully execute the critical task of safeguarding our Citizens and Communities.

Mr. Speaker, I'm honored to recognize the Dauphin-Middle Paxton Fire Company on its 100th Anniversary, but more importantly, on their service and selflessness by which we all should be judged.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to implement or enforce the DRBC's rule to ban hydraulic fracturing within the Delaware River Basin. The best way to combat high natural gas prices that all of us are paying is to produce more natural gas in America, not less.

In places like my home, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the second largest natural gas producer in the Nation, it is unfortunate that unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the Delaware River Basin Commission have instituted a hydraulic fracturing ban for a portion of our State, our Commonwealth, stripping away, at the stroke of a pen, property and mineral rights from Pennsylvanians in contravention of the will of their own legislature. These aren't elected officials. These are folks who just have a different idea and have the authority to take.

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 the mineral rights of Pennsylvania. That is the result.

To be clear, this amendment simply prohibits the DRBC from implementing or enforcing this hydraulic fracturing ban, but it does not impact the ability of the States in the river basin to regulate hydraulic fracturing as they see fit.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, during previous debates on this issue, mistruths were spread about the impact of this policy change on the water reservoirs that serve New York City. These claims are false and easily disproved by the facts, which I am going to lay out right now.

The safety of hydraulic fracturing has been demonstrated through its extensive use across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and across the country, not only over the past two decades but for multiple decades.

The Obama-era EPA--not the current one and not the last one, but the Obama-era EPA--determined that the practice did not pose a threat to drinking water. Simple geography and hydrology make this outcome an impossibility. All New York City reservoirs are upriver from Pennsylvania or on the Hudson River, which does not connect to Pennsylvania, precluding any impact from Pennsylvania from reaching those reservoirs.

The intention of this amendment and its primary impact will be unleashing Pennsylvania's full energy potential by allowing Pennsylvanians in the river basin that they live in to use their property that they bought with their money and their mineral rights that they bought with their money as they see fit, subject to the laws passed by their elected officials, not by some bureaucrat from some other State.

It is time to stop this underhanded attack on property rights, representative government, and State sovereignty and restore American energy security at the same time. Opposition to this amendment essentially is saying my colleagues support a ban on hydraulic fracturing and for higher natural gas prices for Members' constituents.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment would eliminate funding for administrative expenses necessary for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program, which provides loans to companies that make Green New Deal cars, and to manufacture so-called advanced technology vehicles and qualifying components, like car manufacturers in this country need an infusion of cash from taxpayers that are buying their cars.

This law recklessly spends over $1 trillion, ignoring the fact that the national debt is now $35 trillion and will likely be $36 trillion by the end of this year. The package also includes almost $8 billion in subsidies for electric vehicle chargers, even though profit incentives have driven private actors in the auto industry, independent startups, and utilities across the country to rush to build charging stations on their own. We don't have to subsidize this.

Car dealerships are having trouble moving electric vehicles. Do you know how I know, Madam Chair? Because they come in and tell me, and they beg me to do something about it. They can't get these vehicles off their lots. There is no need to continue throwing good money after bad, coercing private companies to manufacture Green New Deal vehicles that our citizens do not want.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, many have supported this program, but in recent years, it is even more egregious. Recent legislation removed the $25 billion cap on loan authority. While some folks say, well, the loans are all out and we just need to administer them, the cap on loan authority has now opened up. It has opened up the program not just to light-duty vehicle manufacturers, but to medium- and heavy-duty vehicles, trains, and maritime vessels.

What do you think is going to happen when the government is handing out money without a cap on it?

You know what is going to happen, Madam Chair. You go from $35 trillion to $36 trillion, and the debt just keeps on climbing a trillion dollars every 100 days.

I know there are people that want this money. Everybody wants government money, but the people that live in this country that pay the bill can no longer afford it.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, the Federal loan guarantee program is exactly what it says. They are loans that are guaranteed by the Federal Government. Of course, that just transfers the risk of those loans to the taxpayers.

As with any government subsidy, they reduce the market discipline of loan recipients. Recipients get the loan, they know the Federal Government is going to pay the bill if it fails, and when it fails that is exactly what happens.

Now there is a checkered past in the Department of Energy's Loan Guarantee Program, and it demonstrates that it is not immune from these concerns. As it currently stands today, it hasn't been reformed; it hasn't been revamped. We are just going to keep on loaning money. Among the most egregious examples of title 17 loan failures are Solyndra, Fisker Automotive, and A123 Systems. All three entities received hundreds of millions of dollars in loan guarantees before filing for bankruptcy and leaving the taxpayer holding the bag.

They filed for bankruptcy, by the way, because they produced things that the American people didn't want but were forced on them. To add insult to injury, A123 Systems and Fisker Automotive were purchased by, you guessed it, Chinese companies for pennies on the dollar.

You pay the bill; they get the money. Meaning, the CCP, the Communist Party of China, was the ultimate beneficiary of our tax dollars and the good people that are working hard every day to pay those loans.

Both companies also received subsidies from the Michigan State government under then-Governor Jennifer Granholm.

Now, you might not care about that because it was in Michigan. Maybe you don't live in Michigan where Fisker Automotive and A123 Systems were located, went bankrupt, took your money, and then were sold to the Chinese, but the integrity of these programs is heightened by the fact that Secretary of Energy Granholm's leadership position is now at that Department and will oversee these loans.

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

Madam Chair, I must disagree. The so-called Inflation Reduction Act, I don't know if anyone's keeping score, but when I go to the grocery store since the Inflation Reduction Act, prices are higher. When I go to the gas station, prices are higher. It hasn't really reduced inflation, but that is another story.

Since the Inflation Reduction Act provides approximately $11.7 billion for the loan program office to issue new loans, we are going to keep going. We are going to burden the taxpayer with the potential for these loans to go bad, and they have gone bad.

This additional funding raises significant concerns that the program will, once again, be used as a piggy bank for any administration and the Secretary to reward politically-favored industries.

Madam Chair, my bosses, my constituents, can't afford this continued grifting. We have to stop the gravy train for these failed green energy companies on the backs of taxpayers. If private industry wants to invest, God bless them, but the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, continue to invest. Continue to invest. It is going to continue unless this amendment passes. We are going to keep throwing good money after bad.

We are going to continue to invest in Chinese slave labor. It needs to be understood that the material that makes these batteries--even though the material that comes to the United States of America, we don't produce any of our own material here; it is not allowed--is going to come from slave labor in China.

If that is not bad enough, the raw material is going to come from child slave labor in Africa promoted by the Chinese. You are going to continue to invest because you are going to be forced to continue to invest in them.

This is an easy one, Madam Chair. The American people are sick of investing in these things that are immoral and unaffordable. I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, 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 every single year, the entirety of its authorization level for fiscal year 2022 through 2026, meaning every dollar provided under this bill is more than the authorized level.

This Congress said this is the level at which you can spend. We are spending way above that. In other words, under this amendment, the ARC would still receive $365 million for the fiscal year rather than $400 million provided by the underlying bill.

Even with this minimal cut under this amendment, the program's funding is still extremely bloated, and its effectiveness remains unclear. It doesn't really remain unclear. It is completely unknown. I know. I sat in and presided over the hearing regarding this commission and all the commissions where, literally, the metric they use to determine success was we get loan applications. People want to receive loans and grants. That is their measure of success.

Where I live in Pennsylvania, the Appalachian Trail comes right through the district, and people in Appalachia certainly sorely need help, but they don't need a bunch of throwaway things from contractors outside of their area coming in to make a bunch of money off the government and leave them with whatever is left over.

This commission's programs are duplicative of other Federal development economic programs and are better addressed at the State and local levels where those States know exactly what is needed.

In fact, the FY18 budget justification identified the Appalachian Regional Commission failed to show a strong link between grants and a positive impact on the community they serve. They are giving out money, but they can't justify any of it through metrics or through any performance evaluation whatsoever.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, that might be all well and good, but last year, the commission's inspector general--not Perry, not this Congress, the inspector general identified the massive increase in the commission's funding over recent years as a threat to its ability to evaluate grant proposals, measure program performance, and conduct appropriate oversight, meaning this spike in funding threatens to worsen an already tenuous link between funding and success.

Mr. Chair, these commissions are populated by the politically connected to hand out money to those that are connected to them. That is what they are for. That is what they do. They don't do much else other than that, and they are certainly no measure of success.

Again, I presided over the hearing where we asked them for their metric, their measure of success. Again, Mr. Chair, it was that they received a lot of applications for grants and loans.

People want money. That is your measure of success? That is pathetic. We certainly must bring the funding level for the ARC down to ensure that it has the capacity to ensure if you are going to spend the money--I am not getting rid of the commission. I am just saying if you are going to spend the money, let's do it wisely and actually prove that it does something to help the people that you allegedly are helping as opposed to the people that sit on the commission and dole out the tax dollars.

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

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

Mr. Chair, since 1965, which is a long time ago now, they say the poverty rate has been cut in half, but the general poverty rate across the country has been cut in half since 1965. The general rate. None of that can be attributed to the ARC.

By the way, the map that we had provided by the ARC at the hearing showed one county in all of the region, in all of the States had improved. One. This is not a cut.

As a result of the IIJA, it is well above what they were supposed to be appropriated, and everyone in here knows it. Everyone knows it, but they will take the money anyhow.

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 reduces the funding to the Delta Regional Commission by $6.1 million, back to the FY19 level. In FY17, the Obama administration sought to cut funding for the Delta Regional Commission by $3 million. The FY18, FY19, FY20, and FY21 budgets all sought to eliminate funding for the Delta Regional Commission, identifying it as duplicative of other Federal economic development programs.

Where have we heard that before?

The FY21 budget pointed out that the Delta Regional Commission, like others, is set aside for special geographic designations rather than applied across the country, based on objective criteria indicating local areas' levels of distress.

Well, that is what States are for. That is not the Federal Government. If you don't live there, this isn't going to help you at all, but you are going to pay for it.

We are $35 trillion in debt, Mr. Chair. We simply can't continue to allow for the rapid growth of parochial commissions. They probably do wonderful things for the people that are there, probably, but they duplicate other Federal programs, and they continue undeterred. Federal programs that are likely doing the work that States and local governments should be doing.

We wonder how did we get to $35 trillion in debt? Well, I don't know. Everybody got a commission, a handout, money. At a minimum, we should return the funding of this program to prepandemic FY19 levels. We need to find somewhere in this budget some sanity, so that our taxpayers aren't footing the bill for things they can't afford to pay for.

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

Mr. Chair, this actually does reduce the spending. This is actually an amendment that does reduce spending. As far as the FRA is concerned, my goodness, just saying it meets FRA, well, FRA spends more than last year. Every year we spend more than the year before. We never see a year where we actually cut any spending.

Maybe this is a small account. Mr. Chair, $6 million is pretty small in the face of trillions of dollars and billions of dollars, I agree. We have got to start somewhere.

Again, the FY18, FY19, FY20, and FY21 budgets all sought to eliminate funding for the Delta Regional Commission, eliminate it. Not me. That is what the budget wanted to do then. I am saying in 2024, let's just reduce it to FY19 and try to live within our means, just like my bosses and your bosses and our bosses have to do at home. They don't get more money every single year regardless of what happens.

Mr. Chair, I reserve 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, this amendment reduces funding for the Denali Commission by $2 million, to the FY19 prepandemic level.

The Denali Commission's mission of providing job training and other economic development services in rural Alaska can better be served by the 29 other Federal programs with which it duplicates. There are 29 other programs doing this.

The Obama administration sought to eliminate funding for the commission in FY12 because it was duplicative and did not select projects based on competition or merit. Again, we are just handing out money, but we have a fancy name.

In 2013, the inspector general for the Denali Commission called for the elimination of the program. The elimination of the program. I am just saying, let's take it to FY19, $2 million. The inspector general stated that he recommended that Congress put its money elsewhere.

Well, it is not our money. It is their money. It is our bosses' money. You might go to Alaska. I don't know if you need a job training program if you go there. Maybe if you plan to go, you

should--well, that is another story. The Trump administration, likewise, sought to eliminate the commission in FY18, FY19, FY20, and

Mr. Chairman, at a bare minimum, we should pass this amendment just to keep the Denali Commission where it is, at its pre COVID-19 level, and not allow for its continued growth in the face of trillions of dollars of debt while our people can't afford gas, groceries, daycare, their electricity bills.

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

Yet again, this commission serves as a duplicative slush fund for parochial interests, this time for projects in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. I have many friends in those locations.

From FY 2010 to FY 2020, the SCRC received $250,000 annually, all without having an appointed Federal co-chair. There was nobody in charge. There was nobody running the thing, but they still got $250,000. I know in the face of trillions, $250,000 isn't much. Where I come from, my bosses would love to have $250,000 every single year and not have to account for it because nobody is in charge.

After a co-chair was appointed in December 2021--again, conveniently, with close ties to political leadership--the number is now a whopping $20 million in this bill. From $250,000 with nobody in charge to somebody politically connected to $20 million.

There is absolutely no reason for that dramatic increase in funding-- well, there is one, but you are probably not going to like it-- especially when these projects fund both projects with no national nexus, like electric vehicle charging stations.

We have to have a regional commission to do that? We just had an amendment where you are telling me the Department of Energy has got to pay for that, but now the regional commission pays for that also.

In addition to the charging stations, they also fund stormwater management and green infrastructure. Stormwater management is a problem, I am sure, in every State, but here again, is that the Federal Government's role? According to the SCRC's 2023-2027 strategic plan, that is what they are going to spend the money on.

Our constituents, our bosses, do not have money for these projects that have no impact on their lives, and in many cases drive up the cost of living for them.

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

Again, Mr. Chair, we are just spending dollars. This government agency, this program does it, and here is another one. The last, the Denali Commission, there were 29 separate programs. This is not much different. I didn't count them up, but I assure you, there are other Federal programs that do the same thing. A question that hasn't been answered here is: Is it the role of the Federal Government?

I ask my bosses, my constituents, the people on this floor how many gas stations did they pay for through Federal appropriations? There are a bunch of gas stations around the country, everyone stops at them, we know their names. We bought them because we bought gasoline. Somebody invested in that, and we bought gasoline, and that paid for it, but in this case, we are going to pay for electric vehicle charging stations through our taxes, whether or not we have an electric vehicle. Whether or not that vehicle pays any highway taxes, we are going to pay for it.

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 rise to offer this amendment to reduce funding for the Northern Border Regional Commission, or the NBRC, to prepandemic 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.

I don't know if you are seeing a theme here. You want extra money from the Federal Government, and you are not getting enough, just create a commission. Get your buddies in other States to create a commission, and in comes the money.

These commissions simply serve as a slush fund for parochial and regional projects with little or actually no national nexus. They don't belong in the

purview of the Federal government. They belong in State and local governments.

Let's take a look at some of the funded programs taken from the 2022 annual report, which is the latest report available, 2022:

$304,000 to purchase a sound system for an auditorium in New Hampshire. I am sure it is wonderful. If I get to New Hampshire, maybe I will get to hear it, but in the meantime I am going to pay for it, and so are you.

Over $350,000 to expand rail yard capacity in upstate New York. I don't know, I am paying for freight costs. We have all kinds of incentives for railroads in this country. I know, Mr. Chair, I am on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. We have $350,000 coming from this commission to pay for that, as well.

Another $350,000 for a sailing center on Lake Champlain. I am sure it is wonderful. I am sure it is lovely. I live in Pennsylvania. I am not getting up to the lake too often.

These projects are all well and good. Some of them ought to be funded by private investment and others should be funded by States or localities.

Mr. Chair, our taxpayers are broke, and our country is broke. Somebody has to do something about it. Somebody has to make the hard decisions.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, instead of pandering to special interest groups, we have got to pare back these wasteful programs that oftentimes serve as a boondoggle for a limited number of folks in a limited location.

This amendment does not zero out the commission's funding. It doesn't say we have got to get rid of the commission. Other administrations have done that. This doesn't say that. It simply reduces the funding to pre-COVID, pre-Biden spending levels where, quite honestly, most of our bosses, our constituents are living. That is where their paychecks are. They are back there, and we are up here, taking their money and spending it on things that are already being spent on that should be spent by somebody else.

They should be attached to accountability at State and local elected officials, but they are not. They are attached to regional commissions that most people don't know who exist, have no idea who runs them or what they do.

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 am going to sound like a broken record here, so I will keep it short. I am not picking winners and losers or favorites here. First, the Great Lakes Authority has only been authorized since 2022. It is 2024 now. It still does not have a Federal co-chair. It has no website. It has no programs funded. There is nobody there.

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, Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. I don't know because there is no one to ask.

Mr. Chair, we have seen how other commissions have gone. President Trump urged the elimination of three of them, and President Obama recommended cuts and elimination for the Denali Commission, making it bipartisan.

With that level of bipartisan criticism of existing commissions, I don't see why we need to dig ourselves even deeper with yet another commission. My goodness, Pennsylvania is covered by two of them. That is my home State. You have to call the balls and strikes.

I know people in this building will scoff at the difference between $2.5 million and $5 million. We are saying $2.5 million, which is pretty bad for me. I am saying to spend $2.5 million on a commission that doesn't have a co-chair, has no website, and has no programs funded, not $5 million.

It is still $2.5 million being sent to who knows where for who knows what, but it is $2.5 million less going toward a commission that cannot even begin operations without any Senate-confirmed Federal co-chair.

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

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, Pennsylvania can handle itself. We don't need some commission to do our work. We understand where the water from Lake Erie goes, to the Great Lakes. We understand it is complex.

I looked at the list, and I have been to all of these States. I would be happy to meet with the Federal co-chair, but there isn't one. There isn't any. I would be happy to see what they are doing, but that person doesn't exist.

Do you know what exists? Millions of dollars going to this organization where there isn't anybody there. That is what exists. That is what we are trying to rectify. We are not even saying take all of it. Just take some of it so we don't spend as much on an organization with no website, no co-chair, no plan.

All of us know it is not going to stop at $5 million for this commission, just like the rest. It will all balloon up to tens of millions of dollars if Congress, using the power of the purse, doesn't put its foot down.

I love Pennsylvania. I love my home State. We want to handle our business. We don't need unelected bureaucrats not from Pennsylvania telling us how to do things in Pennsylvania. That is what they are going to do with this.

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. Chair, I know you can't believe it, but there is one left. Like I said, we are equal opportunity here. We are going to take a look at all of them.

This amendment would halve the funding of the Southwest Border Regional Commission. This commission, which only had its first chairman confirmed in 2022 and was funded only 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 Heinrich, which continues this theme of political connection to the chairmen of these regional commissions.

I don't know if everyone is getting that, but I bet those not appointed to the regional commission who live in those States get it.

Look, I know folks on the other side of the aisle care about the border. Well, I hope they do. I know our side sure does.

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.

We are going to give $5 million to them to fix the border. We can't even fix it at the Federal level. Well, we can, but we refuse to. The commission received $250,000 in FY21 but is now being funded at $5 million in this bill for FY24. For what results? If they are there to fix the border, I would argue they have done a pretty poor job, but we are going from $250,000 to $5 million.

This amendment doesn't get rid of the commission. That argument can be made, but this amendment just says we are going to take it from $5 million to a still exorbitant $2.5 million.

I suspect we are going to hear from some of my colleagues from Texas about how they want to use this opportunity to fix the border, but this regional commission isn't the answer.

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

Mr. Chair, for all the reasons so stated amendment after amendment with all of these commissions duplicating Federal programs, which are specious to begin with, again, it is irrelevant to regions of the country or commissions. I am not picking on one as opposed to another, not trying to pick the winners and losers.

Our citizens can't afford their bills. This Federal Government can't afford its bills. Every dollar that we are talking about in this appropriations bill, every single dollar, is borrowed money.

Let's not borrow as much. Let's not borrow $2.5 million as much. That is all this is saying. Still borrow a whole bunch, all of it as a matter of fact, but just not $2.5 million more.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, Mike Kelly, for yielding. It is sad that we have to be here. Corey Comperatore is now a hero, but we would sure rather have Corey back in our lives. I didn't know Corey, but I have come, like many, to learn something about him.

Each of us wonder, if we had to, what we would do in that moment; what we would do. Corey's resolve, Corey's mettle was already known to many. As it has been said, he was a volunteer firefighter and the chief, a devoted member of his local church, a member of the armed services of America. Probably other than loving his Savior, what

he found most important in the world was being a husband to Helen and a father to Allyson and Kaylee.

We need to know why Corey is no longer with us on behalf of the American people, and we are going to find out, but that is not what this is about. This is about honoring the life and the legacy of a man who loved his family, his God, and his country, and laid down his life.

He went to the rally, expecting safety, like everybody else, but in the face of unimaginable danger, when a moment means the difference between life and death, Corey shielded his wife and his daughter, the things he loved most in this world. For that, we honor him, we pray for him, we pray for his family and his community. We also know that he exemplifies the best not only in Butler, Pennsylvania, not only in Pennsylvania and our great Commonwealth, but in the United States of America and for all of humanity.

I thank the gentleman for this time this evening. God bless Corey Comperatore and God bless his family.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me the time.

My friends on the other side of the aisle say: Well, it is against the law for people here illegally to register to vote. It is against the law, Mr. Speaker, for them to vote. It is against the law.

Do you know what else is against the law? Coming into our country illegally, but, oh my goodness, who knew? It happens.

As the past speaker just said, we have the honor system. Do you know how to register to vote? Just sign it and say, ``I can vote.'' That is how to do the honor system.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you who we are providing the honor system to: people who human traffic, drug dealers, cartel members, people on the terrorist watch list.

Mr. Speaker, do we want to count on the honor system to have those folks, people coming from the Communist Party of China, from Russia, our adversaries, our enemies, selecting the leaders of our country? That is what they are telling you right now. That is exactly what they are saying.

By the way, this whole thing about military members can't vote, someone can come here illegally and serve in the fire department, in the soup kitchen, in any number of places, including the military, without being an American citizen. I have been overseas, and I have voted as an American military citizen.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing the resolution.

To address the other side's claims about subpoenas to Members, they are invalid when you get your buddies together, predetermine the outcome, and then have an illegitimate committee, so-called, that doesn't follow and comport with the rules of the House.

By the way, some of the Members accused here were never even served those subpoenas, so let's be careful about disparaging our colleagues.

On the issue at hand, Mr. Speaker, this was a criminal investigation conducted by Robert Hur, a criminal investigation on the President of the

United States for classified documents for which he was not authorized to have because, at the time he had them, he was not the President. He was the Vice President or a Senator and, in either case, not authorized to have those documents outside the chain of custody and outside a SCIF. He had no courier orders. They were just stored in his garage or at the Penn Biden Center.

That is the crime. The crime was committed. That is actually not in question. Robert Hur essentially said that there was a crime committed. The question is of the evidence of the crime committed. What the administration, the Department of Justice, and Merrick Garland have said is: You can't have the evidence. We are going to tell you our version of the evidence.

That is not how it goes in criminal trials. We don't say to the defendant: Give us your version of the evidence, and we will see if that is good enough. Prosecutors go get the evidence and then determine where it leads.

This House of Representatives demands the best evidence, not somebody else's version of the evidence, but the actual evidence, and the best evidence available, not because the House of Representatives inherently needs it, but because the American people need to judge for themselves about the crime that was committed and then why Robert Hur decided not to prosecute that crime.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 338.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, I want to start out by thanking my good friend from Florida for his hard work and effort on this and also for his hard work and his outstanding effort to speak on behalf of the Cuban people who wish to be free and to speak against communism worldwide. I thank him for that.

Everyday Americans across our Nation, like the folks that I have the honor to represent in Pennsylvania in the Tenth Congressional District, just a few hours from this place, are still suffering the impacts of this administration's reckless spending.

Unlike the Federal Government, they have to make tough choices. They have got to make their budgets balance. They can't just print money. They have got to stretch their dollars. They have to forgo auto repairs or maybe something around their home that needs attention, take items off their grocery list, choose different items that they can afford, all because of too much spending. They pare back their spending in ways that may be uncomfortable because we won't in this town.

To me, it is unacceptable and it is unconscionable. Madam Chair, the United States Congress has been unwilling to do the same for decades now.

While, like last year, I appreciate that the underlying bill has eliminated or reduced many wasteful accounts--and it has due to the good work of the chairman here--with all due respect, there is still a lot of work to be done and can be done.

The State Department and international organizations funded by the final State-Foreign Operations funding bills have time and time again advanced and sent American tax dollars to causes that run counter to American values and our foreign policy objectives.

This amendment reduces the amount for international disaster assistance from just over $3.4 billion to zero.

While I admire the desire of many, including myself, to be charitable and help others around the world, we have got to remember, we are being charitable with other people's money. We are being charitable with taxpayers' money, taxpayers that can barely afford their own bills, their own electricity bills, food bills, and daycare bills. God forbid you have got to buy a new car or a new home or pay the interest rates, all due to what is happening here.

We want to be charitable, but the fact of the matter, Madam Chair, is that America is broke. It is hard to help other folks when you can't help yourself.

This is nearly $3.5 billion, which like many of the other dollars spent in this bill, does not go directly to helping Americans in America. Our constituents simply can't afford yet another line item on their tab while they are already bearing the brunt of reckless spending by President Biden.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, we don't have to question each other's morality here. We all want to help. Everybody wants to be happy.

We are Representatives of the United States, and we are heading into disaster season in the United States of America. Whether it is hurricanes across the South or wildfires in the West, it is coming here.

This is about foreign disaster aid, Madam Chair, sending money abroad. We can always do that when there is something that happens. We can come to Congress here, and we can come in and vote for things at that time when they happen.

I want to say this, Madam Chair. We want to put our chairman in the best position possible to negotiate. This isn't about questioning our moral objectives party by party, side by side, but we know that there is going to be a negotiation with the Senate. We know that. We want to put this chairman in the best position possible.

Nobody here believes that we are going to end up with less than we go in

with. You are going to end up with more. That is what happens every single time in this body.

Let's put this chairman in the best position possible when he goes in and they say: Oh, my goodness, this isn't going to work. Then he can negotiate from there. Maybe it is not $3.5 billion. Maybe it is $3.4 billion, which isn't a big reduction in Pennsylvania where people can't pay their electricity bills, but it is something. It is a start down the road. I want to put this chairman in the best possible position to negotiate.

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

Madam Chair, had I been present, I would have voted AYE on Roll Call No. 285, AYE on Roll Call No. 286, AYE on Roll Call No. 287 and AYE on Roll Call No. 288.

Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Ogles

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for yielding, and I thank my colleagues for their support of the bill. It is amazing, and it is very frightening that in 2024 we are having this discussion on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Since the early 1990s, the Falun Gong has been targeted by the Chinese Communist Party. The Falun Gong is a spiritual practice of mind and body in which adherents follow the core principles of truth, compassion, and tolerance.

In 1999, the Chinese Communist Party estimated that 70 to 100 million people were practicing Falun Gong, the equivalent of 5 to 7 percent of the Chinese population today. Mr. Speaker, Falun Gong's popularity quickly initiated violent persecution, including illegal detentions, forced labor, torture, and, yes, forced organ harvesting, which is a form of mass murder.

This is something out of the thirties and Josef Mengele, but it is happening today.

On July 20, 1999, the Chinese Communist Party detained hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners and banned any further practice of this religion. Since this date, the Chinese Communist Party has continued to escalate its systematic oppression against Falun Gong practitioners.

On March 1, 2020, the Independent Tribunal into Forced Organ Harvesting from Prisoners of Conscience in China found there to be an incomprehensible gap between the number of transplant operations carried out in the People's Republic of China in comparison to the number of eligible registered donors.

What does that mean?

That means in China, Mr. Speaker, if you have got the money, then there is no waiting list for you to get an organ. Go anywhere else in the civilized world and find that.

What would that mean?

That means there is a ready supply of these organs, because there is.

Now their report concluded that forced organ harvesting has been committed for years throughout China on a significant scale and that Falun Gong practitioners have been and probably are the main source of organs for forced organ harvesting.

In the U.S., many of those working in organ transplantation and those who benefit from transplantation systems are likely unaware. They just don't know of China's illegal practices.

Through its repressive control of information, the CCP has created the infrastructure and resources needed to persecute millions of its own citizens, not only Falun Gong practitioners, but also Uyghurs, Tibetans, Christians, and any other the Chinese Communist Party chooses to target.

This bill is the first binding commitment by Congress to take strong legal action against the persecution and the forced organ harvesting of Falun Gong, making Falun Gong the centerpiece of legislation, an action long overdue after 25 years.

The Falun Gong Protection Act imposes sanctions on those who participate in or facilitate the forced harvesting of organs in China. This bill directs the Secretary of State to determine whether the CCP's persecution of Falun Gong constitutes crimes against humanity or genocide alongside a required report on the CCP's organ transplant policies and practices.

The Communist Party of China doesn't want us to see this. When you take a trip to China, Mr. Speaker, and see all the wonderful things and the wonderful people there, they are not going to invite you to see this. It is going to take us looking. It is going to take us focusing on it.

Additionally, H.R. 4132 makes it U.S. policy to avoid any cooperation with the People's Republic of China in the illicit organ transplant industry.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I thank my friends on both sides of the aisle for their support.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me start out by saying happy birthday to the United States Army. I spent a fair amount of time in my life in uniform in the Army. It is a defining thing in anybody's life who has spent time in uniform, and it has been a wonderful institution for many, many Americans over a long period of time.

I also thank the chairman for the work on this bill. I know that while we are debating it here today and we are going to vote later today, that the work for next year's bill will start tomorrow. I thank him for his hard work.

This amendment is pretty straightforward. It just requires the Secretary of Defense to report on the use of taxpayer-funded union time by DOD employees. We are not saying it is bad. We are not saying it is good. We are not saying it is too much. It is too little. We just want to know what it is. We just want to know.

For those who may be unfamiliar, Congress granted certain employees the ability to perform certain tasks for labor unions while on duty. To be clear, that means that these employees are being paid by our constituents to work for union activities instead of doing the job that they were hired to perform.

I think maybe it would be fine if we said in the job description that your job is to do organized labor activities, but that is not what is in the job description. The job description is what is needed for the country for the Department of Defense; but instead of doing that work, you are doing other work. Unacceptably, the statistics on the use of official time are very few and far between.

Take a GAO report from January of 2017, so we are a few years beyond that now, which is telling in itself. According to the data from the Department of Veterans Affairs, 346 employees spent 100 percent of their time on official union activities instead of taking care of our Nation's veterans.

Now, the Trump administration took some steps to improve transparency, including actually reporting the use and the cost of official time by agencies.

A VA press release dated November 8, 2018, cites a particularly egregious example. A VA registered nurse, who was elected as a local union official, spent 100 percent of her time doing organized labor activities. That might be fine if the job description was organized labor activities, but the job description is registered nurse. How much time taking care of veterans as a nurse was this person spending? Well, zero, that is how much time.

To use examples from the Department of Defense, the most recent available data or estimates of the data from the Trump administration's final report was that 3,235 DOD employees used official time in FY19 for a total of 526,990 hours at a cost of millions upon tens of millions of dollars, not to mention the equipment.

We are here debating the National Defense Authorization Act.

There are very serious threats around the world. While we stand here, while we sit here, while we watch, the Russians are moving a fleet into Cuba about 100 miles off the coast of the United States of America. Now, I don't know about you, but for me, I want every DOD employee focused on keeping America safe.

All we are asking for, all this amendment asks for is a report so that we don't go blindly searching around to try and figure out how best to do that. If we have the information, we can make decisions. We don't have the information. This amendment says give us the information, track the information so we can make decisions.

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

Mr. Chairman, there are many things that I agree with the gentleman, my friend on the other side of the aisle. These are important tasks that need to be done. Disputes need to be resolved. We all care about the people who are working for the Federal Government, but to think that after 40 years we have gotten it perfect, and we can't take a look and we can't ask for a report I think is a little bit shortsighted. This isn't an attack on anyone because those things do need to be done.

However, I would say this: Yesterday I received an email from the AFL-CIO from someone working on official time. This is yesterday. Today is Friday. Yesterday was Thursday. The time stamp on it is 1:38, so 1338 if you are in the Army, is what time it came. That is in the middle of the business day. That is in the middle of working hours. That is not handling disputes. That is lobbying Members of Congress to vote one way or the other. We want them to be able to handle disputes and do the work to make sure employees are protected and the good work of DOD is done, but I, for one, would like a report on how this is the work that taxpayers should be paying for and how that is happening and how much it is happening. That is all we are asking for, Mr. Chairman, is a report.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the email from the AFL-CIO.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted AYE on Roll Call No. 251.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 235.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, I thank the chairman for his hard work on the bill. None of this is easy.

This amendment addresses a potential solution for our Nation's veterans and servicemembers suffering with PTSD and PTSI. Estimates from the VA paint a harsh picture that 7 percent of veterans will have PTSD, with about 29 percent of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans having PTSD at some point in their lives.

Unfortunately, far too few of these brave men and women find relief from currently available treatment in the VA, and failure here can mean suicide. The average number of veteran suicides per day was 17.5 in 2021. I shudder to think that, every single day, 17 to 20 of our fellow brothers and sisters in arms take their lives.

These numbers, quite honestly, are unacceptable. They are unacceptable to this side of the aisle. I think they are unacceptable to the other side of the aisle, and they are unacceptable to America.

That is why I am offering this amendment, which would increase and decrease Veterans Health Administration funding by $1 million for the purpose of furnishing stellate ganglion blocker, or SGB, treatment therapy to veterans suffering from PTSD.

Already approved by the VA as a safe and effective alternative, the stellate ganglion block procedure injects an anesthetic agent into or onto a collection of nerves in the neck, and it is proven to alleviate common PTSD symptoms.

In PTSD and some other anxiety conditions, the fight-or-flight nervous system gets stuck in the on position. By precisely placing anesthetic around the stellate ganglion, the unproductive and chronic fight-or-flight response is turned off. This allows neurotransmitters in the brain to reset back to a nonanxiety state and results in long- term relief of the anxiety itself and the PTSD symptoms.

This procedure has already improved many lives while showing up to 85 percent efficacy at a fraction of the cost of other treatments that are far less effective. Madam Chair, that is 85 percent.

Having this life-changing option for our veterans would give them a chance to live more free from the effects of PTSD and its symptoms. Our Nation's veterans should be the top priority, and they deserve to have this treatment and this therapy when they need it.

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

Madam Chair, the treatment is not dangerous at all. As a matter of fact, it is offered in at least 11 VA facilities, but only that many, and not all of the VA facilities. It has been around since the 1920s. It is not dangerous at all.

As a matter of fact, there are no known side-effects. There aren't any known side-effects. The people that get the treatment walk away 85 percent of the time without suffering the effects of PTSD.

As I sat there and watched the treatment being given, Madam Chair, the patients have told me that they feel like a weight is lifted off of them while the treatment is occurring. Those are specious claims.

The bureaucracy at the VA wants to conduct another study. Meanwhile, it is allowed in some of their facilities, but not all of their facilities. Meanwhile, while they are conducting another study, 17 to 22 of our veterans take their lives every day while they are conducting another study. While offering this at some places but not other places, servicemembers in Alabama are scraping up their last dollars to get on a van with some of their other buddies to drive up here to get the treatment because they can't get it down at the VA in Alabama.

It is absurd. It is ridiculous. While they are conducting studies, our servicemembers are taking their lives needlessly.

What I am asking is, instead of the current protocol, which says that members of the military services who have earned this treatment, who have earned the care, don't have to fail every single other thing that the VA gives them before they can get this and, in the meantime, take their lives because that is what happens, Madam Chair.

The VA requires, except in those other facilities, that the veteran do all these other things, take all these other treatments that don't work and have to fail every single one of them before they can say, oh, please, VA, can you give me something that works, the stellate ganglion block, the SGB,

which is done in the private sector, which is done at the VA.

I am just saying, instead of making veterans suffer and take their lives before they can get the treatment, let them have the treatment like the veterans in those 11 facilities that do offer it.

Why can't we do that? You can keep studying it. If you find some side effect, well, God bless you, but right now, there aren't any and right now, veterans are killing themselves.