We use analytics tools to understand how people use the site. They're optional: if you decline, the site works the same, no analytics cookies are set and Google gets only a cookieless, anonymous count signal. Your votes are saved either way; the details are in the privacy policy.
22 public bills, H.R. 5103- 5124; and 4 resolutions, H. Res. 673-676, were introduced.
Pages H3828-29
Reports Filed
Reports were filed today as follows: H. Res. 672, providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4553) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 104) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment''; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 105) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan''; providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 106) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan''; and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-232); and H.R. 4550, to reauthorize the United States Grain Standards Act, and for other purposes (H. Rept. 119-233).
Page H3828
Speaker
Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Loudermilk to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Page H3761
Recess
The House recessed at 11:06 a.m. and reconvened at 12 p.m.
Page H3768
Privileged Resolution: Intent to Offer
Representative Clarke (NY) announced her intent to offer a privileged resolution.
Pages H3770-71
Censuring Representative LaMonica McIver and removing her from the Committee on Homeland Security
Representative Higgins (LA) offered a privileged resolution (H. Res. 539) censuring Representative LaMonica McIver and removing her from the Committee on Homeland Security. The House agreed to the Clark (MA) motion to table the resolution by a yea- and-nay vote of 215 yeas to 207 nays with two answering ``present'', Roll No. 223.
Pages H3781-82
Recess
The House recessed at 6:11 p.m. and reconvened at 9 p.m.
Page H3818
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment'': The House passed H.J. Res. 104, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment'', by a yea- and-nay vote of 211 yeas to 208 nays, Roll No. 224.
Pages H3782-87, H3819
H. Res. 672, the rule providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4553) and the joint resolutions (H.J. Res. 104), (H.J. Res. 105), and (H.J. Res. 106), was agreed to by a yea-and-nay vote of 212 yeas to 208 nays with one answering ``present'', Roll No. 222, after the previous question was ordered by a recorded vote of 212 ayes to 209 noes, Roll No. 221.
Pages H3771-79
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan'': The House passed H.J. Res. 106, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan'', by a yea-and-nay vote of 215 yeas to 210 nays, Roll No. 225.
Pages H3787-91, H3819-20
H. Res. 672, the rule providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4553) and the joint resolutions (H.J. Res. 104), (H.J. Res. 105), and (H.J. Res. 106), was agreed to by a yea-and-nay vote of 212 yeas to 208 nays with one answering ``present'', Roll No. 222, after the previous question was ordered by a recorded vote of 212 ayes to 209 noes, Roll No. 221.
Pages H3771-79
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan'': The House passed H.J. Res. 105, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan'', by a yea-and-nay vote of 215 yeas to 211 nays, Roll No. 226.
Pages H3791-96, H3820-21
H. Res. 672, the rule providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4553) and the joint resolutions (H.J. Res. 104), (H.J. Res. 105), and (H.J. Res. 106), was agreed to by a yea-and-nay vote of 212 yeas to 208 nays with one answering ``present'', Roll No. 222, after the previous question was ordered by a recorded vote of 212 ayes to 209 noes, Roll No. 221.
Pages H3771-79
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
The House considered H.R. 4553, making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026. Consideration is expected to resume tomorrow, September 4th.
Pages H3796-H3826
Agreed to
Fleischmann en bloc No. 1 consisting of the following amendments printed in H. Rept. 119-232: Arrington (No. 1) that increases and decreases DOE nuclear energy to ensure the Department of Energy makes available $50,000,000 to provide advanced fuels for advanced university research reactors that can achieve criticality in three years; Cammack (No. 2) that increases the flood control and costal emergencies account by $2.5 million; Takes from DOE administrative funds; Dexter (No. 3) that increases and decreases funding for the Electricity account of the Department of Energy to conduct a study assessing current and projected water use by data centers, associated impacts on local water resources, and best practices and technologies to reduce water consumption; Fry (No. 4) that increases and decreases funds for the Department of Energy Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program by $5,000,000 to support the deployment of nuclear energy projects; Gonzalez (TX) (No. 5) that increases and decreases the Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Department of the Army, Construction account by $40 million to direct the Secretary to fund water and wastewater infrastructure projects in South Texas; Gonzalez (TX) (No. 6) that increases and decreases the Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Department of the Army, Construction account by $27 million to stress the importance of reimbursing the Port of Brownsville for the advanced funding they contributed to Segment B of the Brazos Island Harbor (BIH) Channel Improvement Project; Hernandez (No. 9) that increases and decreases funding by $75 million for the Department of Energy's Office of Electricity to support research and development, improve electricity delivery, enhance grid resiliency, and expand access to a secure and reliable power supply in Puerto Rico; Hernandez (No. 10) that increases and decreases funding by $35 million for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to support drinking water system improvements, water infrastructure upgrades, and the repair, modernization, and construction of projects aimed at addressing Puerto Rico's aging water infrastructure; Higgins (LA) (No. 11) that increases and decreases $50 million from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance to support spot dredging the Vermilion River; Hill (No. 12) that increases and decreases funds in the OM Corp Account; Houchin (No. 13) that increases and decreases funding at the Department of Energy to streamline and update policies to ensure they better reflect the challenges facing state energy offices nationwide; Kiggans (VA) (No. 14) that increases and decreases Department of Energy, Nuclear Energy Programs funding by $1,000,000 for the purpose of supporting the research, development, and demonstration of advanced small and micro nuclear reactors to enhance grid resilience and energy security, including potential applications for critical infrastructure and remote or austere environments; Kiggans (VA) (No. 15) that increases and decreases Army Corps of Engineers Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies program funding for the purpose of supporting flood and storm damage reduction efforts in coastal regions; Kiggans (VA) (No. 16) that increases and decreases Corps of Engineers, Operation and Maintenance funding by $1,000,000 for the purpose of supporting dredging and navigation maintenance to ensure safe and reliable access to harbors that are critical for Navy and sealift operations; Kiggans (VA) (No. 17) that increases and decreases Department of Energy, Energy Programs Grid Deployment funding by $1,000,000 for the purpose of strengthening grid resilience and reliability to protect critical infrastructure, including military and energy assets; LaMalfa (No. 18) that increases the Army Corps of Engineers Operation and Maintenance account by $3 million to support Forecast-Informed Reservoir Operations work, including at Shasta Dam; decreases the Departmental Administration account by $3 million; LaMalfa (No. 19) that increases the Army Corps of Engineers Construction account by $2 million to support Issue Evaluation Studies, including at Black Butte Dam; decreases the Departmental Administration account by $2 million; Langworthy (No. 20) that increases and decreases funds to emphasize ongoing ecosystem restoration and water quality parameters for the Chautauqua Lake Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study; Moulton (No. 22) that increases and decreases funding for the Corps Operation and Maintenance account by $3 million to emphasize the need to complete the Essex River FNP that was started in 2025, but remains unfinished, to address the need to ensure efficient navigability, public safety, and emergency response; Scott (VA) (No. 34) that increases and decreases funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science to support operations of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility; Steube (No. 35) that increases and decreases funds to express Congressional support for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Construction; and Taylor (No. 36) that increases and decreases funding for the Appalachian Regional Commission to conduct a study on the inclusion of low earth orbit satellites to be used for broadband and economic development purposes;
Pages H3808-10
Griffith amendment (No. 8 printed in H. Rept. 119-232) that increases funding for the Department of Energy's Fossil Energy and Carbon Management program by $6,875,000 while reducing funding for Departmental Administration by $6,875,000; and
Pages H3810-11
McCormick amendment (No. 21 printed in H. Rept. 119-232) that prohibits funds made available by this Act from being used to close campgrounds operated by the Army Corps of Engineers that are located at Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia.
Page H3811
Rejected
Perry amendment (No. 23 printed in H. Rept. 119-232) that sought to prohibit the use of funds for the Delaware River Basin Commission to implement or enforce the final rule entitled, ``Comprehensive Plan and Special Regulations With Respect to High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing; Rules of Practice and Procedure Regarding Project Review Classifications and Fees'' (by a recorded vote of 195 ayes to 235 noes, Roll No. 227);
Pages H3811-12, H3821
Perry amendment (No. 24 printed in H. Rept. 119-232) that sought to prohibit funding for the Delaware River Basin Commission (by a recorded vote of 143 ayes to 285 noes, Roll No. 228);
Pages H3812-13, H3821-22
Perry amendment (No. 25 printed in H. Rept. 119-232) that sought to eliminate funding for ARPA-E and transfers funds to the SRA (by a recorded vote of 77 ayes to 347 noes, Roll No. 229);
Pages H3813-14, H3822-23
Perry amendment (No. 26 printed in H. Rept. 119-232) that sought to eliminate funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program and transfers to the SRA (by a recorded vote of 140 ayes to 286 noes, Roll No. 230);
Pages H3814-15, H3823
Perry amendment (No. 27 printed in H. Rept. 119-232) that sought to eliminate funding for the Title 17 loan program and transfers funds to the SRA (by a recorded vote of 120 ayes to 306 noes, Roll No. 231);
Pages H3815-16, H3823-24
Perry amendment (No. 28 printed in H. Rept. 119-232) that sought to reduce funding for the Northern Border Regional Commission and transfers to the SRA (by a recorded vote of 124 ayes to 303 noes, Roll No. 232);
Pages H3816-17, H3824-25
Perry amendment (No. 29 printed in H. Rept. 119-232) that sought to reduce funding for the Southwest Border Regional Commission and transfers to the SRA (by a recorded vote of 127 ayes to 299 noes, Roll No. 233); and
Pages H3817-18, H3825
Perry amendment (No. 30 printed in H. Rept. 119-232) that sought to reduce funding for the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission and transfers to the SRA (by a recorded vote of 120 ayes to 307 noes, Roll No. 234).
Pages H3818, H3825-26
H. Res. 672, the rule providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4553) and the joint resolutions (H.J. Res. 104), (H.J. Res. 105), and (H.J. Res. 106), was agreed to by a yea-and-nay vote of 212 yeas to 208 nays with one answering ``present'', Roll No. 222, after the previous question was ordered by a recorded vote of 212 ayes to 209 noes, Roll No. 221.
Pages H3771-79
Meeting Hour
Agreed by unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow, September 4th.
Page H3827
Quorum Calls: Votes
Five yea-and-nay votes and nine recorded votes developed during the proceedings of today and appear on pages H3778-79, H3779, H3781-82, H3819, H3819-20, H3820, H3821, H3821-22, H3822-23, H3823, H3823-24, H3824-25, H3825, and H3825-26. Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 10:21 p.m.
Every speech and line is the Congressional Record's own text, read from GovInfo. Speakers are matched to members by GPO's own metadata. Referandom places each turn on the Clerk's video by matching its words: 239 of 407 spoken turns were found. Turns without a time are still listed; they just can't seek.
Morning-Hour Debate
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 3, 2025, the Chair will now recognize Members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning-hour debate.
The Chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with time equally allocated between the parties and each Member other than the majority and minority leaders and the minority whip limited to 5 minutes, but in no event shall debate continue beyond 11:50 a.m.
Mr. Speaker, for nearly 2 years, I had the privilege of working alongside Walt Hartnett, a man who was a decorated soldier, a compassionate advocate for veterans, and a loving father and husband.
Walt worked in my district office as our veterans affairs representative, connecting his fellow vets to healthcare, locating service records, and leading our veterans advisory panel. When vets came through our door, they knew Walt heard them.
Walt embodied service, and his time with our team was just one of those many roles. Walt was a 13-year Army veteran, serving 9 years Active Duty and 4 years in the Reserves. He earned the rank of sergeant and many military honors.
After his time in the military, Walt built a career in human resources, where he guided veterans into meaningful civilian careers.
As commander of our local Conshohocken VFW Post 1074 and commander of the Pennsylvania VFW District 16, Walt created a home for those who needed community the most.
When Walt joined our staff, I asked him why he would take a job so different, and perhaps of less pay, than the career he had planned. He said he was clear-eyed in his mission. He wanted to turn his passion for helping veterans into a career, and he did just that.
Walt was proud to work with and for the House of Representatives, an institution by and for the people. He was one of us, and he was a voice for a community that deserves our utmost respect and attention.
During our time together, Walt treated his role with the care and seriousness it demanded. He also handled it with joy and good humor. Walt's presence was all-encompassing. His laughter boomed through our offices, and his storytelling captivated every audience. He put his entire self into his work, and he was a friend to us, his coworkers.
Above all, he was a devoted husband and father. To know Walt was to know his family. He beamed with love and pride for his wife, Ashley, and his four children: Eric, Walt, Gianna, and Hailey.
It is with this beautiful family in mind and with their blessing that I share the next part of his story.
On June 9 of this year, Walt took his own life. It is a painful, sad, and difficult truth to share, and I share it because it is not the manner of Walt's death that is his true story. It is how he lived, with humor, compassion, and love of others. It is also, we know, a crisis in this country. Every day, many veterans die in this country from suicide.
Walt spent his entire life saving servicemen and -women, his brothers and sisters, from this very fate. Yet, we now eulogize him.
It is difficult for me to comprehend, for our team to comprehend, for his family.
In the days that followed Walt's death, the outpouring of grief and love, and disbelief, was beyond anything I have witnessed. His death reverberated in my district, through Conshohocken, Montgomery County, and, frankly, across the entire Commonwealth and Nation, because that is how many lives Walt touched. That is how people cared about him because he was a reflection of care.
His is an extraordinary loss for our Conshohocken community, for veterans, and for my office personally.
As we recognize September as Suicide Prevention Month, today, September 3, would have been Walt's 48th birthday.
As we mourn and grapple with his death, yet we celebrate his life, I share Walt's story as a way to please help others, to say you are not alone, and to say people love you and are available to help you; just reach out your hand, and we must reach out our hands, as well; and to say that veterans have endured so much, far beyond anything we can imagine. It is up to us to ensure that they get the aid they deserve.
We must do better by veterans. Walt sure did.
God bless Walt Hartnett, and God bless the Hartnett family. May his memory forever be a blessing.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Flynn Warren, Jr.
Born in Mount Holly, North Carolina, Flynn graduated from high school a year early and was known in town as the local genius. He attended Belmont Abbey College, where he was named MVP of the golf team for 2 consecutive years.
Flynn later earned his pharmacy bachelor's degree from the University of South Carolina and his master's degree from the University of Georgia. Flynn went on to serve as a faculty member at the University of Georgia, retiring as a clinical professor and assistant dean for student affairs.
In 2003, Flynn was elected president of the Georgia Pharmacy Association and served on the boards of the Georgia Pharmacy Foundation and the International Association of Torch Clubs, mentoring countless students along the way.
Flynn was devoted to his family and community, volunteering with many organizations and helping anyone in need. He is survived by his loving wife, Monica, and their children.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and the legacy of Tom Cousins.
Tom Cousins was one of the most influential figures in Georgia's history, transforming Atlanta into one of the Nation's leading cities.
At just 16, he enrolled at the University of Georgia, earning a degree in finance and graduating in the top 10 percent of his class.
After graduation, he served in the United States Air Force, rising to the rank of first lieutenant.
Following his service, he founded a real estate company with his father, becoming the largest home builder in Georgia.
Tom later purchased key properties in downtown Atlanta and was instrumental in relocating the St. Louis Hawks to the city.
Beyond business, he led the East Lake revitalization project, turning the neighborhood into a thriving urban community. His vision and leadership left an enduring mark on Georgia and its capital.
Today, we remember Tom Cousins for his extraordinary contributions. Atlanta would not be Atlanta had it not been for Tom Cousins.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate one of Georgia's own, Mason Howell of Thomasville, who made history by capturing the 125th U.S. Amateur Championship.
Mason's path to victory was nothing short of extraordinary. He battled his way out of a 20-man playoff, defeated some of the world's highest-ranked amateurs, and ultimately claimed one of golf's most prestigious titles.
Only 18 years old, Mason displayed composure far beyond his years. He refused to be intimidated, showing that perseverance and confidence can overcome even the toughest competition.
Mason's triumph makes him the third youngest champion in U.S. Amateur history, a distinction that places him alongside the game's legends, and even ahead of Tiger Woods in the record books.
This remarkable accomplishment has earned Mason invitations to the Masters, the U.S. Open, and a spot on the 2025 U.S. Walker Cup team.
From his beginnings in Thomasville to the national stage, Mason Howell embodies the value of hard work, dedication, and belief in oneself.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Major General Bobby Christine, a proud alumnus of Samford University's Cumberland School of Law, on his appointment as the 43rd Judge Advocate General of the United States Army.
Major General Christine was confirmed by the Senate on June 29, 2025, and assumed his duties on July 1, 2025, becoming the Army's top legal officer and senior uniformed lawyer.
In this role, he provides legal counsel to the Secretary of the Army and the chief of staff, while leading the Judge Advocate General's Corps and delivering legal services across the Army.
His distinguished career includes both private practice and government service, where he has demonstrated integrity, professionalism, and an unwavering commitment to causes greater than himself.
Major General Christine's leadership will play a vital role in guiding the Army through transformation and readiness for the future. I congratulate him on this historic achievement and thank him for his service to our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of my dear friend, Gene Vukelic, a man whose vision and leadership have left an indelible mark on our community, our State, and our Nation.
Gene passed away at the age of 94 on August 3 of this year. Gene Vukelic was a successful businessman, a devoted husband and father, a veteran, and a man of deep faith and enormous generosity whose impact on western New York will be felt for generations to come.
Gene was a patriot. After serving his country honorably as an instructor sergeant with the United States Marine Corps 3rd Division, Gene returned home to Buffalo and devoted himself to building both his family and his father's business, Try-It Distributing, into a regional powerhouse.
Over the span of six decades, Gene grew what started as a small family business during prohibition into our region's premier beverage distribution company, now in its fourth generation of family leadership.
Under his leadership, the company grew from a modest operation of 12 employees into a cornerstone of western New York's economy, employing over 600 individuals and operating statewide.
Through subsidiaries like Balkan Beverage and Saratoga Eagle Sales & Service, Try-It became one of the largest distributors in the Nation, while remaining true to its roots as a family business.
Gene's love for his family was the foundation of it all. Alongside his beloved wife of 67 years, Carole, they raised a large and loving family, instilling in their children the same commitment to community that defined Gene's life.
Gene's seven children--Mary Ellen, Paul, Suzanne, Timothy, Jeffrey, Peter, Matt, and his late son, Gregory--21 grandchildren, and 21 great- grandchildren are a testament to the values he embodied.
Beyond his family, Gene poured his energy into strengthening western New York through philanthropy and service. From the Muscular Dystrophy Association and Nardin Academy, from Canisius University to Mercy Hospital, and so many more, countless organizations and institutions flourished because of his support.
Those who knew Gene will say his generosity was never about recognition. It was a chance to give back and to make a difference and to lift others up.
Gene was a proud graduate of Canisius High School, class of 1948. He lived the values instilled in him through his Jesuit education. He mentored countless young people and never hesitated to lend a helping hand, quietly offering support to those in need and expecting nothing in return.
That is who Gene was. He was a provider, a protector, and a man with a heart too big to measure. Western New York has lost a giant and one of our greatest champions.
We remember Gene Vukelic for the business he built, for the community he nurtured, the causes he supported, the people he loved, and the legacy he leaves us. His life reminds us that true success lies in service to others.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of Gene P. Vukelic and in extending our deepest condolences to the entire Vukelic family.
May Gene Vukelic rest in peace, and may we all strive to lead with his same sense of purpose and compassion.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise with pride to honor the incredible athletes of Clarke County High School who for first time since 2009 are State champs in girls' track and field.
The Eagles won the 4x400 meter relay to surge past the competition and win the Class 2 State meet at James Madison University.
Led by seniors Teya Starley, who captured the 800-meter title and anchored the 4x400 relay; Reagan ``Megatron'' Myer, whose triple jump and 200 meter earned crucial points; and the ever-determined Abigail Cochran and Molly Husted, the Eagles soared to victory.
They were joined by their teammates Kendall Harman, Grace Gerenski, Kenedy Money, and Mia Timberlake, who each gave it their all.
None of this would have been possible without Coach Andre Kidrick, a true leader in his 18th and final season. His legacy, built on heart, toughness, and unity, will echo through Clarke County for generations.
He was assisted by Coaches Jamie Starley, Gary Wymer, Nancy Specht, Regina Downing, and Jeff Webster in a true team effort.
Please join me in congratulating these young women, their coaches, and the entire Clarke County community on this remarkable achievement. Go Eagles.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the Glenvar High School Highlanders boys' soccer team. They are the 2025 Virginia Class 2 State champs for the third straight year.
Led by Head Coach Josh Jones, Captains Kian Fisher, Jake Williams, Aidan Hylton, and a remarkable roster: Grayson Shepherd, Tyler Shannon, Jackson Jones, Alan Vu, Kees Van Gerven, Gavin Miller, Tyler Curfiss, Seth Nichols, Levi King, Zack Brown, Heath Russell, Luke Farmer, Parker Doolan, Avery McClanahan, Cooper Mullins, Zach Adams, Henry Schruth, Griffin Geddes, Adam Saunders, James Housh, Alex Rottkamp, Ryder Francisco, Evan Harris, Wesley Feliciano, and Connor Magruder, this squad delivered perfection with a 23-0 record.
They outscored their opponents 134-3, dominating with 20 shutouts and trailing for only 4 minutes all year.
In the June 14 final, goals from Hylton and Saunders secured a 2-0 win over Bruton, claiming their fifth straight Region C and Three Rivers District titles. They also extended a 61-game unbeaten streak of 98-3 and 2 ties since 2021.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the entire coaching and support staff, as well as school leadership, for guiding these young men to excellence. We congratulate the Glenvar Highlanders. They have made Glenvar and the Roanoke Valley proud.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Virginia Poultry Federation, which is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year.
In August of 1925, a group of poultrymen gathered at Virginia Tech for the first poultry field day where they organized the Virginia Poultry Federation and began a century-long mission to strengthen and support the poultry and ag industry.
For the past 100 years, the Federation has served farmers, processors, and businesses through effective advocacy, youth programs, scholarships, and vital partnerships.
From education and outreach to supporting 4-H, FAA, and ag in the classroom, its contributions extend far beyond the farm.
Today, more than 1,000 farm families depend on this thriving industry which generates billions of dollars in wages and economic impact across the Commonwealth of Virginia. Nowhere is this more evident than in Virginia's Sixth Congressional District, the birthplace of the modern poultry industry and the top producing region in Virginia today. The continued strength of the poultry and egg industries in the Shenandoah Valley and across the Commonwealth is a testament to the federation's enduring commitment to its mission.
I commend President Hobey Bauhan and the Virginia Poultry Federation on a century of service, leadership, and success, and I wish them many more years of growth and innovation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the importance of commonsense policies that put public safety first. For too long, we have seen soft-on-crime approaches that let repeat offenders walk free, putting law-abiding citizens at risk. However, recent data from Washington, D.C., shows that when we take crime seriously, communities become a safer place.
Since President Trump took decisive action to tackle crime head-on in our Nation's Capital, burglaries have dropped by nearly one-half and car thefts have fallen 36 percent. These are not just numbers on a page. They represent families who can walk their neighborhoods with greater peace of mind. They represent small business owners who feel more secure about opening their doors. They represent children who can play outside without the same fear of violence.
This is what happens when we adopt commonsense policies. Holding criminals accountable works. Protecting communities works. Supporting law enforcement works.
D.C.'s progress should serve as a model for the rest of the country. The American people are tired of failed policies that prioritize criminals over victims. We should reject those failed approaches and instead double down on strategies that deliver results for America.
Mr. Speaker, I am a proud son of Mount Vernon, New York. I was born there. I went to school there, and it shaped the person who I am today. My roots run deep in that community, and I carry its values with me every day in my work here in Congress.
During World War I, 22 fellow sons of Mount Vernon answered the call to serve and joined the fight to defend freedom abroad. These men became part of the legendary Harlem Hellfighters, the 369th Infantry Regiment of the New York Army National Guard.
The Harlem Hellfighters hold a remarkable and important place in our Nation's history. Comprised primarily of Black Americans, this unit was among the first African-American regiments to serve with the American Expeditionary Forces during the First World War, and a later version served in the Second World War. Mr. Speaker, because the U.S. Army remained segregated at the time, these men were assigned to fight under French command.
They spent nearly 200 days in front-line trenches, more than any other American unit. They faced unimaginable hardship but never wavered. They suffered the most casualties of any American regiment with nearly 1,500 men making the ultimate sacrifice.
Yet, despite their heroism and service, they returned home to a country that did not afford them the recognition they earned. Today that changes.
This afternoon, these brave men, our Harlem Hellfighters, will be honored with the Congressional Gold Medal, the highest civilian award Congress can bestow. This long overdue recognition honors their extraordinary valor, their unwavering service, and their critical place in American history.
The men of the 369th embodied courage, resilience, and patriotism in the face of adversity. They are more than deserving of this distinction.
In a few hours, I will join their descendants in laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. We will pay tribute to those who served and sacrificed and whose names were too long left unspoken.
Their legacy lives on in Mount Vernon, in New York, and across this Nation that they helped defend.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the life and achievements of Lola Daniels Hunter, who served our community as president of the White Plains Greenburgh Branch of the NAACP, as a board member of the Greenburgh Police and Advisory Committee, and as a leader of the North Elmsford Civic Associations.
For over 50 years, Lola was a member of Bethel Baptist Church in White Plains, serving in board leadership. She showed her professional skills in the Westchester Department of Service Services, having achieved a B.A. degree from the College of New Rochelle and an M.B.A. from Pace University. She is survived by her daughter, Priscilla ``Ann'' Daniels, and legions of friends and neighbors in Greenburgh, White Plains, and Mamaroneck who loved her as she loved them and the community.
She is with the Lord now, but we are all better for her time with us.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friend and fellow Iowan, Dan Houston, on his retirement from Principal Financial Group after 41 years of service.
From starting his first job with Principal in 1984 to eventually becoming chairman, president, and CEO, Dan exemplifies the power of hard work and dedication. His decisions have helped more families achieve financial security and plan for tomorrow.
Dan has also committed himself and Principal Financial to philanthropic causes in Des Moines and across the State of Iowa.
Under his leadership, Principal donated generously to United Way and the annual Principal charity golf classic which raised millions of dollars for Iowa youth. The Principal Foundation awards grants to worthy causes including disaster recovery, affordable housing, and small business development.
Dan has always prioritized the people whom Principal Financial serves, putting families and our communities first.
In his retirement, Dan will have more time to focus on the things that truly matter most: spending time with his wife, Joanie, his children, and his grandchildren, and devoting his talents to causes and organizations near and dear to his heart.
I thank Dan for his incredible contributions to Iowa and wish him and his family the very best in his next chapter of life.
Mr. Speaker, students across the country have started to head back to school this week.
For many, school is so much more than just a place for learning. For 13 million food insecure children, it is a place where they can rely on having a meal twice a day.
Yes, even six decades after Michael Harrington published the great book, ``The Other America,'' which became a blueprint to fight poverty and hunger in America and was published by Michael Harrington during the Kennedy administration, hunger still exists in America.
School is also a place that provides after-school programming that keeps students engaged and off the streets. It is a place where students are able to receive medical care during and through school- based health clinics so that if a student gets an asthma attack those first critical minutes will be attended to at a school-based clinic. Schools are so much more than just a place for learning.
Unfortunately, Republicans have introduced a Labor-HHS and Education bill that will cut the Department of Education funding by $66.7 billion.
These cuts will be devastating to the academic achievement of kids and students across the country. Republicans want to have it both ways. They want to eliminate title III English acquisition grants for English language learners. While the rest of the world is pushing to have their children and their students master and be proficient in more than one language so they can be competitive across the planet, these cuts are being implemented. They want English to be the only language, an English-only country, making it less competitive than other countries that want their children to be proficient in several languages.
They want to lower crime, but they are cutting vital funding like the Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community Learning Centers which provide after-school funding that keeps kids off the streets and out of trouble.
While the National Guard is being deployed right here in D.C., they are cutting these programs that will help young people stay off the corner. They want America to have a stronger economy with the most advanced workforce, but they are cutting title I funding that helps all kids, especially ones who come from low-income backgrounds, have the best chance for success.
Student academic achievement is the cornerstone of national security, but fewer than one-third of our students nationwide can read at an appropriate grade level.
These academic achievement gaps will only be exacerbated as Republicans and the Trump administration continue their campaign against the immigrant community as parents are afraid they will drop their kids in school and never see them again.
We must continue to invest in education and educational programs that will help all students get back on track. We must bring back the investment and pride that at one point made America the envy of the world and the American public school system the great equalizer for kids all across the country.
Mr. Speaker, over the August in-district work period, I had the privilege of meeting with Kansans all across our district, from Salina to Great Bend, Hutch to WaKeeney, Hoxie to Jetmore, Hays to Hill City.
It is the honor of my life to represent the Big First District of Kansas in Congress, and I was grateful to spend time with Kansans while I was able to be home. For the fifth year in a row, I visited all 60 counties in the Big First District, and I had the chance to hear about the impacts the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will make on our families and communities.
As I visited companies and families across the Big First District, stop after stop, my fellow Kansans expressed their appreciation for the wins the bill delivered for Kansas families. They are relieved that we were able to prevent the largest tax hike in American history for working- and middle-class families. They are grateful to have a Congress and White House that embrace pro-family policies and our commitments to doubling the child tax credit and expanding 529 education savings accounts. These are commonsense policies that promote and strengthen families across the Nation, and they are yet another promise made and promise kept.
Small business owners and family farms shared how monumental our legislation is for their families. We were able to make the 199A small- business deduction permanent, allowing agricultural and small business families to keep more of their hard-earned dollars. Farm families were relieved that they no longer have to fear being forced to sell land when they lose a loved one. By expanding the death tax exemption, we brought the tax code in line with today's farm economy and allowed more farm families to keep their operations in the family. This is life- changing for millions of families across the country and throughout the Big First District.
Farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers were also grateful that our legislation restored a decades-old standard that exempts the value of assets found on family farms and small businesses from being assessed as part of a family's net worth.
Over the past few years, net farm income has decreased by nearly 25 percent. When young people from these families are applying for higher education financial aid, the assets tied up in the family farm or the small business should not count against them.
Our farmers were also deeply grateful for the commonsense provisions that ensure our tax incentives benefit American-grown products and American farmers, not foreign producers. By extending the 45Z tax credit and limiting eligibility to domestic feedstocks, this majority delivered long-term certainty for American agriculture.
Kansas farmers started the year needing a new farm bill that meets the needs of today and not 6 years ago. Last year, Congressional Democrats held farm country hostage and chose to play political games rather than work with congressional Republicans to pass a new 5-year farm bill.
In the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, our Republican majority answered rural America's call by updating reference prices, doubling investments into crucial trade promotion programs like MAP and FMD, and expanding crop insurance. These are all commonsense policies that allow our farmers to feed, fuel, and clothe the world without the fear of losing everything because of a bad crop year. This legislation was life- changing for the agricultural families in my district.
Mr. Speaker, our work is cut out for us in the weeks ahead. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act has shown what this majority can do for the country, and we ought to build on that momentum by passing policies that promote safety in American communities, continue to strengthen American agriculture, and steward American taxpayer dollars responsibly while cutting wasteful spending. I look forward to working with this majority to deliver on these promises. I am excited to see all that we can do in the next 4 months.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to the fiscal year 2026 Energy and Water appropriations bill.
At a time when energy costs are skyrocketing for my constituents, Republicans are trying to make it even harder for them to keep their homes warm and keep the lights on. For example, this bill makes massive cuts to the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, including a nearly $10 million cut to Ohio. That is a 44 percent cut.
Republican cuts to this office include cuts to the Weatherization Assistance Program, which reduces energy costs by increasing the energy efficiency of homes. These cuts are compounded by the fact that ratepayers in Ohio are on the hook for a corrupt bill that adds hundreds to energy costs to bail out a coal plant in Indiana. Ohioans cannot afford any more Republican malfeasance that literally costs Ohioans hundreds of dollars a year.
Even more, this bill does not adequately fund two authorities in my district that were created under the Water Resources Development Act of 2024. The bipartisan Water Resources Development Act of 2024 authorized projects across the United States for water and wastewater infrastructure that are critical to strengthening the flood protection and resiliency of our communities and to complete ecosystem restoration that maintains America's vital natural resources.
This legislation specifically authorized $49 million in new authorities in Ohio's 13th Congressional District to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to contribute their expertise to the development of new and existing infrastructure projects that not only improve water and sewer infrastructure but also bolster our economic competitiveness.
I am proud to have advocated for these resources to ensure that they were included in last year's WRDA. These programs allow communities in my district to have access to the infrastructure they need to flourish.
Here is how: Under the Summit County new authority, $25 million would have been authorized to fund projects such as Akron's water main and lead service line replacement project, Fairlawn's West Market Street waterline replacement, New Franklin's South Main Street stormwater replacement project, Barberton's Stratford Street waterline project, and Fairlawn's Rosemont Preserve project.
Additionally, under Stark County's new authority, $24 million would have been authorized to fund projects such as Canton's Cromer Water Storage Reservoir replacement project, improvements to the Ohio & Erie Canalway Lock 4 Park, and North Lawrence's sanitary sewer project.
Funding these projects is crucial to ensure my constituents have access to clean water in their homes. In order to truly make a difference for these communities, we must fully fund the programs that we authorize. For me, this is about my constituents and lowering their costs and allowing our communities to thrive.
Because of aggressive gerrymandering in Ohio, people of Ohio's 13th Congressional District paid taxes that never made it back to our communities. These funds went to places like California, New York, and, God forbid, Michigan. Here is just another example of snatching hard- earned constituents' dollars that they expected to be reinvested in their community, only to be sent elsewhere to pay for billionaire tax cuts or something else nefarious and nothing that anyone asked for.
I came to Congress to do right by my community. As I said earlier, I am proud to have ensured that $49 million in new infrastructure authorities were included to be funded in our community. However, this work cannot get done if we do not appropriate the money to get the shovels in the ground.
For this reason and many others, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill because it does not lower costs. It harms our communities.
Honoring Joshua Jarzab, Ohio's 13th District Champion of the Week
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize Twinsburg firefighter and local hero Joshua Jarzab as Ohio's 13th Congressional District Champion of the Week.
On August 17, Joshua and his team responded to a call for a basement fire. Joshua and his team acted swiftly, entering a burning home, fighting back flames, and clearing a path to the basement.
Once underground, amidst thick smoke and scorching flames, Joshua and his team conducted a methodical search and later found an 8-month-old baby in the basement.
Even though the flames were high and strong, they continued searching for this baby and ultimately rescued him. It took 12 minutes for Joshua and his team from the Twinsburg Fire Department to ensure that they got that baby out safe and sound.
I just say to Joshua and the entire Twinsburg fire safety services team: There are people who run away from fire, but you-all ran toward it. Not only did you run toward it in that situation, you run every day that you are on call. In this particular moment, you saved a life, and we are so grateful for you.
I thank Joshua, the Twinsburg Fire Department, and all of those who protect and serve our communities.
I congratulate Joshua for being Ohio's 13th Congressional District Champion of the Week.
Mr. Speaker, I was proud of the community members who stood with us and partnered with me in creating the Fix Our Flooded Basements Act.
Many people might not know this, but FEMA will provide financial help toward getting a new furnace and water heater, but they will not help in mitigating the toxins and the mold that can be created if they don't get rid of the water in order to clean out the basement.
In southeastern Michigan, we have seen that firsthand. We had two national emergency declarations.
Water damage, as you know, can lead to long-term issues created by toxic mold, which impacts the health of the family in the home.
Again, too many of our families were denied FEMA assistance because the current rules do not cover repairs to most basements where floods are often the most destructive. Again, it can lead to toxic mold if not mitigated.
Mr. Speaker, as flooding becomes more frequent due to the climate crisis, it is crucial that we take action to require FEMA to provide flood victims with the full resources that they need to rebuild their lives.
I still remember the senior in Inkster, Michigan. She was in her seventies, Mr. Speaker. After the first declaration, her basement was flooded. She did not have the means, nor the capabilities to be able to get rid of the water that was in her basement.
When I came by to visit her again, the water froze in her basement due to the weather. Years later, she is now dealing with toxic mold.
Mr. Speaker, we need to have a legislative fix that will help to mitigate those issues to make sure that our families are not living in unsafe conditions by being exposed to serious health risks from mold, mildew, and moisture damage.
Mr. Speaker, these are people who are recovering from a disaster. To have FEMA say: No, we cannot help in this regard, even though they were exchanging the water heater, helping with the furnace, the fact that they will not mitigate the basement, again, leaves many of our families out.
Mr. Speaker, a lot of my colleagues who have signed on to support this bill have realized for the first time that FEMA did not do this, and maybe it was created because it was for the coastal communities, but we know communities like Michigan are now impacted in the Midwest.
The Fix Our Flooded Basements Act will make sure that Federal disaster assistance finally covers all of the mitigation needs for basement water damage. The bill would expand the coverage for Federal assistance to cover the cost of repairing property and flood damage to basements after a major disaster.
Mr. Speaker, our residents must be able to live safely and fully rebuild their lives after disaster strikes. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation. It is critically important for our families.
Mr. Speaker, families in our communities are facing an affordability crisis. We hear it at our townhalls. We hear it on every corner of our communities. Families are struggling with rising grocery costs. The cost of groceries has gone up 28 percent, and the majority of Americans say that grocery prices are the major source of stress for their families.
Corporations are now using new technology to raise prices in new ways and without the knowledge of the consumer. Electronic shelf labels allow stores to change prices in seconds. The industry is not shy about it. They admit to raising the price of water and ice cream if it is hot outside. Even worse, corporations are tracking consumers and using their own personal, private information against them.
We all know that companies collect and purchase a tremendous amount of our private data and personal information. These custom, personal profiles on many of our families and residents allow companies to charge different people different prices for the same exact item by using things like mobile apps, online shopping, and facial recognition technology.
This is called surveillance pricing, and all of us need to wake up and see that this technology is fixing prices and increasing costs for our families.
Target, for example, charged higher prices to consumers who were using their app when they were inside their stores, assuming that the consumer either wouldn't notice or was unlikely to go anywhere else.
Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous and wrong. Companies should not be able to use consumers' online history, past purchases, the color of their skin, their income, where they work, or their ZIP Code to charge them a higher price.
Surveillance pricing will lead to increased costs for food and basic goods. It will harm working families who are already struggling to make ends meet. This is not just about discriminatory technology. It is about corporate greed in our country, and CEOs are getting richer while working people struggle.
I introduced the Stop Price Gouging in Grocery Stores Act to ban personalized price gouging by grocery stores, and I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Lisa K. Colon of Lancaster City, who passed away on August 21, 2025, at the age of 51.
Lisa will be deeply missed by all who knew her, especially her family. She was a devoted wife to Reali Colon; loving mother to Isreali, Victoria, and Realina; and proud grandmother to three granddaughters. She was also a faithful sister and daughter.
Lisa represented, in many ways, what makes our community so great: a dedication to public service; a spirit of volunteering; a strong work ethic; and a deep love for God, family, and country.
Born in Asheville, North Carolina, Lisa moved to Lancaster County in 1987 along with her family when her father transferred to the Pennsylvania Army National Guard.
In the 2000s, Lisa furthered her education, graduating from Harrisburg Area Community College and then Penn State University with a bachelor's degree in accounting.
She worked as a records officer at Lancaster County Prison, and then she moved to the controller's office as senior accountant and assistant manager before being elected by the voters of Lancaster County to serve as county controller in 2021, a position she held until her passing.
Lisa was the first woman elected controller in Lancaster County, but her impact as a trailblazer and her contributions to her community extends far beyond her service as a public official.
Lisa had a heart for giving back to the community, volunteering for the Lancaster City Parks Department, Adopt-a-Block, and homeless shelters in the city. She was president of the local Blue Star Mothers of America chapter, which assists Active-Duty military personnel, their families, and veterans.
Lisa also served as chair of the Lancaster City Republican Committee and the assistant treasurer for the Republican Committee of Lancaster County.
For her many professional and community achievements, Lisa was honored as a Woman of Influence by the Central Penn Business Journal just last year. It was a fitting recognition for the positive impact that Lisa has made on our community.
Even while battling cancer, Lisa Colon continued her duties as controller and did missionary work in Cambodia, as well. Lisa left behind an incredible impact on both the community and those who she met, and I am glad to have known her and to have called her a friend for many years.
As we mourn the passing and celebrate the life of Lisa Colon, we offer our prayers of comfort to her family and to those who grieve. May they have peace, and may Lisa's memory and her lasting impact on our community continue to inspire others.
Mr. Speaker, I rise for the 35th time today to call on the Trump administration to restore lifesaving food aid for malnourished children.
As a reminder, back in January, Elon Musk and Donald Trump halted shipments of lifesaving food aid to children
This is Plumpy'Nut, a peanut paste that is made specifically to treat children who are starving to death. When children are starving, their organs shut down. Even if food is provided to them, they cannot process traditional food. They need this. This is their only chance at life.
Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, Congress appropriated, on a bipartisan basis with Democrats and Republicans, over $1 billion to get lifesaving food aid and other aid to children around the world.
This was produced in American factories with supplies that came from American farmers. The money was already approved. The money was already spent.
Thousands of boxes of this lifesaving food aid is now sitting in warehouses, including in my district in Rhode Island, because Donald Trump and Elon Musk stopped the program. It is already paid for. It is already produced. There are children starving around the world waiting for this lifesaving aid, and it is sitting in warehouses while children starve.
Congress came back and appropriated more funding for fiscal year `25, $200 million plus. The Trump administration sat on that funding, as well. Why? Interestingly, the administration for the last 8 months has insisted that they intend to restart this program. They have said, yes, it is coming back. They started saying that within the first few weeks. Elon Musk tweeted about it. Marco Rubio swore under oath that they were going to restart this program, but it has been 9 months. Where is the urgency?
Finally, a few weeks ago, Edesia Nutrition, the organization in my district that produces this food aid, received new orders from the State Department after 9 months. That is welcomed news, but the days and weeks are continuing to tick by, and they still have not been told where to ship this food aid to.
There is a lesson here. It is very easy for any idiot, any billionaire, who has never worked in government to go in and destroy a program, but then it is hard to rebuild it afterwards. In the meantime, children are starving to death, needlessly.
My message to the administration, once again, is to act with purpose, to act with urgency, to follow your own word, and to honor your commitment. The administration has said they were going to restart this program. They have awarded new contracts. Literally, all they have to do is hit a button and restart the shipments. That is all they have to do.
It has been 9 months. These kids cannot wait a day longer. Let's restart the aid, disburse the funds, ship the food, and save the children. I will speak on this floor every day until you do.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of a true Rhode Island original and hero, Judge Frank Caprio.
Born to Italian immigrants in 1936, Frank was raised in the proud neighborhood of Federal Hill in Providence, Rhode Island. His family, like so many in Rhode Island and across the country, valued hard work and service.
Frank served on the Providence City Council and had a distinguished legal career before being appointed to the Providence Municipal Court as a judge in 1985, a career on the bench that would span nearly four decades.
During this time, Judge Caprio became renowned for his sense of compassion and fairness in the courtroom, which eventually made him an international television star and a beloved example of compassionate leadership across the world.
I will tell you, I still have friends and family from all over the country, people I meet when they hear I am from Rhode Island, they ask about that judge.
In 2000, Judge Caprio launched his show ``Caught in Providence'' on WLNE-TV in Rhode Island so that Rhode Islanders could see how the nicest judge in the world works up close and personal.
In 2018, the show gained national syndication reaching audiences across the entire United States and the world. Judge Caprio's show was nominated for four Emmys, and clips from ``Caught in Providence,'' showcasing his humanity, garnered billions of views on social media.
Through his work on the bench, Judge Caprio has inspired countless people to treat others with kindness and empathy. My thoughts are with his family, his loving wife, his five children, his grandchildren, and everyone whose life has been touched by his work.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to honor the life and the legacy of Dr. Joseph Castro, an exceptional leader who broke the glass ceiling as the first Latino to lead the California State University System, the largest university system in the Nation with 23 State campuses and over 500,000 students.
A grandson of immigrants, his story is the American story. He was raised by a single mother in Hanford, California. He was the first in his family to graduate from college. He never forgot the struggles his family faced, and he carried those lessons with him throughout his life as a role model. His journey reflected the hopes and the dreams of so many families in our valley and throughout our Nation who work hard every day to achieve a better life.
That is why Joe made it his mission to open doors for others. From his time as a professor to his service as president of Fresno State, and ultimately as chancellor to the university system, he dedicated his career to lift up students who, like him, came from very humble beginnings. That was Joe. That is who he was. That is why we honor him.
He believed that every young person deserved a chance to succeed no matter what their background may be.
I had the privilege of working with Joe on a wide range of initiatives from protecting our Dreamers and ensuring that they have a chance to achieve their full potential, to expanding global opportunities for students at Fresno State through new study abroad partnerships with the University of the Azores and the Punjab Agricultural University.
This was just Joe. He would always reach out not only throughout our valley but throughout California.
These efforts didn't just expand educational pathways, but they built bridges between our valley and the world. Joe understood that educating our children provided a foundation for future success. It is not rocket science. When our young people in this country get a complete education, a university education, they succeed. When they succeed as part of America's future, America succeeds.
That is why he dedicated his life to education. To me, Joe was more than just a colleague. He was a dear friend. I will remember him not only for his many accomplishments but for his kindness, his generosity, and that big heart that Joe had. He was a true son of the valley who never forgot where he came from and never stopped giving back. His legacy lives on for thousands and thousands of students whose lives he changed in higher education.
My thoughts and prayers go to Joe's wife, Mary, a true partner--they achieved so much together--to his kids, Isaac and Lauren and Jess, as well as the countless people whose lives Joe touched. It was really remarkable. He left a mark on all of us that will never ever fade and that we should carry on in turn.
I was honored to call him my friend, and I will miss him, like so many, deeply. He always challenged us at Fresno State to be bold. For me, Joe, my friend, I will always think of him as chancellor emeritus. Go Fresno State Bulldogs. God bless Joe.
Mr. Speaker, I thank him for his service to a grateful nation. We will always remember.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor the life and service of Spokane County Sheriff's Sergeant Kenneth Salas, who
Sergeant Salas served the people of Spokane County for more than 34 years, first as a corrections officer, then as a patrol deputy, detective, and, ultimately, patrol sergeant.
Sergeant Salas was known not only for his dedication in uniform but also for his deep commitment to helping others in every aspect of life.
Kenneth Salas also served our country for over two decades in the United States Air Force, retiring as a technical sergeant with the Washington Air National Guard.
Sergeant Salas was a protector, mentor, and beloved member of both law enforcement and military communities.
Everyone in eastern Washington and I are keeping his wife, his family, and the entire Spokane County Sheriff's Office in our prayers. We are profoundly grateful for his life of service, and we will never forget his sacrifice.
May we all appreciate and remember the sacrifice of our first-line responders and the service that they provide every day for our communities.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Jerry Consiglio, a World War II veteran, former mechanic and aerospace foreman, and a beloved fixture of the Sierra Vista community for more than four decades, who died in July just days before his 102nd birthday.
Born in 1923, Jerry served in the U.S. Army during World War II, where he participated in some of the most harrowing campaigns in Europe. He landed at Normandy on D-day and later fought in the brutal Battle of the Bulge.
Jerry was awarded two Bronze Stars and left the Army with the rank of sergeant. After the war, Jerry built a life grounded in hard work and community. He owned an auto shop and later worked in aerospace, contributing to the early development of the Boeing 747 landing gear at Aerojet.
Jerry moved to Sierra Vista more than 40 years ago. He built deep ties with the community and was well known amongst veterans. He attended Our Lady of the Mountains Catholic Church and had a vibrant social life even into his second century.
Jerry had relocated to Tennessee earlier this year to be close to family as his wife, Nancy, battled health concerns. Since his passing, his family plans to return his ashes to Sierra Vista, fulfilling his wishes to be remembered in the community that he loved.
My thoughts and prayers are with the Consiglio family and the Sierra Vista community. Jerry was a true role model for absolutely everyone.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor Kelly Pierce, who tragically and unexpectedly passed away on August 1 of this year.
Kelly was a mom of three boys, and she was a daughter, granddaughter, friend, cousin, aunt, and a women's soccer coach.
Kelly coached at Pima Community College, Mountain View High School, CDO Soccer Club, and FC Tucson, but she was most recently known for coaching the Lancers, the varsity women's soccer team at Salpointe Catholic High School, where she graduated in 1999.
As a player, Kelly won two State championships. Later, as a coach, she led the Lancers to six State championships in the past 8 years, a truly remarkable feat.
Only 44 years old, Kelly was passionate and devoted to her family and coaching. She was widely known in our community for her soccer talent and had been involved with youth soccer for nearly 20 years. She was an inspiration to young female athletes, instilling self-confidence and their power as individuals.
Among her cousins, she was the leader with all the confidence, who was admired for the biggest and most giving heart.
Later in life, Kelly's boys were everything to her. She was a dedicated mother who always prioritized her boys and their well-being.
My prayers are with her three sons: Tyler, Brady, and Camden; her partner, Joey Bernier; her brothers, Jeff and Donald Pierce; and her large extended family, including her mom, grandmother, and cousins; plus the players she loved so much, both current and former.
Kelly truly reflects what I love most about our district. She was hardworking, passionate, and dedicated. She leaves a humongous hole in our community and will be dearly missed.
As her family, friends, and the Salpointe community grieve, know that our community is alongside you. May Kelly's legacy on this Earth continue to inspire future generations, and may she rest in peace.
Mr. Speaker, illegal alien crossings have fallen to a historic low, with the fewest arrests by the Border Patrol at the southern border in July, being a 24 percent drop from the previous record low in June. Compared to July 2024 under Biden, this achieves an amazing 92 percent decrease of illegal aliens and terrorists coming into America.
Since President Donald Trump took office, the administration has arrested nearly 150,000 illegal aliens, with 50,000
Republicans are sending a clear message to traffickers, cartels, and criminals that they will be held to the full extent of the law.
In conclusion, God bless our troops as the global war on terrorism continues. Trump is reinstituting existing laws to protect American families with peace through strength, revealing that war criminal Putin lies, insulting Trump and mocking Trump, defiantly embracing fellow dictators today in Beijing, as Trump correctly interpreted this threatens American families.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize this week's constituent of the week, Ernisha Hall, on her work as cofounder, president, and CEO of the Virginia Black Chamber of Commerce.
For over half a decade, Ernisha has been leading the chamber in working to foster economic stability for Black businessowners. Serving over 2,700 businessowners to date, the chamber has introduced programs throughout Virginia that are aimed at strengthening the visibility of Black businessowners.
Mr. Speaker, Ernisha's commitment to her community and continued success serve as an inspiration to us all. As her Representative in Congress, I am grateful for the work she does each day in pursuit of economic justice. I congratulate her again on her accomplishments. It is a privilege to highlight her story on the floor of the U.S. House. I am thankful for all that she does.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dawn of a new college football rivalry in the great State of Georgia: the clash of Highway 29 between the LaGrange College Panthers and the Point University Skyhawks.
On Saturday, September 6, these two incredible institutions will meet on the gridiron for the very first time. Both schools call Troup County home, right in the heart of Georgia's Third Congressional District and less than 1 hour away from Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport.
Founded in 1831, LaGrange College is the oldest private college in Georgia, and its vision is to be an innovative institution, holistically educating students to connect with and contribute to an ever-changing world.
Competing in NCAA Division III, its athletic program has won national and conference championships in baseball, basketball, golf, soccer, and softball, instilling excellence and pride across generations of Panthers.
Point University was originally founded as Atlanta Christian College in 1937, and its mission is to educate and equip students for Christ- centered service and leadership throughout the world.
For three consecutive years, Point has been recognized as an NAIA Champion of Character Five-Star Institution, a designation that honors their commitment to integrity, respect, and servant leadership.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize the newest college football rivalry in the great State of Georgia, and I encourage you and all of my colleagues to tune in on Saturday night and watch the clash of Highway 29 between the LaGrange College Panthers and the Point University Skyhawks.
Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in recognition of the brave hospital workers who responded to the Annunciation school shooting last week.
Whenever a mass shooting happens, the ripple effects of the trauma it causes in that community are profound. I will take a moment to thank every healthcare worker who helped save lives in responding to this event.
Children's Masonic, and particularly the staff at Hennepin Healthcare, took in nearly a dozen children in critical condition. These children arrived alone, unidentified, and ripped apart by gunshot wounds.
The hospital staff leapt into action immediately, removing shrapnel, performing emergency surgery, and providing stabilizing care and comfort to these little children.
While we are immensely grateful for their expertise, we should not normalize that doctors and nurses in the United States have had to become expert in managing war wounds. The toll it takes on them is real. This event reminds us of how critically important our level 1 trauma centers are in our communities. They are lifesaving, and these hospital workers are our heroes. I am immeasurably grateful.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Carroll High School for their accomplishments in teaching future generations of leaders.
As President Trump has highlighted, Indiana does education right, and Carroll High School is no exception. The U.S. News & World Report ranked Carroll High School as the number one high school in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and number 15 in the State.
Carroll has demonstrated their high standards through excellent performance on State-required tests, a 95 percent graduation rate, and exceeding expectations for college readiness.
In high school, students learn more than just math and chemistry equations. Rather, students build their work ethic, establish critical thinking skills, and learn what it means to be a citizen of our great country. Teachers are endowed with educating our students, which is why I am incredibly thankful to all the educators at Carroll High School for carrying out this mission. Their dedication to teaching Fort Wayne's next generation of leaders is incredible, and our community is extremely appreciative.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Carroll High School on this accomplishment, and I am excited to see the future achievements of Carroll High School students.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defiance of President Trump's threats to deploy the National Guard to Chicago.
He wasted $1 million every day to house the National Guard in D.C., and now he wants to further misuse taxpayer dollars instead of investing in real, permanent solutions to gun violence. Like D.C., I am sure Chicago can use money for more police, mental health counselors, social workers, and community violence intervention programs.
President Trump is actively making gun violence worse. He froze funding allocated to community violence intervention organizations, shut down the Office of Violence Prevention, and made it easier to buy guns.
Gun violence is a public health issue, but the CDC has been stripped of medical experts and leaders.
Let's be truthful about the real reason why President Trump wants to deploy the National Guard to Chicago. It is not to reduce crime. It is to instill fear and abuse his power.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Wilds Sonshine Factory, a distillery in McKean County, Kane, Pennsylvania, that makes a great product using sunflowers for that beverage.
I commend them today for honoring a vital piece of the Commonwealth's logging and conservation heritage, the Colossal Cherry. The Colossal Cherry is now an artifact, but at one time it was the largest black cherry tree in the world. The Wilds Sonshine Factory hosted a dedication ceremony on August 22 in honor of the Colossal Cherry, which is also known as the Sheffield Log.
Discovered and preserved through efforts of local historians and conservation advocates, the Sheffield Log stands as a powerful symbol of the region's natural history, the resilience of its people, and the enduring value of sustainable forestry.
It once stood in the woods of the Allegheny National Forest before being knocked down during the tornado of 1985. It was then formally homed in Sheffield, Pennsylvania, to mark its sesquicentennial in 1986. Now, the newly restored Colossal Black Cherry sits at its permanent home at the Wilds Sonshine Factory.
Mr. Speaker, this rededication is a story worth celebrating. I thank everyone who took part in the preservation of the Colossal Black Cherry.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize 4-year- old Grayson Ellis from Windsor, North Carolina. Grayson is full of energy and curiosity. In his spare time, he loves baseball and fishing. He learned to count to 50 from playing hide-and-seek.
What makes Grayson so special to me is his love for politics and civics. He wanted to meet with his Congressman, so we met. I am sure his mom, Samantha, and dad, Ryan, were proud of him because he even dressed the part, too.
Mr. Speaker, young people like Grayson are watching us every single day. Grayson reminds us that we must inspire the next generation, work to open new doors of opportunity, and help every child live the American Dream. I thank Grayson for this reminder.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the life and legacy of Jim Damare, a devoted husband, father, and grandfather. Jim was a passionate photographer and framed the world through his camera, capturing nature and small family moments.
He and his wife, Maria, moved to Northern Virginia over 30 years ago, raising four children and making countless contributions to our community.
As we mourn his passing, we celebrate a life well lived, one that embodied the principles of hard work, integrity, and love.
Jim's memory will continue to inspire all who knew him to live fully, love deeply, speak truthfully, laugh often, and always take the picture.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I rise to give notice of my intention to raise a question of the privileges of the House in the form of a resolution, as follows:
Whereas, Representative Cory Mills has on several occasions conducted himself in a manner that reflects discredit upon the House of Representatives;
Whereas, on February 19, 2025, Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Police Department officers were called to resolve a private matter at Representative Cory Mills' residence, where officers were called to the 1300 block of Maryland Avenue, Southwest, around 1:15 p.m. for the report of an assault;
Whereas, police reports obtained by NBC4 Washington confirmed that the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department was investigating Representative Cory Mills for an alleged assault of a 27-year-old woman that took place on February 19, 2025, at the residence of Representative Cory Mills;
Whereas, the first police report provided to NBC4 Washington by a source and confirmed by a second source familiar with the investigation said that the 27-year-old woman accused her significant other for over a year of having grabbed her, shoved her, and pushed her out of the door, and also said that the woman involved showed the officer ``bruises on her arm which appeared fresh'';
Whereas, NBC4 Washington also reported that the Metropolitan Police Department identified Representative Cory Mills as the significant other of the alleged victim of assault, which alleged victim was a 27- year-old woman who was not the wife of Representative Cory Mills, and that the alleged victim ``let officers hear Subject 1, [now identified by MPD as Mills] instruct her to lie about the origin of her bruises. . . . Eventually, Subject 1 made contact with police and admitted that the situation escalated from verbal to physical, but it was severe enough to create bruising'';
Whereas, on February 21, 2025, The Washington Post also confirmed two D.C. police officials said that the alleged victim of assault initially told a 911 operator and police that she had been assaulted and that officers said she also had what seemed to be visible injuries, and that while a supervisor initially classified the offense internally as a family disturbance, police commanders later learned of the incident, reviewed the reports and body-cam footage from the responding officers, and reclassified the case as a domestic violence assault;
Whereas, on February 21, 2025, NBC4 Washington also reported that the Metropolitan Police Department determined that probable cause to arrest Representative Cory Mills for misdemeanor assault existed and sent an arrest warrant for Representative Cory Mills to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. However, then-acting United States Attorney for the District of Columbia Ed Martin refused to sign the arrest warrant for Representative Cory Mills and instead returned the case to the Metropolitan Police Department for further investigation;
Whereas, on July 14, 2025, a different former romantic partner of Representative Cory Mills, who was apparently in a relationship with Representative Mills from November 2021 to February of 2025, reported to authorities in Florida that Representative Mills threatened to release nude images and other intimate videos of her and threatened to harm her future romantic partners in retaliation for her decision to end the relationship with Representative Mills after seeing the public records described above concerning the alleged February 2025 physical assault;
Whereas, in August 2024, the Office of Congressional Conduct adopted and transmitted to the Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives a report indicating that there was substantial reason to believe that Representative Cory Mills may have omitted or misrepresented required information in his financial disclosure statements, accepted excessive contributions to his campaign committee in the form of personal loans and contributions that may not have derived from Representative Cory Mills' personal funds, entered into, held, or enjoyed contracts with Federal agencies while he was a Member of Congress, and may have accepted through his campaign committee in- kind contributions or other contributions not lawfully made;
Whereas, individuals who served with Representative Cory Mills have called into question the veracity of the accounts of events which formed the
Whereas, in August 2024, Representative Cory Mills provided the Daytona Beach News with documents purporting to prove that he earned a Bronze Star with heroism, including a Department of Army Form 638 recommending Representative Cory Mills for a Bronze Star which includes a signature from then-Army Brigade Commander Arnold N. Gordon-Bray; however, retired Brigadier General Bray told the Daytona Beach News- Journal in August 2024 that he did not sign a Bronze Star recommendation for Representative Cory Mills;
Whereas, five people who served with Representative Cory Mills, including two men who were reported as having been personally saved by Representative Cory Mills at great risk to his own life as a basis for the recommendation for his Bronze Star in the Department of the Army Form 638, disputed that Representative Cory Mills was involved in their rescue or providing lifesaving care;
Whereas, one private first class cited as having been involved in one of the listed achievements on Representative Cory Mills' Army Form 638 recommending him for a Bronze Star denied that Representative Cory Mills provided him any aid and also denied his injuries were life- threatening;
Whereas, one sergeant cited as having been involved in one of the listed achievements on Representative Cory Mills' Army Form 638 recommending him for a Bronze Star called the account a ``fabrication'' and claimed that he ``was not involved in any claims that Cory Mills makes about me''; and
Whereas, despite the numerous available contradictions of the accounts forming the basis of the recommendation for his Bronze Star, Representative Cory Mills described the legitimate factual disputes raised by individuals he purportedly served with and rescued as ``slander and defamation'' in a statement to the Daytona Beach News- Journal:
Now, therefore, be it resolved, that-- One, Representative Cory Mills be censured;
Two, Representative Cory Mills forthwith present himself in the well of the House of Representatives for the pronouncement of censure; and
Three, Representative Cory Mills be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution that was previously noticed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the floor by a Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 legislative days after the resolution is properly noticed.
Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentlewoman from New York will appear in the Record at this point.
The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at the time designated for consideration of the resolution.
Providing for Consideration of H.R. 4553, Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026; Providing for Consideration of H.J. RES. 104, Providing for Congressional...
Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met last night and reported out a rule providing for consideration of four measures.
Those measures are H.R. 4553, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act; H.J. Res. 104, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management related to ``Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment''; H.J. Res. 105, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan''; and H.J. Res. 106, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan.''
House Resolution 672 provides for consideration of H.R. 4553, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act under a structured rule, making in order 36 amendments.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 104, H.J. Res. 105, and H.J. Res. 106, all under closed rules, with 1 hour of general debate each equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources and provides each one motion to recommit.
Finally, the rule provides that H. Res. 668 and H. Res. 605 are hereby adopted and House Res. 598 is laid on the table.
Today's rule, House Resolution 672, allows for debate on several measures including H.R. 4553, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2026.
This appropriations bill funds many programs at the center of helping to assert our country's energy dominance. The bill cuts $766.4 million, when compared to last year's funding bill, by focusing our efforts on energy innovation and water infrastructure.
This appropriations bill provides funding to numerous scientific energy endeavors from nuclear fusion research, small modular reactors, nuclear fuel production, electric transmission system enhancements, energy storage, and traditional fossil fuel research.
At a time when energy demand from data centers and new manufacturing is increasing, these research efforts will greatly contribute to meeting the new normal. Our example is the increase of funding for nuclear energy projects, which will make more advanced nuclear fuel available and accelerate small modular and advanced reactor testing. The Department is also essential to our national security.
This appropriations bill has over $20 billion in funds for the management of our nuclear weapons stockpile and over $2 billion for our nuclear Navy.
This bill also funds numerous Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation projects to provide dredging to maintain navigable ports and rivers and water storage projects to increase the water supply in drought-ridden sections of our country, as well as helping to forestall flooding in areas from coastal regions to mountainous valley regions such as the area I represent.
The rule also provides for debate on H.J. Res. 104, H.J. Res. 105, and H.J. Res. 106, all of which are Congressional Review Act Resolutions of Disapproval.
These resolutions overturn the Biden administration's Bureau of Land Management plans that were aimed at restricting gold mining and oil and gas drilling on Federal lands.
H.J. Res. 104, sponsored by Congressman Downing of Montana, overturns the Montana Resource Management Plan, which would prohibit new coal mining on about 2.75 million acres of Federal land in Montana. This Bureau of Land Management rule would stop an estimated 30 percent of our country's coal reserves from being mined, even as electricity demand is increasing in the United States for the first time in over 10 years.
H.J. Res. 105, sponsored by my Energy and Commerce colleague, Congresswoman Fedorchak, would overturn a similar Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plan for North Dakota. Under this Biden- Harris administration rule, 4 million acres of Federal land in North Dakota would not be available for coal mining or oil and gas extraction.
Additionally, the rule allows for debate on H.J. Res. 106, sponsored by Congressman Nick Begich of Alaska, which would nullify the Central Yukon Resource Management Plan. Under this rule, which affects 13.3 million acres of Federal land in Alaska, millions of acres would be barred from energy development.
Disallowing energy development on these lands will also hamstring efforts to get more American liquid natural gas onto the international market and improve our country's standing as the leading energy producer in the world.
We will also be considering a resolution that would direct the House Oversight Committee to continue their investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell files.
The Committee has already undertaken important steps in their investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Just this week, the committee met with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. They have already issued subpoenas to the Department of Justice related to the Epstein records.
Further, they have already received over 33,000 documents from the Department of Justice with more on the way. Those 33,000 documents, Mr. Speaker, were released last night to the public.
The committee already has transcribed interviews scheduled and have other subpoenas out, as well. They are also doing this work in a bipartisan manner, and we must give them all the tools necessary to continue this important investigation.
This resolution will bring transparency into all the documents and records related to Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, flight logs, any individuals referenced in connection to Epstein, any entities with ties to Epstein, any agency internal documents, documents related to Epstein's detention and death, and other areas.
Mr. Speaker, there are strings attached to this resolution, as well, to ensure that we have full transparency, such as requiring written justification requirements for certain documents that are redacted, unless they fall under certain sensitive categories.
This is a critical step forward in providing transparency into the Epstein files and will give the public all the necessary information.
This vote will show the American people we are committed to full transparency and cooperation when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein and the investigation thereof.
Lastly, this rule is standing up a new select committee to continue investigation of the events surrounding January 6. They will bring more transparency and continue to investigate
I believe this new subcommittee is another critical step forward to bringing more transparency to everyone about the events and details surrounding that day. I hope Members of this House support the passage of the rule and the underlying bills and resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This rule is insane. Notwithstanding the gentleman's monotone delivery, there is a lot going on here in this rule, and much of it is not good.
What are Republicans doing the first week back? Are they doing something to lower food costs as Trump's tariffs drive prices up? No.
Are they doing something to fully fund the government before it shuts down in less than a month? No.
Are they doing something to help with skyrocketing healthcare prices or reversing their devastating cuts to Medicaid? No.
They are doing none of that. They are doing nothing to help regular people. They are doing nothing to help workers, families, or people struggling to get by.
Instead, Mr. Speaker, these guys are continuing to cover up the Epstein files.
Republicans are deeming as passed--which means no debate, no hearing, and no markup--they are deeming as passed a new, fake Epstein resolution and killing their last fake Epstein resolution.
All the while we already have a real, bipartisan bill to unseal all these files. It is the Massie-Khanna bill. Last night, every single Republican on the Rules Committee voted against that bipartisan bill, every single one.
As if that is not bad enough, every single Republican on the Rules Committee also voted to create, out of thin air, a brand-new committee to rewrite the history of what happened here on January 6, 2021.
They are so desperate to paper over what happened that day, to whitewash it and to pretend it was a normal tourist visit. I was here, Mr. Speaker, here in this Chamber where you are sitting right now, and you can be damn sure I am not going to let anyone pretend that January 6 was a normal tourist visit. However, Republicans, the gentleman from Virginia included, refuse to even display a plaque to honor the police officers who were here that day.
I am so sick of this BS about how Republicans support law enforcement. Mr. Griffith and every other Republican on the Rules Committee voted against displaying a plaque to honor the law enforcement officers who were here on January 6. That plaque, Mr. Speaker, already exists. Congress already passed a law to create it, and the Speaker just refuses to display it.
Why? Why would he refuse to do it?
I know why, and we all know why. It is the same reason why every Republican voted against releasing the Epstein files. It is because Rules Republicans are scared as hell.
This is not a deliberative body anymore. Under this Republican majority, Congress has become a rubber stamp for Donald Trump. This is all about the ego of the man who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Republicans think they work for Trump. They are obsessed with him. It is pathetic.
Republicans are ruining this institution, Mr. Speaker. They are destroying this institution. Again, let me repeat: Every single Republican on the Rules Committee voted against releasing the Epstein files, every single one.
We heard last night that all Republicans want full transparency, but that is just not true.
Mr. Speaker, let me read you a quote from the top Republican in this country, President Donald J. Trump. This is what he says about the Epstein files: ``It has all been a big hoax. It is perpetrated by the Democrats and some stupid Republicans.''
At a press availability just minutes ago, the President again said that this is all a hoax.
Now, what do Republicans think of that?
Donald Trump says this is all a hoax, and if you want to release the files you are stupid.
Now, I am not surprised. I am not surprised the guy who once called Epstein a ``terrific guy'' and who Epstein considered his closest friend is not actually interested in getting to the truth.
Do you know when this clicked in for me, Mr. Speaker, and for a lot of people?
It clicked after Trump won and then the backtracking began. It clicked again yesterday. It clicked after the same Republican leaders who invited influencers to the White House and then passed out binders about the soon-to-be-released client list suddenly changed their tune. It clicked again yesterday when phase two of the binders came out, more information released that has already been released. Mr. Speaker, 97 percent of it has already been released. It clicked when the same MAGA politicians who once pledged to release everything suddenly came up with more excuses, more delays, and more stalling tactics. What is obvious to everyone is that someone is hiding something.
While all of this stalling goes on, what happens?
Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's partner in crime, winds up in a cushy, country club prison courtesy of Trump's political appointees. There is not a word of outrage from the Republican majority, not a whisper of accountability, just silence.
Now let's not pretend that this is complicated. It is pretty obvious what is going on. The Trump administration has the power to release the Epstein files today. They could redact names to protect victims and survivors and deliver the truth, but they refuse.
There is a simple through line to all of this, Mr. Speaker. We all know why Republicans are doing this with the Epstein files. We all know why Republicans refuse to display the plaque honoring the brave law enforcement officers who protected our democracy and protected all of us on January 6. We all know why Republicans vote again and again and again for all these giveaways for the rich and powerful.
It is Donald Trump. He wants to rewrite history. He wants to hide the truth about Jeffrey Epstein, and he wants to continue his giveaways to the well-off and the well-connected.
This is all straight out of the authoritarian playbook, Mr. Speaker, and you can bet your ass we are going to continue fighting like hell to oppose this insanity.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that would apply to Members of Congress being called names, would it not. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is so fascinating how facts don't seem to matter sometimes on the floor. The only administration that has ever released anything on the Epstein files is the Trump administration. Last night, the House Oversight and Reform Committee released over 33,000 files. Now they say that 97 percent of it had already been released, 33,000 files. That is a lot of files.
Let's take that 97 percent and say that it is accurate for argument and for argument only.
That means that of 33,000 files, 3 percent of that is new. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, as I was going through clips this morning, I noticed one conservative news source that said: Eureka, the missing minute surrounding Epstein's death is in the material that has been released.
There has been a lot of controversy about that. A lot of people want to know about it, and there it is.
More and more information is coming out, and it is coming out because of the Trump administration and because of the House Oversight and Reform Committee.
However, somehow if we don't adhere to the exact demands of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, then we are not doing it right. I submit to you,
As I pointed out in my opening, Mr. Speaker, if they decide to use one of the limited areas that they could do a redaction, then they have to explain why. If the administration doesn't turn over some information, if they redact information before sending it to the House, then they have to explain why.
Of course, some of the information that you want to protect, Mr. Speaker, is information related to victims that has not yet been in the press.
Why would we want to take young women who were victims of Epstein and his colleagues and who don't want to have their name in the press, why would we suddenly expose them to that?
Of course, we don't want to do that, so there has to be some limited areas where redactions have to occur, but all of that has to be explained.
Then they bring up the President's comments this morning about a hoax. They are trying to mislead, in my opinion, some are trying to mislead the American people into thinking that the President said that Epstein and the investigation was a hoax. It is not what he said.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at what he said, it was the controversy over the Epstein files that was a hoax because they have been releasing more data than any other administration.
I say that because the Biden administration had all this information, and they didn't release it. They had 4 years. They could have released it all. They didn't choose to do it, and now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle somehow want to claim that it is a conspiracy by Trump to hide information that was in the hands of their party's President and their party's Department of Justice. It was in their hands, and they didn't release it, but somehow it is our fault. Mr. Speaker, it is the Republicans' fault that the Biden administration didn't do what they now claim that the Trump administration should be doing.
It is hard to understand that logic, but somehow we are at fault, Mr. Speaker, for them not doing the job that they think we should have made their President do.
It is fascinating. It is absolutely fascinating.
Then, of course, we get to all the consternation about this January 6th Committee. This is an outgrowth of an investigation that started as a part of the House Administration Committee.
I served on the subcommittee that was doing that investigation. It is really interesting. That group, and I was a part of it, found that there was more than one terabyte of missing data. Based on the inventory of the digest and statements from Chairman Thompson, there should have been four terabytes turned over, and there were only three. That is equivalent to 6.5 million document pages as PDFs or office files, 500 hours of high-definition video, or 250,000 photos. The depositions were not filed properly or they weren't filed at all and archived as they are supposed to be, and as the rule that set up the prior committee said, they were supposed to be there.
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that as a former member of this preceding group, we are just trying to get the data that is missing. We are trying to make sure we put all the information on the table. We want the files released that were out there. We want to find that missing terabyte of information. Some of it has been recovered, but not all of it, and that work needs to be continued.
Further, the House Administration subcommittee didn't have the power to subpoena records. I would submit that it is necessary just to get all the information out.
As I said last night to my colleagues, as a person who loves history and has a history degree, I need to get all the documents on the table, the good, the bad, and the ugly, and let history determine what occurred on that day.
There is no point in trying to hide it. I don't understand why my colleagues on the other side want to hide a terabyte. A fourth of what the prior committee did was never properly turned over to the House. That information belongs to the House and to the people of the United States. It does not belong hidden somewhere in a drawer or destroyed.
Unfortunately, because of that lack of turning over the records in a proper manner to the House, we have to continue the work that was not done by the previous Democrat-controlled--I know they had two Republicans on it, but they weren't the Members picked by the House Republicans, and it wasn't in the numbers usually allocated or originally called for, for a select committee.
We are going to do it right, and we are going to put the information on the table. We are going to let the American people make a judgment now, and let the historians argue over what happened on that day as time moves forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is laughable. It is also unconscionable. We know what is going on here. This is an attempt to distract and to rewrite the history of January 6. Quite frankly, it is offensive. It is offensive to the brave men and women who protected our lives on that day.
There is not a bunch of destroyed evidence like the gentleman claims. That is just not accurate. The select committee complied with the requirements of the resolution establishing it, in consultation with the Clerk of the House and the document retention precedents of other committees of this House. The select committee's final report and its support materials are posted publicly online. Just to be sure, I checked again today. All of them, every single page of every transcript, are posted online publicly. Maybe the gentleman can't find them. I would be happy to give him the website information.
The truth is, they just don't like what the evidence shows, so they want to go on a fishing expedition to try to twist the truth instead of accepting the fact of that day. The fact is this: The people who stormed the Capitol and beat police officers, in order to try to stop the peaceful transition of power, were supporters of Donald Trump, period. It was one of the most shameful and darkest episodes in our democracy. No fishing expedition for alternative facts is going to change the reality.
What is particularly offensive is that Donald Trump pardoned all these people, pardoned the people who beat the police officers who protect all of us every single day. It is shameful.
In speaking about the Epstein files, again, I am looking at the video of a few minutes ago, of Donald Trump speaking to reporters and calling all of this a hoax, the Epstein files a hoax. He is not talking about what we are doing here.
Let me just say to the gentleman and anybody else who wants to know: Listen to what the victims were asking for outside this Capitol just a few minutes ago, the survivors, the survivors of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. Listen to what the survivors have been saying. They want the Massie-Khanna bill passed. They want something with teeth in it that will force this administration to comply because they don't trust that they will.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee spent hours helping Trump and the White House cover up the Epstein files.
Trump is terrified the House will agree to the Massie-Khanna resolution to require that his administration release the damn files. He is lobbying against it. What is he afraid of?
To kill the Massie bill, Republicans are pushing a resolution that will give Chairman Comer of the Oversight Committee sole power over what gets released.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust a self-proclaimed--these are his words--Trump man to decide what to redact and what Americans get to see.
Remember, Trump repeatedly--not just today, but repeatedly--called the Epstein scandal a hoax, and he has called Epstein himself a terrific guy.
The Oversight Committee acted only because Democrats forced the subpoenas. Today, Republicans, as we heard, are patting themselves on the
We can do both. The committee can do its job. All we need are two more Republicans to sign Massie's discharge petition so the files get released to the public.
Let's not forget that this is about the women and children who were terrorized and abused by a pedophile and his rich friends. It is about the coverup that started with the rich and powerful and is still coming from a gold-plated Oval Office.
We have listened to the survivors share their stories. They have made many of us cry, but we won't stop at tears. We will work to bring justice to these brave women, to do what they have asked, which is to release the files.
The rule, by the way, is also a Republican attempt to cover up how they are raising energy prices for American families in the Energy and Water appropriations bill. Renewable energy brings down the cost of electricity. Trump and Republicans are destroying this clean and affordable energy by cutting its funding in half. They are doing this to benefit the fossil fuel companies that donated to their campaigns.
Finally, they are also rewriting the history of January 6. They quietly slipped into the rule a brand-new select committee on selective memory designed to protect the very insurrectionists who stormed this Capitol. These were violent thugs who attacked our democracy and brutalized police officers. Donald Trump pardoned those violent criminals. Now, Republicans want to give them cover in the same Halls of Congress that the thugs once attacked. Shame, shame, shame.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me state up front that I make no apology for being pro-U.S. energy. I make no apology for saying that the United States needs more electric power. I make no apology for saying we can get that electric power with things like these bills that are in this rule today. It works on small modular reactors. It works on nuclear. It works on fusion. It works on coal. It works on making sure that we have the ability to mine the coal in the United States. It makes sure we have the ability to extract our oil and our natural gas resources.
If we want to compete with the Chinese, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to up our game on producing electric power. It is fascinating to me that when we hear these debates, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will often point out--in fact, they did it last night--that the Chinese are doing so much more with wind and solar. They never mention that the Chinese are building dozens of new power plants, as we speak, powered by coal.
If we are going to use the Chinese as the model that we are supposed to follow in generating electricity, we should, therefore, not be closing down all of our coal power plants.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the coal in the United States and the way that we burn it is much cleaner than the way the Chinese burn it in their plants. We need to be working on making sure that we have new energy development, which the energy and water bill does, and ways that we can burn that coal and our natural gas even cleaner than we are doing today, even though we produce electricity cleaner with our fossil fuels than any other country in the world.
Guess what we can do, Mr. Speaker. If we can continue to move forward and build new plants and show how this new technology can be used, we can then be the ones who are exporting it to sub-Saharan Africa and India instead of having the Chinese exporting facilities and the technologies that are from the 1960s and 1970s, instead of the technologies that are available today.
When you talk about the air on the planet Earth, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that the air is shared by all of us. In fact, there is a NASA study that I often cite that says it takes air 10 days to get from the middle of the Gobi Desert to the eastern shore of Virginia. That is why a majority of the mercury in California comes from Asia and not from the plants in California. It comes from overseas.
Mr. Speaker, the more that we can do with our fossil fuel plants and our technologies to make our processes cleaner and then export it to the rest of the world, the more we can do to clean up the air in the world as a whole because the air is not something that uniquely belongs to the United States. It doesn't sit over one town very long. Sometimes we get a little inversion in the Roanoke area and it sits there for a few days, but it doesn't sit there for weeks and months and years. We need to be looking at the worldwide issue in regard to that.
Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for supporting bills that will take care of making sure that we can, in this Nation, as a nation, all of us, profit and have the AI needed and have the electricity needed for data centers instead of giving it and ceding it to the Chinese because we don't want to work on oil, natural gas, and coal because somehow my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided that those resources are not appropriate to be used in the United States.
If we want to be a second-rate country, have at it, but that is not what I stand for, Mr. Speaker. I stand for us being the leading energy producer in the world and making sure that we do it as clean as possible so that we can export our clean coal technology, our clean natural gas facilities, new fusion if we can get there, new modular reactors, and export that technology to the world and be the leader in the world when it comes to energy production; but, number one, making sure that we take care of our needs in the United States as we are looking at not having enough electricity going forward to keep our economy as the number one economy in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I often tell people back home that this is important not just for today but for the generations to come because when you look at the powers in the economic sphere in the past, some very small nations have reached into the future and benefited their children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
In fact, I often talk about Royal Dutch Shell Group, Shell Oil, which was a derivative. Mr. Speaker, you can attack how they got the money because it was all part of colonialism, and I get that. Yet, because they were the number one economic nation in the world from roughly 1650 to 1700, there are still people and families in the Netherlands who are benefiting. Notwithstanding the fact that they moved their headquarters to London, they are benefiting from the fact that, at one time, their nation was the number one economic nation in the world.
I want that for the United States. I want us to be the number one economic nation as long as possible so that children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren out 10 generations will benefit.
Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for supporting these bills that we have in this rule today and supporting the fact that American energy is predominant and should remain a major force in the world instead of ceding everything to the Chinese.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, that is an awful lot of words to defend the fossil fuel industry. While the gentleman was defending Big Oil and all these big corporations that rip off the American people by charging exorbitant prices for energy and while he was going on that tirade, I went back and I listened to Donald Trump's press conference at the White House.
Not only did he call the move to release the Epstein files a Democratic hoax, he said it was designed to get the American people to focus in on something that was irrelevant.
Mr. Speaker, let that sink in. If you listened to the survivors who were in front of the Capitol just a few minutes ago and listened to their horror stories, that is irrelevant? That the President of the United States of America would say something like that is pathetic.
He could very easily put all of this controversy to rest by just releasing the files, and that is why we need to
What you all did in the Rules Committee last night is a resolution that doesn't really mean anything. It is designed as cover. Quite frankly, it is not enough.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am always amazed, disturbed, and sometimes can't believe what I hear on this floor.
We are sitting here today as a government shutdown is looming. Survivors of the crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates are here on this campus sharing their harrowing and heartbreaking stories. A court has just ordered that Trump's illegal tariffs have been put in place and are harming Americans and violating the law, and the President is deploying our brave men and women who serve in the National Guard to occupy American cities.
What is the GOP's agenda for this week, crammed into this one resolution that we are here to debate? There is one fake appropriations bill that they know will never pass, three resolutions to undermine protections for the environment, one resolution snuck in during the dark of night to reconvene the January 6 commission to try to rewrite history, and one resolution designed to provide Donald Trump and the White House cover in one of the largest Epstein coverups that we have seen.
This isn't about protecting people. We have a bipartisan discharge petition right there at the Clerk's desk. If my colleagues would like to see the files released, the two of you who are in this Chamber right now could literally walk down there and sign that petition right now. But you don't want the files released. You want it controlled by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee because, if you did, you would sign that petition right there that would release those unredacted files.
Mr. Speaker, let's also be clear. Donald Trump issued a statement today that said to all of you, you Republicans here in this Chamber, that if you sign that discharge petition, he will count it as a hostile act. That is right. The United States President is threatening members of his own party in this Chamber from signing a petition that would release the full, unredacted Epstein files.
Mr. Speaker, my question is: What are they hiding? Who are they protecting, and why are our colleagues failing to have a backbone not only to stand up for the survivors but to stand up for the American people?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. I remind my colleagues that they need to address the Speaker and not the audience that is here.
Mr. Speaker, this Epstein situation is very serious, and I take it as such. We have victims whose lives can never be made whole, and this debate has taken on a life of its own. In many ways, it is illogical.
On the one hand, we have the resolution included in the rule that has subpoena power and has broader authority than the Massie-Khanna piece of legislation that my colleagues on the other side want. It gives us the ability to subpoena banking records, estate files, and depositions, none of which are required in the Massie bill.
Further, I find it interesting, because ours is a resolution that gives the endorsement of the House, gives more power in the oomph behind the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's hard work.
The opposing piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, should it pass the House, goes over to the Senate. Should it pass the Senate, it requires the signature of the very President who they say wants to block it.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the American people, it would only be logical to go with the one that can get voted on in the House and have action going forward and have action taking place that deals with these serious issues and brings to light every piece of information that we can put on the table with the rare exceptions of a few redactions, which have to be explained and some of which are necessary to protect some of the victims themselves because they don't want to have their names out there in the public.
Mr. Speaker, I don't understand it. If what we want is the information, we should pass this rule and move forward, and not have to rely on passage in the Senate and signature by the President.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am going to thank the gentleman for publicly splitting with the President of the United States. He said that the Epstein matter was a serious matter. The President just a few minutes ago said it was irrelevant. I think it takes a little courage for Republicans these days to stand up to the President.
I do want to point out for the Record that the resolution that is deemed passed in this rule grants no new authority, no new power, and no new nothing to the Oversight Committee. It doesn't do anything.
If you want to do something, you can go to the well and you can sign the discharge petition to allow us to vote on the Massie-Khanna bill, which would compel and force the Justice Department to release the files.
If the President, by the way, wants to veto that bill, I would like to think that Democrats and Republicans unanimously would join together to override such a veto. I can't imagine anybody here wanting to defend the indefensible.
We have another way you could be helpful here. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 4405, the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, introduced by Representatives Khanna and Massie.
Mr. Speaker, Republican leadership is twisting themselves into knots trying to look like they are doing something on Epstein to give their Members something to vote on, anything for political cover, while also not upsetting the President.
That is why they have deemed in this rule a nonbinding resolution to tell the Oversight Committee to keep doing what they are already doing, which, best as I can tell, is to slow roll the release of documents that the DOJ seems to think are acceptable to the President for release.
Mr. Speaker, the American people didn't ask for an Oversight Committee investigation. They asked for all the Epstein files to be released, the very thing that the Trump administration promised and then suspiciously backtracked on.
This bill is bipartisan, and it is the only legislation on Epstein that has the force of law. It has the votes to pass. The survivors of Epstein's and Maxwell's crimes spoke today at the Capitol demanding this very bill get passed. Republican leaders need to stop standing in the way, and now is their chance.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. Speaker, I am just returning from hearing the survivors tell their stories, and I was so deeply moved. This is not a political issue. This is an issue of 14-year-olds and 15-year-olds who told the stories of how they were solicited by Jeffrey Epstein and raped and assaulted. Then they went to the police and the police didn't do anything because Jeffrey Epstein knew rich people, because he knew Presidents, because he knew donors.
This is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democratic issue. Marjorie Taylor Greene was there speaking out for the survivors. Nancy Mace was in tears, because she is a survivor, when she heard their stories. Lauren Boebert has said we need to speak up for the survivors.
This is an issue that could actually bring this country together to say that a Nation in which rich and powerful men can rape young girls without consequence is a nation that has lost its moral and spiritual soul.
We can fight about a lot of things. We shouldn't fight about this. We need two more Republicans to sign the discharge petition. I have a pretty simple rule. Most people don't understand all the jargon of Congress, but the survivors very clearly said they want the Massie- Khanna bill. They want it for closure. They want it for the release of the files. You know what the irony here is? President Trump could actually be the person who does good in this. He can still change his mind.
Speaker Johnson is a true Christian. I know him. I know his family. He is a good Christian man. He can be for bringing justice. I really don't understand why we are fighting over this. Why don't we do something good for this country? Why don't we stand with these survivors and show this Nation we are still capable of coming together when it matters for truth and justice?
Mr. Speaker, for the last 6 weeks, I traveled around not just my district but the entire Commonwealth of Virginia to talk about the work that we are doing here in Washington as we headed back to try to avoid a government shutdown in the next 28 days.
Frankly, I didn't hear a lot about Jeffrey Epstein, although what happened is very serious and the survivors do indeed need closure. I didn't hear very much about January 6, although that was a serious stain on American history.
What I did hear about were concerns about rising costs. The costs of everything from healthcare to childcare, energy, food, and technology, everything is going up. The President's illegal tariff policy is making that worse.
I heard concerns from providers and patients about the impact that Medicaid cuts are going to have on hundreds of thousands of Virginians. I heard from State legislators and local government officials about the concerns they have about shifting costs on their budgets. That is why I oppose the energy appropriations bill here today because one way to reduce costs while meeting our energy demands is through energy efficiency programs and clean and renewable energy. However, this bill cuts in half the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office and by extension the programs for energy efficiency and clean energy.
We will never meet our exploding energy demands affordably, reliably, and quickly without energy efficiency and clean energy programs, and that is why I stand to oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in regard to energy, I can tell you that I represent a region of the country where when we were using our coal resources, which God has blessed us with abundantly, we had the third or fourth lowest electric rates in the country.
Then suddenly fossil fuels became a bad idea. Even natural gas, oh, my gosh, we can't use it, and the electric rates keep going up and up and up. My district is not a wealthy district, and the people in my district are complaining because their electricity rates are going up.
One of the major drivers are prior Democratic policies, Mr. Speaker, that said we are not going to be doing any more coal-fired power plants. We are not going to encourage natural gas to be used to create electricity, and we stranded the assets.
Now, as you know, Mr. Speaker, what that means is that they are paying for the electricity generated by wind and solar, and they are paying for the electricity that was there for plants that were opened which have not met their full expectation or life cycle.
For example, there is a facility in my district that I went to the ribbon cutting on in 2012 that Democrats in the Commonwealth of Virginia, including some of my esteemed colleagues on the other side from that great Commonwealth, thought it was appropriate to say: Let's close that down early.
It opened in 2012 with a 50-to-60 year life expectancy, and they wanted to close it down somewhere around 2035 or 2040, well before its life expectancy is up. What that does is that pushes the power companies to have to find different and more expensive ways, as it turns out, to create that electricity.
What this bill does is, it pushes us on nuclear, which if you don't want to use fossil, that is the only way you can get the baseload power to supply us and make us competitive with the Chinese in the field of AI. Yet, somehow, once again my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot realize that it is the policies of their prior Congresses and their prior administrations which, in large measure--not exclusively, but in large measure have caused the spike--not a general increase, not inflation level, but a spike over and above your general inflation--on the cost of energy in this country.
If we get back to the basics, if we pass this rule--we have three CRAs and the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, all of which help make the United States of America more viable when it comes to energy and makes those electric prices that my colleagues said was one of the bigger concerns that she heard when touring around the Commonwealth--the cost of those energy prices will go down if we pass this rule and pass the underlying bills. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, across New Jersey and our country, Americans are struggling with skyrocketing energy costs and are demanding relief. Yet, that did not stop the congressional Republicans from repealing the Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit, a major mistake that could not have come at a worse time.
Amidst the rising cost of living, Americans are now being denied an important tool to lower their energy costs solely so billionaires could get another unneeded tax giveaway. That is why I introduced a commonsense amendment to study the impacts of tearing this program away from American homeowners.
I am absolutely disappointed, but not surprised, that the House majority continues to hide the impacts of their big, ugly bill and block Americans from seeing how it raises their electric bills.
I came to Congress to lower high costs, and I will not stop working to lower energy costs for hardworking Americans.
Mr. Speaker, a vote for this rule is also a vote to create a new select subcommittee to investigate the remaining questions regarding the insurrection on January 6, 2021.
I have a radical idea. Instead of wasting time creating a select subcommittee to investigate January 6, maybe, just maybe, we should read the report that the January 6th Select Committee already finished in 2022. Here it is: thousands of pages, millions of records, testimony from Trump's own people. You could use it as a doorstop, it is so thorough.
But no, Republicans want to rewrite history. If we were all being honest here, that is what this is all about: Pretend January 6 was just a field trip gone wrong; pretend the police weren't bludgeoned, crushed, or tased; pretend the gallows outside this building were just some kind of art installation.
It is insulting. It is a slap in the face to every officer who put their body on the line to save ours. Here is the kicker: This majority still hasn't even hung the plaque honoring those officers, a plaque required by law--required by law. Instead of a sham committee, how about you get a screwdriver and hang the damn plaque because every day it sits in a box is another day Republicans dishonor the heroes who defended this place.
If they insist on this little circus, at least investigate something real, like why Donald Trump pardoned people who assaulted police officers. One of those men is now serving a life sentence for plotting to murder nearly 40 law enforcement officers and blow up the FBI. His lawyers even tried to argue that Trump's pardon should cover his murder plot.
Another pardoned rioter committed a home invasion less than 4 months
In fact, at least 10 of Trump's pardoned insurrectionists have already been re-arrested, charged, or sentenced for other crimes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
Quite a record. Maybe we should call this new panel the subcommittee on criminal recidivism by Trump's friends.
But let's be honest. That is not what this is about. This is about distraction, another shiny object, because the majority doesn't want to talk about the things that they are actually blocking, like the bipartisan effort to release the Epstein files.
I will make it simple. Stop rewriting history. Stop wasting time. Stop dishonoring the police. Follow the law, for God's sake. Hang the plaque.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, what we have heard today is excuse after excuse after excuse, diversion after diversion, but no answers to the questions that I have asked: Why won't the Trump administration release the Epstein files? Why won't the Speaker hang up the plaque honoring the law enforcement officers who defended our democracy on January 6? Why do Republicans continue voting time and time and time again to help their rich and powerful friends?
I know the answer, Mr. Speaker. The answer is because of the man who occupies the Oval Office. Republicans want to let Trump rewrite history to protect the rich and powerful perpetrators of Epstein's crimes, to protect the people who came into this building to desecrate our democracy, and to protect his wealthy donors and Big Oil who want another giveaway.
At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, this is about trust. How can the American people trust Republicans when they promised to release the Epstein files, and then they broke that promise? How can Americans trust Republicans when they claim to support law enforcement, and then they want to rewrite the truth about what happened on January 6? How can we trust Republicans, who want to ignore the fact that Trump pardoned people who brutally assaulted law enforcement officers? How can they be trusted?
How can anyone trust Republicans, when they negotiated spending bills, bills which have become law only to let Donald Trump illegally shut down Federal agencies in direct violation of those negotiations?
I don't trust these guys to tell me the correct time, let alone trust them to do what is right for the American people.
The way to restore trust is simple: Hang the January 6 plaque honoring the officers who defended our democracy on that day, stop the giveaways for those at the top, and release the damn Epstein files. The victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's horrific crimes were outside the Capitol Building this morning to demand that we pass the bipartisan Khanna-Massie bill to release these files.
Mr. Speaker, we have a bill to do it. Stop delaying, stop obstructing, stop protecting the powerful perpetrators of these crimes, and just release the damn files. I urge a ``hell, no'' on this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this rule covers a number of topics, and we have been over them--energy, water. We didn't get much into the full funding of the Army Corps so they can help take care of flooding problems in my district and other districts, take care of water problems, et cetera.
We have argued for over an hour, most of it being the same repetitive things. This rule gives that extra oomph. It shows the support for the work that the Oversight Committee is doing regarding the Epstein files. It moves us forward on energy and water. It moves us forward on energy production in the United States. It moves us forward on nuclear power and making sure that we are using it in a responsible but effective way so that we can continue to be the world's leader when it comes to energy production, instead of handcuffing our capabilities.
We have gone over a lot of serious issues. The American people who are paying attention to this have already heard all of those arguments.
Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that I hope that all the Members of this House will support the passage of this rule. It is important for a number of reasons, and I hope they will pass the underlying bills and resolutions when those come up.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment To H. Res. 672 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212, nays 209, not voting 10, as follows:
Ms. LETLOW changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the house to attend the funeral of Kansas City, Kansas, Police Officer Hunter Simoncic, who was killed in the line of duty last month. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 221, YEA on Roll Call No. 222, and NAY on Roll Call No. 223.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to "Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan...
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 672, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 104) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 672, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debated for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
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.J. Res. 104.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 104, sponsored by Representative Downing of Montana.
This Congressional Review Act resolution would permanently repeal the Bureau of Land Management's misguided resource management plan amendment for the Miles City Field Office in Montana, finalized under the Biden administration.
This resource management plan, or RMP, amendment locked up 11.7 million acres of land and mineral estate. To put that in perspective, that is an area roughly the size of the States of Rhode Island, Delaware, Connecticut, and New Jersey combined.
RMPs are meant to be collaborative approaches to land management that balance multiple uses, including energy and mineral production, outdoor recreation, grazing, and timber harvesting. When done correctly, RMPs help guide public land management in a way that provides fuel, food, and fiber for the Nation and conserves our natural resources.
RMPs manage the resources that are the backbone of western rural economies and support thousands of good-paying jobs. That is what makes the Miles City Resource Management Plan amendment so egregious.
This RMP amendment virtually ended future coal leasing across Montana's entire Powder River Basin, dealing a severe blow to America's energy security and threatening Montana jobs and economic growth.
The national security and economic importance of this region cannot be overstated. Montana holds nearly 30 percent of our Nation's coal reserves. In total, coal from the Powder River Basin produced in Montana and Wyoming makes up about 85 percent of Federal coal production and 40 percent of overall coal production in the entire United States.
Coal is reliable and affordable, and we know we are going to need this critical resource of baseload power as electricity demands continue to skyrocket. If your State has coal, we should be developing it, not burying it under bureaucracy. No one produces coal cleaner or more responsibly than the United States. Nobody understands this better than President Trump, who is reversing the war on American energy and ushering in a new age of energy dominance. He is putting Montana over Moscow and the Powder River Basin over the PRC.
By passing the CRA today, we are advancing President Trump's executive orders on unleashing American energy and reinvigorating America's beautiful clean coal industry.
The CRA will immediately reinstate future coal leasing and open access to 37.8 billion short tons of coal, enough to meet U.S. demand for the next 73 years.
In addition, passing Representative Downing's CRA will unleash Montana's coal industry and generate millions of dollars in revenue for the Federal Government and the State of Montana.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, this CRA will generate $16 million in revenue for the Federal Government over the next decade. This resolution also protects approximately $46 million in annual revenue for Montana's K-12 public education system.
These estimates are conservative, as they don't account for the thousands of good-paying jobs supported by Montana's coal industry and the broad positive economic effects of producing energy here at home.
The CRA isn't just about Montana. Energy security is national security, and Montana's mining industry plays a vital role in ensuring America and our allies maintain a strategic energy advantage over our adversaries.
We can be sure of one thing: The people who benefit from America not harnessing our abundant natural resources are currently sitting in Beijing, China, where they are building new coal-fired power plants at the rate of one per week. In this global energy race, we cannot afford to lose.
Unleashing American energy should not be a partisan issue. Harnessing and unleashing American energy brings down electricity prices for families and boosts real wages for hardworking
This CRA is about grid reliability, energy affordability, and ensuring that States across the country have access to dispatchable baseload power, especially during extreme weather and peak demand. It will create jobs, generate millions of dollars in revenue, and provide for our national security.
I commend the entire Montana delegation, Representatives Downing and Zinke, and Senators Daines and Sheehy, for their tireless work and leadership on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the CRA, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we are on the floor this week debating three Congressional Review Act resolutions that would overturn balanced, forward-looking resource management plans, or RMPs, that have been carefully developed over the past 4 years.
Now, with all due respect to my friend and colleague, the chairman, I heard a lot of slogans, a couple of references to Moscow. I will just say that the CRA before this body is very simple. It is an effort by House Republicans to do something that has never been done before in the history of the Congressional Review Act, which is to overturn a resource management plan.
Why, you might ask, Mr. Speaker, do Republicans intend to take this unprecedented step? It is simply because they would like to open up millions of acres in Montana, North Dakota, and elsewhere to coal extraction. That is it, very simple.
We can probably dispense with, I guess, the hour of debate that we are allocated for purposes of these CRAs. It doesn't really get more complicated than that: Balanced resource management plans were developed in consultation with the communities and States at issue, and this Republican Congress has decided that it is of the utmost priority to, via legislative action, overturn resource management plans that, by the way, Mr. Speaker, could simply be reversed with a phone call to the Secretary of the Interior.
Last time I checked, the Secretary of the Interior happens to be the former Governor of North Dakota, so insofar as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so invested in overturning this resource management plan, perhaps they should call the former Governor of North Dakota, who now works 2 miles from the U.S. Capitol as the Secretary of the Interior, and ask the agency to follow the process by which a resource management plan is historically reconsidered.
Instead, we are here on the House floor debating a CRA on the resource management plan, a giveaway to some of the biggest mining and oil companies on the planet. That is how House Republicans have decided to spend our time on the floor today.
There are a lot of priorities, Mr. Speaker, that my constituents back in Colorado believe this House should consider. Reversing the draconian and cruel healthcare cuts that House Republicans pushed through just a mere 7 weeks ago is at the top of the list. I can tell you what is not on the list: CRA resolutions to overturn resource management plans so that more coal extraction and mining can be done in Montana. That is not on the list of priorities of my constituents, and I suspect that is the case for the vast majority of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, all Americans should have on the top of their priority list energy security and national security. When we block off millions of acres of land from any kind of energy development, that is something that should come right up to the top of priorities.
I heard mention of balance. To think that there was balance in the RMP that the Biden administration put out, especially on this land in Montana, is no kind of balance that I have ever seen. It is totally unbalanced. It locks things down, shuts things off, and leaves the American people to deal with the ramifications of it, with higher energy prices, less reliable energy, and also less national security.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Downing), the lead sponsor of this legislation, who, along with Representative Zinke, knows more about Montana than anybody else in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my resolution, H.J. Res. 104.
For 4 years, President Biden and his autopen waged war on American energy. He targeted the very foundations of our energy independence. No industry felt the brunt of the administration's attack more than the coal industry. Coal mines, coal-fired power plants, and the communities they support were pushed to the brink of collapse.
The 2024 amendment to the Miles City Resource Management Plan would have cut off access to 30 percent of the Nation's coal reserves.
The vast majority of Americans rely on coal for at least part of their electricity every single day, and at no point did Biden's Bureau of Land Management stop to consider the $46 million in lost revenue to the State of Montana, money that helps pay for K-12 education.
Make no mistake, this amendment was not a moderate, science-based decision. This was the heavy hand of Big Government crushing an entire industry in the name of a radical Green New Deal agenda. It was the inevitable result of an antihuman, America-last ideology that has been knocked on its heels in the wake of President Trump's election.
Today, I am thankful that we have the opportunity to reverse this rule before any permanent damage could be done. Today, we are advancing President Trump's executive order to expand American energy production and achieve energy dominance. We are standing up for the people of Colstrip, for the workers of eastern Montana, and for the thousands of Montanans whose livelihoods depend on responsible coal production. We are standing up for affordable electricity, for State and local governments that rely on revenue from Federal leases, and for a commonsense energy strategy that does not depend on imports from adversaries, like China.
This resolution is not about politics. It is about putting working families before bureaucrats. It is about keeping the lights on in America and keeping paychecks flowing in Montana.
When the Federal Government acts recklessly, it is the responsibility of Congress to step in and course correct. That is exactly what H.J. Res. 104 does.
The war on coal must end. It must end here with a vote to overturn this dangerous and shortsighted rule. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.J. Res. 104 and send a clear message that energy security, economic stability, and the voices of rural America will not be ignored.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose all three of these Congressional Review Act resolutions on the floor because the reality is that these would overhaul years of public input. They would silence Tribal voices and erase science-based planning, all so that this administration can hand millions of acres of our public lands over to the fossil fuel industry for extraction.
Public lands should be our country's proudest legacy. They are our natural heritage, a national treasure, and the agencies responsible for stewarding them, like the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, diligently manage these resources for the future through the careful development of these resource management plans and forest plans.
The BLM plans, or the RMPs, are carefully crafted to establish safeguards for wildlife, recreation areas, and watersheds, and to identify suitable areas for energy development, as well. That also includes grazing, logging, and other commercial activities. They have to balance all of it in these RMPs.
It is also based on robust input from communities, stakeholders, the public, and government-to-government consultation with the impacted Tribes, as well.
The Republican majority has proven time and again that they don't want any of that public process. They simply want to hand things over to Big Oil and
The majority is making us vote on legislation that would turn the management of public lands upside down, throwing it into chaos, all just to score that quick win for their fossil fuel buddies because the existing plans don't give away the store the way they would like to.
It doesn't matter that this might upend the system that grants land ownership to Alaska Native veterans of the Vietnam war, which is what one of these RMPs does, or that the Tribal governments have spent years working in good faith with the Federal Government to develop land management plans that both allow for energy development and protect subsistence hunting and fishing resources.
That is what they are blowing up with these CRAs, not to mention that if these CRAs are signed into law, the validity of every single permit, lease, and Federal approval that has been issued based on these RMPs would suddenly be called into question and subject to litigation.
I remind my colleagues once again that they don't have to go down this road.
The gentleman from Colorado mentioned that the CRA has never been used to overturn a resource management plan. There are perfectly valid ways of achieving the same goals in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. It is what the Biden administration did to update these plans, and it is what the Trump administration has already announced it intends to do.
I certainly expect to disagree with the outcomes and the objectives of the Trump administration's efforts to amend these RMPs. If they followed the formal process at least, though, we would have a chance to make our case in that process, and it wouldn't imperil existing permits and leases. Most importantly, it would require community input and Tribal consultation.
I strongly urge my colleagues not to continue this race to the bottom. Republicans have already thrown so many norms out the window. Republicans have already disregarded Democrats in all of their legislation and have started this radical appropriations process, where it is party line, Republican only. So many norms are being trashed, and now, for the first time, they are going to do this using the CRA on resource management plans.
Stop the race to the bottom. Vote against this CRA resolution package.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the CRAs do have Tribal consultation. If there wasn't Tribal consultation, it was during the development of the RMP.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Navajo Transitional Energy Company in support of the CRA repealing the Miles City RMP amendment.
Mr. Speaker, the Navajo Transitional Energy Company is the third largest coal producer in the United States and operates three mines in the Powder River Basin. They were strongly opposed to the previous RMP amendment and support this CRA to ``preserve family- sustaining wages for miners, engineers, and support staff across Montana.'' The NTEC also stated that the RMP ``prohibits the leasing of Federal coal, leaving skilled workers questioning the sustainability of the current economic environment. Passing the CRA resolution sends a clear message to families, small businesses, and energy partners that Montana is open for responsible development.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Congressional Review Act joint resolutions that we are bringing forward to overturn the Biden administration's disastrous and radical resource management plans, beginning with H.J. Res. 104 to repeal the Miles City RMP in Montana to ensure continued access to the Powder River Basin.
These Biden-era plans lack balanced resource management and, in fact, are mineral withdrawals in disguise, which runs contrary to Federal law. They lock up America's resources, kill jobs, and undermine energy security.
The Miles City Resource Management Plan amendment, combined with the Buffalo RMP amendment in Wyoming, bans future coal leasing across the Powder River Basin, which holds roughly 30 percent of our Nation's coal reserves.
The Powder River Basin does not just power Montana and Wyoming, however, but our Nation at large. The Miles City plan strips away access to 37.8 billion short tons of coal, which is enough to meet U.S. demand for the next 73 years.
The consequences are vast, including higher energy costs for American families, the loss of $46 million annually in Montana State revenue that supports public education, and the elimination of countless high- paying jobs that sustain rural communities.
Wyoming knows this fight all too well. The Buffalo field office was hit with the same environmentalist-driven lawsuits and agency overreach, with
To this day, I am still baffled and horrified that, for 4 years, our government intentionally tried to impose energy poverty on the American people, all to please the vocal but minority climate lobby.
When the Powder River Basin turns off, so does America.
Energy security is national security. The Biden administration's RMPA undermines both. By restricting access to our own resources, it pushes America toward greater dependence on foreign nations, including our adversaries.
I applaud Congressman Downing of Montana for introducing this joint resolution, which aligns with President Trump's executive orders to reinvigorate America's clean coal and unleash American energy, restore strength to our energy policy, and put the needs of his constituents and all Americans first.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to restore American energy dominance.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Miles City Resource Management Plan update, it is just important contextually to say that it was a very extensive and inclusive public comment period. BLM provided a 90-day public comment period, two public meetings, a 30-day public comment period, and a 60-day review period for the Governor. BLM directly contacted over 40 private landowners, all, according to BLM, to help refine and guide development of that RMP amendment. That robust public input was instrumental in shaping a plan that reflects the values of the communities it impacts.
I want to go back to, I guess, a core point that the ranking member articulated previously, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if perhaps the chairman knows. It is a fairly empty Chamber here. I don't see any other Members. Maybe he might engage in a bit of discourse here in a colloquy.
I am trying to understand why the CRA is necessary, given that the Interior Department retains the ability to amend and modify these resource management plans in any way that the Secretary deems necessary.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire through you as to whether the chair could help us better understand why they have decided to pursue the CRA rather than simply amending the resource management plan.
Mr. Speaker, I will reserve for response and that colloquy.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in regard to my colleague's request for a colloquy, I will just say that it is necessary to do a CRA because the previous administration issued bad resource management plans. Had they not issued bad resource management plans, then we wouldn't be here today.
The thing about a CRA is if Congress passes this law, then another administration can't go back and put it in place. I think that is why my colleagues fear this process of using the CRA because then it would be up to a future Congress to go back and undo what we do in this Congress if we actually pass a Congressional Review Act.
Again, we are here today because the Biden administration decided to unbalance the scales and put onerous burdens on States, on our natural resources, and on the ability to produce our energy here.
Mr. Speaker, they started it by issuing the bad RMP. Hopefully, we will finish it by passing the CRA.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert).
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) for bringing this important issue up today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 104, which nullifies the Bureau of Land Management's restrictive Miles City Field Office Resource Management Plan.
This resolution is a critical step toward restoring American energy dominance, a cornerstone of President Trump's agenda to secure our Nation's economic and energy future.
The BLM's rule stifles resource development in Montana, limiting access to our abundant natural resources and threatening the livelihoods of our ranchers, energy workers, and small businesses. By imposing burdensome land management policies, it undermines the very communities that power our great Nation.
H.J. Res. 104 aligns directly with President Trump's vision to unleash American energy by removing regulatory barriers and prioritizing domestic production. This resolution ensures our lands are used to bolster energy security and not obstruct it.
By passing H.J. Res. 104, we reject bureaucratic overreach and champion affordable and reliable energy for all Americans. Let's stand with President Trump's mission to make America energy dominant, protect jobs, and empower our communities, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, facts matter. Under President Trump, Americans are paying more for their electricity than ever before. Energy costs right now are higher than they have ever been. They are increasing at twice the rate of inflation.
As Republicans preside over an economy in which everything is getting more expensive, spare us lectures about energy costs. Healthcare is more expensive. Groceries are more expensive. Energy costs are going through the roof. Seriously?
Their answer to all of this is more coal. That is it. That is the sum total of the Republican response to the cost-of-living crisis in the United States of America today. From Arkansas to Colorado to Minnesota and everywhere in between, more coal is their prescription, Mr. Speaker.
In Colorado, we certainly don't think that is a prudent approach. I will say I regret that the Speaker didn't indulge me in the colloquy that I had hoped I could engage in with the chairman whom, of course, I greatly respect. Mr. Speaker, he did reveal the plot here in his answer as to what the impetus was for the CRA.
Of course, it is not as simple as amending or modifying the resource management plan. The reason House Republicans are pursuing this tool is to prevent not just this Department of the Interior but any Department of the Interior into perpetuity from issuing a resource management plan that is in any way substantially similar to the one that is at issue here. That is what this is about. That is this effort.
I don't think my colleagues on my side of the aisle will be confused by the chairman's arguments. Just in case, I want to make sure it is crystal clear for the record that a vote in favor of this CRA is not a vote to modify or amend the resource management plan. It is a vote to prevent the agency and subagency, in the case of the BLM, from promulgating any resource management plan that remotely tries to do something similar to what has been done here.
Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague. Again, on the other side of the aisle, they have their ideological reasons for pursuing that. It is more coal. Again, that is the sum total. It is two words. In my view, I think most Americans would think and agree that this isn't how we should be spending our time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do have ideological reasons for wanting to lower energy costs across America. The last time I checked at the gas pump, the energy prices are going down there. We are seeing a huge demand for energy across this country that is being driven even more by AI and data centers with unimaginable amounts of energy required for these facilities.
I heard about the announcement of a data center that would require the amount of electricity to run the city of Denver five times over in a year. One data center needs that much energy.
We see electric prices increase because there is more demand for electricity. We have had horrible energy policy in the past, and we haven't kept up with the demand.
The Chinese, on the other hand, are building new coal-fired plants. Every 2
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of these three CRA resolutions that reverse the Biden administration's Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plans that attack Alaska, attack North Dakota, and attack Montana, locking up millions of acres of land from responsible oil and gas and coal development.
Last year, on their way out of office, the Biden administration finalized these three resource management plans that not only threatened the hardworking miners and energy workers across Alaska, North Dakota, and Montana but also millions of dollars in direct State and Federal taxes and royalties.
These dangerous policies also jeopardize the entire United States and our access to reliable and affordable energy. These resource management plans were just another example of the Biden administration's energy agenda: anywhere but America, any worker but American.
They just couldn't help themselves, launching one last attack on American energy independence, even on their way out of office.
Mr. Speaker, over the past 4 years, my colleagues in this Chamber have heard me speak out against the Biden administration's attempt after attempt to attack my constituents and shut down northern Minnesota.
At every single turn, the Biden administration tried to shut down responsible mining in northern Minnesota, home to the largest untapped copper-nickel find in the entire world. The administration did to northern Minnesota what they did to Alaska, North Dakota, and Montana.
The CRAs before us today will reverse the Biden administration's antiresponsible resource development policies and will allow responsible mining and oil and gas projects to continue through the regulatory and environmental review process, allowing them to fight another day.
Most importantly, these resolutions will prevent future anti-American energy administrations from taking similar actions in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from Alaska, North Dakota, and Montana for introducing these important resolutions to reverse the disastrous Biden administration's policies, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting these resolutions today.
Mr. Speaker, the prior administration was the most antimining, anti- oil and gas administration in the history of this country. I was just up in the great State of Alaska. In the national refuge, they are safely and responsibly extracting oil that Alaskans need.
They are going to put in an LNG pipeline, which is the safest and best pipeline in the world, for Alaskans, our country, and our allies. It is going to take a lot of years to fix the disastrous policies of the last administration.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of the Interior banned mining in northeastern Minnesota, and when asked in the Senate: Why did you stop these critical minerals from coming forward?
Her answer was: I didn't think there were critical minerals there.
Mr. Speaker, it was the biggest find in the world.
We have an opportunity right now, today, to start changing these disastrous Biden policies and get this economy turning. We must become American energy independent and critical mineral dominant. We need to be. COVID has taught us so much. We cannot rely on foreign adversarial nations for our much-needed strategic national security supply. Our supply chains need to be coming from American development, American communities, American technology, American workers, and American families. We can do it. We have to have the political will to do it.
These three CRAs are worth voting for. I commend my colleagues from these three States. I have a suspicion there might be several more coming in the near future because of the disastrous decisions of the prior administration.
There is a breath of fresh air across America right now. As the chairman just talked about the reduction in the gas prices, that is real money for the working-class and middle-class Americans when they can save $15 or $20 at the gas pump. That is real money when they can save money on their natural gas or propane to heat their house. That is real money for the constituents whom I serve.
Mr. Speaker, this is good policy, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I was trying to keep track, and I lost track at some point, but my colleague from Minnesota I think said the word ``Biden'' eight times, if I am not mistaken.
Mr. Speaker, if you couple that with references to the prior administration, then that jumps up to 12 or 13.
It is unclear to me when Republicans are going to stop complaining and actually do something to address the challenges that face our country. They spend more time talking about Joe Biden than they do about reducing costs. Every sentence from that side of the aisle, Biden, a verb, an adjective, and more coal. That is essentially the sum total of every sentence.
By the way, my colleagues, I suspect, are watching from their offices. I know that more of my colleagues are going to come to the floor here to engage in debate on, I don't know--how many CRAs are they putting on the floor today, three, four, or five?
That is all we do around here are CRAs. I encourage them as they are watching to, please, when they come to the floor, maybe spend some time talking about their affirmative vision for the country and not so much time talking about the prior President.
Republicans are in charge. Republicans have a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate and the Presidency, and we spend all of our time on the House floor doing CRAs or resolutions of disapproval, the weakest vehicle that this House could consider.
Mr. Speaker, I know you are aware of this, but the House has been on vacation for like the last 6 weeks. Republicans recessed us out of session early, a 6-week vacation for Republicans. Finally, we are back in Washington, September, 10 months into the Trump Presidency, and this is how you choose to spend your time, with resolutions of disapproval and reversing resource management plans for North Dakota?
Of all of the concerns of the people in Arkansas or Colorado, this is the priority?
It is a shame, Mr. Speaker. It is deeply disappointing and disheartening, I suspect to most Americans, to those who might be watching C-SPAN, to learn that this august body in the world's greatest democracy is wasting its time debating resource management plans issued by the prior administration.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, I will give a brief closing because, as I said, I think all we are doing today are these resolutions of disapproval, so I am going to have more opportunities, apparently, to make this argument. I encourage my colleagues to dispense with what, in my view, are actually very dishonest arguments about these resource management plans. I think fundamentally they should continue the work that was done by the prior administration through an open and a transparent process.
That is the way these resource management plans are meant to be developed. I get it. I understand that my Republican colleagues have disagreements about the resource management plans. That is understood.
Mr. Speaker, call Secretary Burgum. Call the BLM director. I don't think there is a BLM director 10 months into the administration. Call whoever is running the show over at the BLM now and ask them to reopen the process.
Mr. Speaker, listen to the Tribes, listen to the American people, and update
Using the Congressional Review Act to overturn the plan is the wrong approach. I understand why it may seem easier for Republicans to just bring the hammer down and use this blunt instrument, but all you will be left with, Mr. Speaker, are smashed pieces, and you will forever close the ability of these agencies to protect some of the most treasured lands in our country, lands that belong to the citizens of this country, to you, Mr. Speaker, your children, your grandchildren, and the future generations.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the CRA, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing that we have this tool called the Congressional Review Act that asserts the Article I authority that Congress has. You see, Mr. Speaker, we don't have to go begging a Secretary or asking the administration what actions we take. We get to determine which actions we take, and the Congressional Review Act is one of those tools that we have to take a big hammer to a bad policy.
I am glad that we are taking that big hammer to a terrible policy. We are also making it so that a future administration can't enact another bad policy like the ones that were put into place with these three RMPs that we will be addressing today. That is a good thing.
It is a good thing that we are focusing on unleashing American energy. The time to do that is now. The time to restore balanced management to our public lands is now.
It is now time to put Big Sky Country ahead of Beijing. It is past time that we do that. If allowed to continue, the Miles City RMP amendment developed by the previous administration could have devastating impacts on Montana and the entire U.S. economy.
Passing this CRA will help reinvigorate America's coal industry. Also it will unleash American energy.
In my district, I have a coal-fired plant that was built in 2010. To my knowledge, that was the last coal-fired plant built in the United States. Again, I mentioned earlier that China is building 120 gigawatts a year. That is one every 2 days, one of those 650-megawatt coal plants every 2 days that they are putting on line.
What are we doing with coal plants across America?
We have been closing them down. They provide reliable baseload energy.
That coal plant in my district that provides energy to businesses and energy to homes can't operate without coal, and that coal comes from the Powder River Basin. When we harness our resources out West and use those, it is a good thing, but when we lock them up, then we keep electricity from being affordable and we keep it from being reliable not just for constituents in Montana but for people all across this country.
That is exactly one of the many reasons I am supporting this CRA today. It means affordable, reliable energy. It means improved national security. It means good-paying jobs for rural Americans and millions of dollars in revenue for the U.S. Treasury.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 672, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to "Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan"
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 672, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 106) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 672, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) each will control 30 minutes.
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.J. Res. 106.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 106, a Congressional Review Act resolution led by Congressman Nick Begich of Alaska. This CRA reverses a resource management plan, or RMP, for the central Yukon region in Alaska, which locked up an astonishing 13.3 million acres of land.
Alaska is crucial to our national security and economic prosperity. In 2020, President Trump announced a draft RMP for the central Yukon that, among other provisions, revoked Public Land Order 5150 and unleashed American energy.
For more than a decade, the State of Alaska has worked on this RMP to revoke Public Land Order 5150, which would unlock millions of acres of land from restrictive, de facto wilderness management and return it to multiple use.
Unfortunately, the previous administration reversed this decision against the wishes of Alaskans and finalized a new RMP that enshrined Public Land Order 5150.
On his first day in office in 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14153 on ``Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential,'' which directly called for repealing the Biden administration's central Yukon RMP. This CRA advances President Trump's executive order.
Why is this CRA so important? Revoking Public Land Order 5150 is the first step in allowing the State of Alaska to acquire lands that are critical to two essential projects: Ambler Road and the Alaska LNG pipeline.
Currently, our adversaries have a choke hold on worldwide mineral supply chains. Alaska, our 49th State, has rich deposits of 49 out of the 50 minerals on the critical minerals list.
With such abundant resources in our own backyard, it should be appalling to
The smartphones that we carry around every day in our pockets contain 15 critical minerals. Computers, home appliances, and batteries all rely on critical minerals.
The Ambler Mining District in Alaska is home to some of the largest deposits of these minerals, including copper, cobalt, and zinc. Just four deposits in the Ambler Mining District alone have an estimated resource value of $26 billion.
Currently, there is no way to access these minerals. To do so, we need to construct Ambler Road. Last year, the Biden administration denied a permit for Ambler Road, effectively preventing Alaskans from developing their own resources.
Passing this CRA is the first step in allowing Alaska to acquire these lands outright, creating long-term certainty for this project.
Constructing this road and allowing access to the Ambler Mining District is expected to create thousands of new jobs and produce $1.1 billion of revenue for Alaska. Road construction alone will create more than 350 jobs, creating economic opportunity desperately needed in rural Alaska.
Keep in mind, this is only one project unlocked by this CRA. This CRA will also help the advancement of the Alaska LNG pipeline project.
Global demand for energy is expected to double by 2050, and our domestic energy production must rise to meet that demand. With the rise of data centers and AI fueling this growth, it is more important than ever that we produce energy here at home rather than ceding energy dominance to hostile foreign nations like China and Russia.
Once online, the project will produce 3.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas daily and sustain more than 10,000 jobs. Through this project, Alaskans will gain long-term and affordable gas for home heating and industrial needs.
Currently, the gas supply for Alaska from the Cook Inlet is uncertain, and local utilities are evaluating alternate supplies, including importing LNG. It goes against all common sense to import LNG into Alaska when the State is blessed with abundant resources that can supply the State and beyond.
Every action must be taken to provide North Slope-produced gas to Alaskans for their home heating and local industry needs. In addition to providing gas to Alaska, the Alaska LNG pipeline will be able to export 20 million tons of LNG yearly, reaching our Asian allies in 6 days with no strategic choke points. It is no exaggeration to say that creating this pipeline is one of the most crucial steps we can take to counter China's influence in the Indo-Pacific.
Earlier this year, I led a bipartisan congressional delegation to Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. Taiwan has already signed a letter of intent with the State of Alaska to purchase Alaskan LNG, and both Japan and South Korea are deeply interested in pursuing American energy from Alaska as well as other Pacific Rim nations.
The message we heard at each stop was universal and resounding: Without certainty in the timeline and our permitting system, these countries won't be able to buy our energy.
Make no mistake, these are our allies, and they desperately want to buy American. They would much rather get their energy from the North Slope than from China and Russia, the friends of North Korea.
Today's CRA is the first step in providing energy certainty to Alaska and our allies abroad. We are taking strong, decisive action to remove barriers that prevent us from accessing our own energy and minerals.
By unleashing Alaska's extraordinary resource potential, we are providing energy certainty and affordability to Alaska and creating thousands of well-paying jobs, generating billions of dollars in revenue for Federal and State coffers, and keeping America and our allies safe from foreign adversaries.
I commend Representative Begich, the entire Alaska delegation, and Governor Dunleavy for their work on this effort.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the joint resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As promised, we are back debating another Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution. This time, as was referenced, it is in regard to the resource management plan for the central Yukon in the heart of Alaska, governing over 13 million acres of public land in central and northern Alaska, some of the most culturally significant landscapes in the United States.
This region includes the central Yukon River watershed and the Dalton Highway corridor, areas that are vital to both biodiversity and community survival. These lands are also interconnected with the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They are home to caribou, salmon, and sheep species that Alaska Native and rural communities depend on for food and cultural traditions.
The existing RMP sets strong protections in response to declining populations of these important species. It created 3.6 million acres of areas of critical environmental concern.
I will also mention here that the one voice we haven't heard from on the House floor is from the Tribal communities impacted by both the resource management plan and this particular resolution to reverse the resource management plan. These lands promote community health, support sustenance, and sustain the wild food economies that numerous Alaska Native communities rely on.
The current resource management plan is the result of over a decade, 10 years, of work between the Tribes in the central Yukon as well as the Bureau of Land Management and other stakeholders. Six Tribes worked as cooperating agencies in the development of this plan.
I know I have belabored this, Mr. Speaker, but it merits mentioning again. Rather than simply amending the resource management plan, doing the hard work required in the agency to perform the consultations necessary to then change the RMP, if folks have concerns, good faith concerns about the contours of that resource management plan, that is the way to do it.
Instead, my colleagues have chosen to use the Congressional Review Act, a very blunt instrument. Using the CRA, unlike pursuing an administrative update, would lock out--lock out--Tribal engagement in BLM's existing processes.
Using the CRA to overturn an RMP would also ban the agency not from issuing this resource management plan but from issuing any resource management plan like it. That is reckless.
I understand that my colleagues have a disagreement with respect to the contours of this resource management plan. My colleagues should work through the Department of the Interior to change it. That is the way that it should be done.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lot on the line with respect to the fate of this particular CRA resolution before us. I mentioned before that we are in uncharted territory because the House has not pursued this type of vehicle to overturn resource management plans in the past. It is unprecedented.
It is important for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to recognize the gravity of taking this step. It is one that I would hope that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might reconsider.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the resolution for those reasons, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we are in uncharted territory. We are in uncharted territory because the previous administration took us here.
At the end of the day, we hear from voices across America, but we don't hear from the voices of the people of my home State. The people who I have spoken with, the landowners, the Alaska Natives, who were not consulted by the previous administration in the development and approval of this resource management plan, have stepped forward and said: We need to remove
I rise today in strong support of H.J. Res. 106, a resolution to overturn the Bureau of Land Management's 2024 Central Yukon Resource Management Plan. This Biden-era management plan locks up more than 13 million acres of land in Alaska, part of a region that spans 56 million acres in my State.
The plan threatens economic opportunity and undermines national security while ignoring the needs of everyday Alaskans. The plan also designates more than 3.6 million acres as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern with little or no justification.
The Biden plan restricts access to Alaska Native lands, violating commitments made under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Sadly, the plan also continues outdated land withdrawals that block responsible access to our Nation's critical mineral resources.
Mr. Speaker, this is not balance. It is Federal overreach that is ensuring that Alaska's wealth stays in the ground, unavailable to the people of one of America's most impoverished regions.
The plan also obstructs projects vital to America's future, such as the Ambler Road, which will bring access to strategic and critical minerals; and the Alaska LNG project, which is projected to deliver 3.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day and create more than 10,000 jobs in Alaska.
These projects are essential to American energy security. They are essential to Alaska's economic growth, and they are essential to lowering costs for America's working families.
This resolution supports President Trump's commitment to unleashing Alaska's extraordinary energy and resource potential. It restores balance to public land policy, ensures that we meet our commitments to Alaska's Native communities, and allows for opportunity in an area of my State that is desperately in need.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.J. Res. 106 to strengthen America's energy and mineral dominance, to strengthen our economic and national security, and to keep our promises to the people of Alaska.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will point out the great work that my colleague from Alaska has done on this issue and the potential that is in Alaska.
We had the Committee on Natural Resources up there last week, and we had a bipartisan group there turning around and looking at all of the many, many resources that are in Alaska, the vast size of Alaska, and the burdens that the Federal Government has put on the State and really, I think, fallen short of living up to the promises that were made when Alaska became a State. We talked about Native Americans and their input in the process.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from Doyon Limited.
Mr. Speaker, I will read from this letter to show what is really happening in Alaska.
It says: ``Doyon strongly supports this joint resolution and urges Congress' and the President's swift action to reject this misguided and harmful planning decision.
``Many large tracts of lands that were conveyed to Doyon under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [ANCSA] are surrounded by, or abut, BLM-managed public lands. Doyon owns substantial interests in the Central Yukon Planning Area, holding an ownership interest in approximately 4.65 million acres.
``Doyon's land base shares approximately 3,000 miles of border with BLM lands--potentially more than any other indigenous landowner in the Nation. Consistent with ANCSA's intent, much of the land that Doyon selected was selected for its economic development potential.
``As Doyon explained to BLM throughout the Central Yukon RMP planning process, further enveloping Doyon's lands within new or expanded Areas of Critical Environmental Concern [ACECs] and other restrictive land designations, and otherwise imposing restrictions on use of surrounding lands, will further complicate access to and use of Doyon lands, and potentially prevent Doyon from fully recognizing the economic and other benefits that Congress intended it would enjoy as a result of ANCSA's settlement of aboriginal land claims.''
That is from the people who were affected on the ground by this misguided resource management plan that the previous administration put in place. It is an honor to be here today to be able to use the CRA to, hopefully, reverse that plan and prevent other administrations in the future, from either party, from putting such ridiculous management plans in place.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman read from a letter there. I will read from a letter that I think the Speaker might find interesting. This is a letter from the Tanana Chiefs Conference in opposition to this resolution.
Who is this conference made up of, you might ask, Mr. Speaker? It is made up of 37 federally recognized Tribes and villages across the Yukon River Basin. These Tribes served as cooperating agencies in the RMP development process working to ensure protection for critical salmon habitat and other interests, and they endorsed the RMP after extensive consultation. They oppose this resolution, among many others.
Mr. Speaker, I do say that it is important to recognize what this resolution, which I think the chairman, if I am not misquoting him, called a hammer, will do.
My view is very simple. This hammer that Republicans have proposed risks precluding these agencies from engaging in any type of rulemaking or resource management planning that is substantially similar to the resource management plan before us. I will give a simple example of what that looks like in practice.
This Central Yukon Resource Management Plan opens up 11 million acres to selection by eligible Alaska Native Vietnam-era veterans under the Dingell Act.
For those who are watching, the resource management plan allows and enables Alaska natives who served our country so bravely during the Vietnam war to access upwards of 11 million acres of lands at issue.
Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. By passing this resolution of disapproval, this CRA vehicle, it is not simply eliminating that provision, along with all the other provisions in the resource management plan, it is potentially risking the ability of a future administration, including this one, from issuing any resource management plan that provides a similar benefit.
What happens when a court 2 years from now, 3 years from now, or 5 years from now rules that the Republican resolution that you all are poised to pass today precludes the BLM from giving any access to native Vietnam-era veterans in accessing this land?
When we call this a blunt instrument, that is what we are referencing. I understand that my colleagues disagree with a variety of different components of the resource management plan. They are fortunate that the Secretary of the Interior happens to be a former Republican Governor of North Dakota, and I imagine if they call him that he will pursue a reopening of this resource management plan. However, taking this step, foreclosing the ability of those Alaska natives who are Vietnam-era veterans from being able to access these lands and precluding that kind of benefit into perpetuity by virtue of using the CRA is reckless. There is no other word to describe it.
I would hope my colleagues would, again, reconsider and follow the process of regular order. That is the way to pursue the changes that they seek.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this idea that Alaska native Vietnam-era veterans can't select lands is just factually inaccurate and fear-mongering.
Congress has already statutorily codified the Alaska Native Vietnam- era Veterans Land Allotment Program in 2019. Nothing in this CRA repeals those requirements under the 2019 law. In fact, the House just passed a 5-year extension of this program in July. To suggest that we are now somehow unsupportive of this program is ludicrous.
Congress is using the CRA for this RMP because there weren't enough public land order revocations, not because there were too many. Keeping the withdrawal revocations for Alaska native Vietnam-era veterans and adding new withdrawal revocations would be entirely consistent with the CRA. The argument is ironic coming from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as Secretary Haaland unnecessarily delayed the implementation of this program for years, despite strong demands from the Alaska delegation that outdated PLOs be lifted so land selections could begin.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Begich) who understands this better than anyone.
Mr. Speaker, fewer than 20 Alaska native Vietnam-era veterans have received their conveyances. A big part of the reason why so few of the more than 2,000 eligible Vietnam-era veterans or their heirs have received those lands is because they were delayed or outright blocked by the previous administration.
The previous administration blocked their ability to select and receive their lands. To hear my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber suggesting that somehow Republicans are standing in the way of Vietnam-era veteran land conveyances in my home State is ludicrous. It is simply not true.
In fact, my bill extends the available time for them to make those selections by 5 years, and there is nothing in this CRA that prevents them from making those selections. We hope that they do. In fact, we want more land to be available to those families. In fact, there are some communities in Alaska where Vietnam-era veterans who are eligible in this program have to select land hundreds of miles away from their own community.
We are trying to unlock the State of Alaska, Mr. Speaker. It is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber that have repeatedly blocked our ability to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am not in the predictions business, but I can confidently predict--and it is why one of the reasons this exchange is so important--that this particular exchange will appear in litigation 2 years from now, 3 years from now, 5 years from now, or 10 years from now.
This is untested. The Congressional Review Act has never been used before to repeal a resource management plan, so we don't know how a Federal court is going to construe this Congress' decision to en masse disapprove of a resource management plan that did provide for the allotment for Alaska natives who are Vietnam-era veterans to access these lands.
I understand the chairman is making the case here on the floor. He made it during the debate on the Rules Committee. I remember this back in July. He maintains that this congressional resolution of approval is just limited to the energy portions of the resource management plan. That is not what the resolution says.
The resolution of disapproval disapproves of the resource management plan in its entirety. I understand that the statutory provisions that provide Alaska natives with the ability, those who are Vietnam-era veterans to access these lands, remains codified. That is not up for debate.
The problem is that Republicans have decided to disapprove, to use this blunt instrument of this particular allotment, or rather access that the prior administration as was noted, included in this resource management plan. We have no idea how a Federal court is going to construe the actions of the Congress as it relates to the different
It is one of the reasons why a Congressional Review Act or rather, the Congressional Review Act has not been deployed in this way previously because it is risky.
My colleague from Alaska seemed very upset. I don't disagree. I share his frustration. I support, by the way, the legislation that he mentioned. The legislation he was referencing is not the bill that is before this Congress. I don't quite understand the impetus behind extending the time as he noted to 5 years while you are simultaneously passing a resolution disapproving of a resource management plan that provided the very access to these lands that you purport to want, but that is for him to explain.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Again, not to belabor the point here, but I do think that last exchange was instructive and revealing.
I remember very well the debate that this House engaged in a mere 3 months ago, 2\1/2\ months ago, regarding the budget bill and the terrible cuts to Medicaid that this Chamber, Republicans, passed, and that the President signed into law. I remember after that legislation was signed into law, several of my Republican colleagues, including one Republican Senator in particular, bemoaning the Medicaid cuts that he had just voted for.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are familiar with Mark Twain's old adage that history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. It does feel a little bit like deja vu because in the case of these CRAs, I have no doubt that several of my colleagues, including several of my colleagues who are championing these resolutions, will find that down the road they will regret being so vociferous in their support for the resolutions of disapproval of these resource management plans when a Federal court decides that the agencies, the BLM, the Department of the Interior writ large can't protect or, rather, enact protections in the way that it had in the past because Republicans decided to use this blunt instrument.
I think we are going on hour number two here. I believe we have another hour of debate on another resolution of disapproval that will be coming up next. For all the reasons I have articulated, I would hope my colleagues will oppose this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
This CRA is crucial to unleashing Alaska's abundant natural resources. It will unleash billions of dollars' worth of oil, natural gas, and critical minerals that are critical not only to Alaska's economy and security but also to the economic and energy security of the United States and will extend further to our allies around the world.
This is a very important issue. This CRA shifts land management back to Alaskans and away from NGOs and environmentalists in the lower 48 who have had way too much of an oversized impact on the decisions made in Alaska. It is essential to projects that will create tens of thousands of jobs, generate billions of dollars in revenue for the U.S. Treasury and the State of Alaska, and again make our Nation less reliant on hostile foreign nations.
I commend Representative Begich once again for his work on this effort. He is a tremendous and fierce advocate for Alaska. Through his efforts, we are helping President Trump and his administration advance executive orders and usher in the golden age of American and Alaskan energy dominance.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this joint resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 672, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to "North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan"
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 672, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 105) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 672, the joint resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
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.J. Res. 105.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 105, led by Representative Fedorchak of North Dakota.
This Congressional Review Act resolution reverses a resource management plan, or an RMP, finalized in the waning days of the last administration that locked up more than 4 million acres of land in North Dakota.
Astonishingly, this RMP blocked coal leasing on 99 percent of coal deposits in North Dakota and prohibited oil and gas leasing on an additional 44 percent of Federal land.
North Dakota is a top 10 coal-producing State and the number 3 oil and gas producer in the Nation. According to State estimates, North Dakota produces 400 million barrels of oil, 1.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 27.5 million tons of lignite coal annually.
To put this in perspective, North Dakota produces enough natural gas to heat 15 million homes for an entire year, equivalent to 100 billion kilowatt hours of electricity.
U.S. electricity consumption is projected to hit an all-time high this year, and electricity demand will grow by as much as 128 gigawatts through 2029. Fueled by new data centers and AI, these estimates of electricity demand are five times higher than earlier forecasts.
The United States should be the world leader in energy and mineral production. We are blessed with abundant resources. We have the brightest minds, and we maintain the most rigorous and clean production standards in the world. Yet, the anti-American energy policies pursued by radical environmentalists in the previous administration crippled communities reliant on energy jobs, weakened us on the global stage, and enriched adversarial nations that were able to cash in as we took a back seat in the global energy market.
The road to energy dominance and meeting this growing demand runs through North Dakota. Advancing this CRA is the first step in helping to unleash American energy and reinvigorate America's beautiful coal industry, as President Trump has called for in his recent executive orders.
This CRA is important not just to the people of North Dakota but also our collective American energy and mineral security. If you have ever worried about your electricity bill or wondered if prices at the pump might cancel a family vacation, then you should care about reversing ill-advised lockups of our energy and mineral resources.
Energy production is critically important to the Western way of life, sustaining small rural communities and generating much-needed economic activity. Passing this CRA will save an estimated 12,000 jobs in North Dakota just in the coal industry alone.
This CRA is also crucial to prevent an estimated loss of $34 million annually in State revenues from oil and gas production. These funds are used to finance K-12 public education in the State.
What does this mean for children in North Dakota? Failing to pass this CRA could result in a $441 reduction in the amount of funds spent on each child's education annually. This means fewer after-school programs, outdated textbooks, and more teachers having to reach into their own pockets to fund basic schoolroom supplies.
It should come as no surprise that the previous administration finalized this RMP over the strong objections of the State of North Dakota. The State's concerns were ignored. Instead, the BLM plowed ahead with this harmful RMP.
Good land management requires local buy-in and support. This RMP is not supported by North Dakotans. The only people who support this plan are the radical environmentalists who called the shots under the previous administration.
I commend our current Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgum, who is spearheading the administration's efforts to restore energy dominance and listen to rural America. Secretary Burgum was the Governor when this RMP was finalized, and he led the charge in opposing this Biden- era preservationist plan.
I have full confidence that under the leadership of President Trump and Secretary Burgum, the BLM will emerge as an agency that works for North Dakotans and all those rural Western Americans who live closest to the lands.
I applaud Representative Fedorchak for her leadership on this effort on behalf of her constituents to right this wrong. I also recognize Senators Cramer and Hoeven, as well as my former House colleague and good friend, Governor Kelly Armstrong, for their work in supporting the CRA.
This CRA allows us to turn the page on a disgraceful chapter of radical environmentalism pursued at the expense of the American people. H.J. Res. 105 removes the bureaucratic barriers designed to prevent the use of our abundant natural resources. It is an important step necessary to unshackle American energy and minerals and unleash the full potential of our great natural resources.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this joint resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, more coal, more coal. That is their answer again, for the third time. Their answer, apparently, to every question is more coal. Frustrated with energy costs going up across the board, State to State, community to community, more coal is their answer. Health insurance costs going up, grocery prices going up, and the economy in free fall? More coal.
I don't know what piece of legislation we are going to be debating tomorrow, but I suspect it will involve coal production.
It is bordering on obsession for the House Republican Conference, and it would be comical if not for the real-world consequences for my constituents and your constituents, Mr. Speaker, and for Americans across the country who are dealing with the real cost-of-living crisis and who expect more from this Congress than yet another disapproval resolution 10 months into the Trump Presidency, laser focused on passing resolutions of disapproval of agency actions by the Biden administration--real sense of priorities. It is disappointing, Mr. Speaker, deeply disappointing.
If one digs into this particular resource management plan, I think you will find that using this blunt instrument, as I have called it during our prior debate, in this instance is probably the most insidious of all.
There are a couple of reasons why. One, the resource management plan that was adopted replaced a plan that was nearly 40 years old. This resource management plan provided a modern framework that balances responsible energy and mineral development with the protection of wildlife habitat, water resources, cultural sites, and recreational opportunities. It provides a stable and predictable framework to guide and balance the multiple uses of our public lands and resources based on the needs of today and into the future.
It is important to recognize that even if one disagrees with the way in which this resource management plan balances public land uses--and I understand there are good faith disagreements with the resource management plan. The chairman mentioned our mutual good friend, my dear friend, Kelly Armstrong, now the Governor of North Dakota. I recognize we may disagree with the nuances of the resource management plan, but, again, the broader point here is that the CRA is not the proper vehicle for registering one's objection to a resource management plan.
Why is that? It is because using the CRA does not return the resource management plan to the status quo.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act outlines the proper process for updating a resource management plan. That is a process that centers on the voices and needs of local land users, while preserving regulatory certainty.
By contrast, the CRA strips the public out of the process, and it throws public lands into chaos. What do I mean by that, Mr. Speaker? Here is what I mean. If Congress passes this resolution, if the President signs this resolution into law, it will call into question all the leases, all the permits, and any other related authorizations that stem from the resource management plan. Grazing permits, resource development projects, transmission rights-of-way, all of those leases and permits, and so on, will be tied up in litigation if this resolution is passed.
It makes no sense to me why my colleagues have chosen to take this approach and endanger grazing permits in North Dakota when there is a much easier way to do this.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of the Interior is the former Governor of North Dakota. It is true that he could simply change this. He could, through administrative fiat, modify the resource management plan for the State for which he served as the chief executive. He could do that now, and it would not call into question any of the permits or leases.
Instead, House Republicans have taken this approach, and I don't think it is going to achieve the stated objective of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--far from it.
Again, I hope my colleagues might reconsider. I don't have the Secretary of the Interior's phone number, but I suspect my colleagues do. They can call him. I am sure they can get this worked out, and we can save you, Mr.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what is ironic is the fact that Secretary Burgum, when he was the Governor of North Dakota, vehemently opposed this resource management plan, but the prior administration just brushed him off. They didn't care what he thought or what the people of North Dakota thought, just like they didn't care what the Governor of Montana thought, what the Governor of Alaska thought, and what the people who lived in Montana and Alaska thought.
All they cared about was what their NGO and environmentalist friends in Washington, D.C., New York, and Los Angeles thought about lands in faraway rural places and how they wanted to impose their will on what happens in these rural areas where our resources abound.
Isn't it ironic that the resource management plans for the three States that we are talking about are Alaska, Montana, and North Dakota, States with very large landmasses, with abundant resources, and not a lot of people? That is the definition of rural America.
The previous administration was attacking rural America, and they used these misguided resource management plans as their tool to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Dakota (Mrs. Fedorchak), the lead sponsor of this legislation and the only Representative from North Dakota.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Westerman, the chairman, for his leadership on this issue and all energy-related issues. He is providing a great service to our Conference and to the country.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of my resolution to repeal the Biden administration's Bureau of Land Management Resource Management Plan for North Dakota.
First, let me respond briefly to my colleague from Colorado's comments about energy costs. His constituents, the dear people of Colorado, and many other constituents in blue States, like New York and California, probably are paying record prices for electricity and other energy products. That is because of their very own States' unrealistic and radical energy policies.
I promise, in North Dakota, citizens are not paying record prices. In fact, they are paying the lowest prices of any other State for electricity. I know this because, for the last 12 years, I helped set those policies. Changing these policies so that the rest of America could also pay lower energy prices was one of the driving forces of my running for this office.
In my State, energy production isn't a political debate. It is our way of life. It provides paychecks that feed our families, revenue that funds our schools, and power that keeps America moving forward.
Unfortunately, President Biden, in his very last week of office, chose to put special interests above all of that.
Mr. Speaker, North Dakotans saw the Biden administration's plan for exactly what it was. It was a backdoor attempt to shut down fossil fuels in our State. That is why our State immediately filed a lawsuit against the previous administration.
As our filing made clear: ``The amended RMP is not only unlawful and unwise but it is also emblematic of everything that was wrong with the prior administration's approach to cooperative federalism.''
Amen. That is exactly why we are here.
The truth is because of the checkerboard nature of Federal land and minerals across our State, this plan would close vast amounts of North Dakota to oil, gas, and coal leases for future development.
In fact, it would lock up nearly 99 percent of North Dakota's Federal coal acreage. That is more than 4 million acres. It would also block nearly half of our federally owned oil and gas acreage. That is nearly 213,000 acres.
This is absolutely the wrong direction. As demand for energy reaches record highs and Americans want to pay less for everything, we should unleash American energy, not shut it down.
North Dakota does have a very clear vision for energy development. We have proven that responsible energy development and environmental stewardship actually go hand in hand. We have invested billions in clean and emissions-controlled technology. We have reclaimed our lands and maintained some of the strongest air quality records in the Nation.
We can grow the economy, power the country, and steward the environment all at once. That is the American Way, and that is certainly the North Dakota way.
The Biden administration failed to recognize that and completely ignored all of my State's concerns with the plan. If we want to talk about intellectual dishonesty, that is the definition of it. So is so much of the Democrat's energy policy that ignores current technical realities at the peril of our American citizens.
Mr. Speaker, that is why my resolution is so important. It reverses the Biden administration's plan that ignored my State's serious concerns, restores true cooperation between the State and Federal Government, and gets North Dakota energy back on track.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
At its core, this is about more than North Dakota. If Washington can override State expertise here, it sets a dangerous precedent for every energy-producing State in the U.S. Congress must reassert its role to prevent unelected bureaucrats from locking up resources, raising costs, and undermining our energy security.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Stand with innovation. Stand with American workers. Stand with the families who power this Nation. This resolution puts States like North Dakota back in the driver's seat where they belong.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague from North Dakota disagrees with the resource management plan. As I said, there are good faith reasons my colleagues have in opposition to the resource management plan.
There is a way to register that opposition. Change the plan. Modify it. Amend it. Edit it. Call the former Governor of North Dakota. Chairman Westerman noted he objected to this plan when he was Governor. Give him a call. He is now the Secretary of the Interior. Ask him to modify this plan. That would be the way for one to register their objections.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen a very different approach. Again, I am just leveling with my colleagues. They are putting at great risk grazing permits and leases that have been issued pursuant to that resource management plan.
This story is not going to end with the President's signature on the CRA. Litigation will immediately follow. It is unclear to me why House Republicans would prefer that outcome, unless, of course, they are bereft of substantive ideas and an affirmative vision for solving the cost-of-living crisis that so many of our constituents are facing that they have made the decision that it is better to spend their time on disapproval of Biden administration-era rules.
That is the only conclusion I am left with. Perhaps my colleague from Oregon will expound on that
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for his advocacy against this Congressional Review Act resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to these dangerous and unprecedented resolutions. A resource management plan is not some obscure rule. It is the playbook for how we manage America's public lands: balancing energy, grazing, and recreation with protecting clean water, wildlife, and the long-term health of the land.
The three plans under attack today took years to develop. They reflect extensive Tribal consultation, public input, and the expertise of career scientists.
As the gentleman just said, these resolutions don't just undo those protections. Under the Congressional Review Act, once a plan is overturned, the Bureau of Land Management is banned from writing a new one that is even remotely similar. In other words, the agency's hands are tied and not just today but for years to come. That is unprecedented.
If we go down this road, we will politicize the very foundation of how we steward America's public lands. We will silence communities, ignore science, and block future administrations from protecting our climate and our health.
Mr. Speaker, public lands belong to all of us. They are a shared inheritance and our shared responsibility. I urge my colleagues to stand up for our public lands and vote ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, unless I can convince the chairman to have a final colloquy, I suppose I will conclude as well.
Mr. Speaker, using the CRA to overturn land use plans, as I have said previously, does take us into uncharted territory. It is not, as some have suggested, a way to return us to the way that we used to manage public lands in North Dakota or elsewhere.
The resolution pulls the rug out from under all public land users. It calls into question the validity of grazing rights, permits, transmission rights-of-way, and other permits and authorizations that are premised on the land use plan being nullified.
It disregards the Tribes, local land users, communities, and businesses who provided input over years to craft a modern plan to guide land and resource management for these respective States.
Instead, it puts the courts in charge of deciding the day-to-day management of lands and minerals in North Dakota and beyond. Mr. Speaker, even if one disagrees with the resource management plan for North Dakota, Montana, and Alaska, the way to change it is through an administrative review and a public process and not through a blunt and inflexible tool like the CRA.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to keep local voices and land managers in the driver's seat by voting ``no'' on this CRA resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about lawsuits, there are already lawsuits that are being created because of this bad resource management plan that the former administration put in place.
After we do the CRA and we prevent this administration or future administrations from putting a similar resource management plan in place without it coming back to Congress, then maybe the current administration and Secretary Burgum can write a new resource management plan that actually makes sense, that actually takes into account America's need for energy, and that actually listens to the people in these States where these resources reside. While they are doing that, the previous resource management plan would be in existence.
Again, it is just fear-mongering to say that there will basically be no rules if this resource management plan gets removed under the Congressional Review Act.
Again, I thank the gentlewoman from North Dakota for her leadership on this important issue. The North Dakota RMP will have devastating ramifications not just in North Dakota but beyond. This CRA which rejects the failed energy policies of the previous administration is in alignment with the current administration's executive orders on unleashing American energy and reinvigorating America's coal industry.
In combination with the provisions that Republicans enacted through the reconciliation bill, this CRA will ensure that American energy remains affordable, reliable, and abundant.
America's future is bright as we unleash responsible natural resources development to meet our energy and mineral leads, to create jobs, and to drive economic growth across the country.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 672, the previous question is ordered on the joint resolution.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4553 and that I may include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Tennessee?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 672 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4553.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Fine) to preside over the Committee of the Whole.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 4553) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, with Mr. Fine in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to bring the fiscal year 2026 Energy and Water Development bill to the floor today.
I begin by thanking my good friend and Ranking Member Marcy Kaptur for her partnership throughout this process. I realize we have some bona fide differences and issues on this bill, but we always have very cordial discussions. I do appreciate her very much.
Mr. Chairman, this bill provides a total of $57.3 billion to safeguard the United States' national security, strengthen our economy, and unleash American energy dominance.
The bill delivers strong support for our national defense and provides $25.3 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration prioritizing and continued modernization of the nuclear weapons stockpile and the United States Navy nuclear fleet.
The bill strengthens our Nation's energy security by advancing American leadership in deploying new nuclear technologies and supporting the administration's efforts to make full use of our Nation's vast fossil fuel resources.
This bill will reduce reliance on foreign materials and secure the full supply chain of critical minerals.
The bill furthers our Nation's scientific and technological leadership, providing $8.4 billion for the Department of Energy's Office of Science.
At the same time, the bill reduces funding by 25 percent across numerous other department programs, including the applied energy technology offices, to ensure taxpayer resources are focused on the highest priority research and development projects.
The bill also strengthens our economy and promotes public safety providing $9.9 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, including full funding of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund activities and the highest priority ongoing construction projects on the inland waterways system. Funding for the Bureau of Reclamation is prioritized to projects that increase water supply and support drought resilience.
Finally, the bill provides a number of provisions to codify President Trump's executive actions to protect American values and prevent our resources and intellectual properties from falling into the hands of foreign adversaries.
This legislation reflects a clear commitment to fiscal responsibility while safeguarding our national security and increasing economic prosperity for all of our citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I also compliment the chair of our subcommittee, Mr. Fleischmann of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, for his very gentlemanly behavior on both sides of the aisle so that we can actually move bills, which is our public responsibility.
I thank our diligent staff for all their hard work on this bill. I have to say I am very proud that ours is one of the first three bills to come to the floor. They are long delayed, not because we didn't do our work. We are ready. We want to pass funding for the new fiscal year, which begins on October 1.
I also thank the minority staff, Scott McKee, Anisha Singh, and Adam Wilson, and my personal staff, Kaitlin Ulin, TJ Lowdermilk, and Margaret McInnis. I thank them all, and I thank them for putting up with me.
Engineered energy and water systems undergird America's way of life. Energy and water are not optional but essential to sustaining life.
Of late, we have been piercingly reminded about our subcommittee's purpose. July brought nearly double the usual flood warnings, the second highest in 40 years. On July Fourth, Kerr County, Texas, sadly, saw one of the deadliest flash floods in U.S. history, with 117 lives lost. These tragedies inform us of the power of water and wild energy in our atmosphere.
Let me be clear: No matter how much Members on the other side of the aisle want to pretend that climate change is not happening, for the record, the last 10 years are the 10 hottest in recorded history. Think about that.
Our Great Lakes, the region I represent, comprise the largest body of freshwater on Earth. Specifically, Lake Erie, the southernmost of the lakes, no longer freezes over. Some of our favorite sports, ice boating and ice fishing, are now becoming a memory of the past, and hockey is now played indoors.
America's electric grid is old and under deep strain. The Energy Information Administration documented that the U.S. just set new records twice in July for peak electricity demand. The old grid system is being tested by hotter weather and higher usage. When the grid strains, costs rise and the most vulnerable families suffer first. How would you like to be in Tucson at 120 degrees week after week?
Unchecked growth in data centers alone could raise average U.S. electricity generation costs by roughly 8 percent by 2030. This is not hypothetical. It is happening as we meet today.
In Ohio, rapid demand growth from Big Tech data centers pushes electricity prices dramatically higher every month. Starting this July, households in Ohio saw their monthly energy bills increase a minimum of 10 percent. Some more than doubled. Families noticed a massive increase in monthly bills. I have one constituent
Sadly, this Republican energy and water bill does not meet our Nation's energy and water imperative for the future nor for the present. We must invest faster in modern infrastructure to become energy independent in perpetuity. That is our awesome--underline ``awesome''--responsibility. We must reduce energy costs by investing in modern grid resilience and an all-of-the-above energy portfolio.
This bill fails to address the cost-of-living crisis currently underway. Overall, household electric bills nationally are up 10 percent. That is just since January. In places like northern Ohio, I am hearing that, for many people, the total for energy and water bills has doubled. Every family in this country knows that. Even higher energy bills lie ahead for families and businesses.
China is investing record levels in energy, making its products more competitive. Sadly, this bill retreats from U.S. global energy leadership. What do I mean? The bill cuts $1.6 billion, or 47 percent, from the Department of Energy's energy efficiency and renewable energy programs. This undermines our Nation's imperative to deliver clean, affordable, and secure energy to the American people.
Our Nation should lead, not lag, in the global race toward energy independence in perpetuity. We must build an abundant clean energy future.
This bill eliminates funding for the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, which means building the future. It revokes $5.1 billion of bipartisan infrastructure law resources from the Department of Energy, which will cede the U.S. global lead in hydrogen, direct air capture, battery recycling, and consequent energy savings possible in every public and private structure.
Already, U.S. businesses have delayed or canceled--this is a shocking number--more than $33 billion in investments in energy projects this year. That is lost economic growth. Over 64,000 jobs have already been lost or stalled in the clean energy sector. That is uncalled for.
In May, this administration revoked $3.7 billion in Federal energy investment for 24 energy projects already signed, sealed, and delivered across America, including for manufacturing companies to become more energy-efficient and including over $100 million for Libbey Glass, Owens-Illinois Glass, and Kraft Heinz across our region of Ohio alone.
President Trump promised he was going to help American manufacturing. That revocation actually goes completely in the opposite direction.
Thus, I must strongly oppose these additional Republican cuts to vital energy production and conservation--and America's future--through the U.S. Department of Energy.
Shortchanging these advances pushes our Nation backward and raises already high energy prices even more for consumers.
In other areas, this bill dangerously shortchanges our national security. The bill slashes $412 million from the Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation account. This effectively guts our efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, detect covert nuclear threats, and uphold arms control agreements that keep us safe. All of those cuts are a big gift for Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea.
Additionally, this bill turns its back on communities still living with the toxic legacy of America's atomic past by zeroing out the Army Corps program to clean up radioactive waste at early nuclear sites. This is deadly.
It slashes $779 million from nuclear cleanup efforts. That is three- quarters of a billion dollars. This will delay the cleanup that these communities have been promised for decades. I will note that one of these American atomic waste sites is in the village of Luckey, Ohio, not so far from my district.
Finally, this bill includes numerous controversial poison pill riders that are so extreme that they cannot gain bipartisan support and become law.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. America can and must meet the new age frontiers of energy and water. Nature is signaling. Times are changing. We must not turn back the clock but seize the baton for future generations to come.
Now is the moment to keep America on a steady path forward for an all-of-the-above energy, water, and nuclear security portfolio.
Mr. Chair, I thank Ranking Member Kaptur, Chairman Fleischmann, and all the staff for their thoughtful and dedicated efforts in the drafting of this measure.
Recently, I joined constituents in Indiana's Lowell Labor Day parade, in Laborers' Local 81's summer picnic in Valparaiso, and an Ironworkers' picnic and bingo in Crown Point. The issue at the top of everyone's mind is the rising cost of their utility bills.
I choose to serve on Appropriations' Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee because I believe that energy and water will be two of the greatest challenges for our national security and economic stability in the years ahead.
I understand the role of the Indiana State regulators, but I also believe that the Federal Government and this bill have a role to promote the availability of a variety of energy resources in order to drive down costs.
The Department of Energy has a critical role in conducting research in energy innovation, including for wind, solar, and nuclear, and also to ensure that we maximize the efficiency of all of our energy sources, including oil, gas, and coal. More efficient energy production means lower prices.
It is deeply disappointing that this measure follows the administration's lead to abandon the transformational projects like the hydrogen hub in my district. Industry, the USW, the building trades, other labor organizations, along with communities throughout my district, were planning for and relying on massive economic development investments, only to see this project undermined because the Republican majority's tax and investment policy is now: Do not invest in our future but, rather, give more handouts to the privileged, wealthy, and few at the expense of the working class.
Let's be clear. The Federal Government should be building, not blocking projects that strengthen our economy, lower costs, and create American jobs.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation and, instead, work in a bipartisan manner to promote long-term economic prosperity in our communities.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the hardworking and highly able distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the authorizing committee.
Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, for the time, but also agree with her in urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this really terrible bill.
Today, we are debating one of the worst Energy and Water appropriations bills I have ever seen. Usually, when you are in charge, they are very good, actually, but this one is terrible.
I think it sets a dangerous precedent. It hurts our constituents by increasing their energy costs, just as so many are already seeing huge hikes to their bills. It weakens national security, and it undermines the critical work that the Army Corps of Engineers does to keep our coastal communities safe.
Mr. Chairman, I will focus on the cuts to shore protection. Republicans are making a massive cut to the shore protection funding that allows the corps to fund beach replenishment projects in places like the Jersey shore in my district.
This Republican bill woefully underfunds replenishment projects by hundreds of millions of dollars. Just recently, Hurricane Erin slammed our coasts, washing away dunes and eroding beaches, a stark reminder of why replenishment funding is so critical.
Mr. Chairman, House Republicans are abandoning coastal communities at a time when climate change is accelerating erosion and increasing the risks of devastating storms.
I have to stress that beach replenishment projects and shore protection projects aren't luxuries. They are lifelines. We don't do them so people can sunbathe. We do them to protect the homes, the businesses, and the public infrastructure.
Towns in my district and in red and blue districts throughout our country alike depend on beach replenishment to prevent damage from coastal storms. It is that simple.
We can't let a bunch of climate-denying Republicans in Congress gamble with New Jersey or other coastlines. I think about it like a slot machine on the Atlantic City boardwalk: We will just hope that the storm doesn't come, and we will be okay.
Mr. Chairman, that is not what happens. The reality is that places like the Jersey shore need protection from the next big storm and making drastic cuts like these are simply dangerous.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), who works so hard on all climate issues. I thank the gentlewoman so very much for speaking today.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me time and thank her for everything that she does to protect the pocketbooks of American families.
Mr. Chairman, American families and small business owners deserve lower electric bills, but Republicans in Congress are really sticking it to folks with higher costs at every turn, especially in this spending bill.
Mr. Chairman, Representative Kaptur is right. Household electric costs and energy prices have risen 10 percent this year. In some places, they have more than doubled, driven by Trump's tariffs; new demand from Big Tech AI data centers; and expensive, old, polluting plants.
Back home in Florida, Florida's largest utility has proposed the largest utility rate hike in U.S. history, amounting to $10 billion, that will raise Floridians' electric bills by hundreds of dollars every month.
Mr. Chair, Republicans in Congress are now making it worse. Their big, ugly bill, which was passed in July, already is projected to crush working families with higher costs, and now their spending bill adds insult to injury by slashing home improvement weatherization savings.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Let's talk about how Republicans in Congress are making it worse, harder for families to afford the cost of living, especially when it comes to their electric bills. Their big, ugly bill, which was passed in July, already is projected to crush working families with higher costs.
Mr. Chair, this spending bill adds insult to injury by slashing home improvement weatherization savings and taking a hatchet to cleaner, cheaper energy and the important initiatives to modernize the grid.
If my colleagues care about helping their neighbors out of the affordability squeeze, they will vote ``no'' on the Republican spending bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), who is a genius who just happens to be a Member of Congress, as well, so the country is twice blessed.
Mr. Chair, I rise first with an acknowledgement that, due to the efforts of the ranking member and chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Energy Development and Related Agencies, this bill could have been far worse. That is not the bar that we should set for ourselves.
I am particularly concerned about the 17 percent cut in the funding for the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation within NNSA.
This cut comes on top of last year's continuing resolution, where this office was cut by 7 percent and was only one of a few accounts to see its budget reduced by that bill.
The Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is involved in critical nuclear security work, which is actively keeping us safe, from securing nuclear material worldwide to verifying that other countries and various rogue actors are not developing nuclear weapons.
It would be nice if we lived in a world where a miraculous Golden Dome could keep us safe from nuclear weapons, but we do not. We depend on being able to detect and enforce violations of nonproliferation agreements.
This bill leaves wide open opportunities for countries like Iran and other nefarious actors to more easily get their hands on the materials needed to build nuclear weapons. With tensions mounting in the Middle East and the internet containing significant bomb-making instructions which are much more accessible to terrorist groups, this is not the time when America can afford to step back.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support for this year's Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act.
Mr. Chair, I will talk about Texas for just a minute. The Texas Gulf Coast boasts 23 commercial seaports, 7 of America's largest petroleum refineries, 3 LNG plants, and 60 percent of the Nation's strategic petroleum reserve.
As the energy capital of the world, we understand the critical importance of this very important, very good bill. Our hardworking families on the Texas Gulf Coast depend on a robust energy sector, as do most Americans. Even other countries depend on our energy sector.
This legislation, Mr. Chairman, will help us to continue to lead in producing the cleanest, most affordable oil, as well as gas. Many of the projects within this bill will advance many of President Trump's goals. It is working. He is making progress. We are making progress. His goal is to advance returning to an era of American energy independence.
Let me repeat that. America will be, once again, energy independent.
We will be revitalizing critical ports. We will be revitalizing the waterways that serve, actually, as a lifeblood for maintaining our dominance in the global marketplace. It is just that simple, Mr. Chairman.
This great Energy and Water Development appropriations bill, let me tell you what it will do. It will bolster our economic strength. It will bolster our economic strength, which suffered the last 4 years, under the current administration. It will create jobs. It will create jobs that are much needed by Americans.
Mr. Chair, this is going to create jobs, not just for Texas but for the entire Nation.
The gentleman across the aisle just mentioned Iran, that somehow this is going to help make it easier for Iran in the nuclear realm.
I think Iran just discovered that President Donald J. Trump is serious when he says they will not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. I think they probably figured that out by now.
Mr. Chair, I will end by saying kudos to the Energy and Water appropriations bill under this committee. We appreciate the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).
Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill as we continue along the path of making America great once again.
Mr. Chair, this Energy and Water bill costs American households, undermines U.S. global leadership, and weakens national security. Sadly, this Republican Energy and Water bill does not meet our Nation's imperative for the future.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. America can do better,
Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member and the Members who have spoken on this bill.
In closing, I urge strong support of this great bill. This bill helps all of America regain energy dominance. It fulfills the great agenda that President Trump has set out not only for nuclear but for energy. It is a bill that helps all Americans with community projects for both Republican and Democratic districts. It reaches out and does great things for energy, for water, for the Bureau of Reclamation, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank all of the Energy and Water appropriations subcommittee staff for their hard work, in particular Scott McKee, Anisha Singh, and Adam Wilson.
I am opposed to this bill. Not only will it raise energy costs for American households and businesses, hurt our competitiveness, jeopardize our energy independence and weaken our national security, we are holding this debate weeks before the end of the fiscal year, with no path forward to prevent a shutdown and Congress's authority being attacked by unchecked Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought and a lawless Administration.
Since taking office, the Trump Administration has stolen resources, appropriated by this committee, for programs and services across the federal government that help to grow the middle class, protect the working class, support small businesses, and make sure billionaires and corporations play by the rules and pay their fair share.
The cost-of-living crisis is felt by every American family--middle class families, working families, rural families, seniors and other vulnerable Americans. But the president is not laser focused on the cost of-living crisis.
President Trump has attacked and destroyed programs created by Congress and funded by the Appropriations Committee that protect our national security and help increase domestic energy production. They are substituting Congress' decisions and judgment with their own, turning Article I of the Constitution on its head.
These cuts are not only felt in Washington, D.C. They affect all of our constituents.
Just a few months ago, states across New England, including my state of Connecticut, were ready to begin an ambitious and collaborative effort to increase energy transmission capacity across our region, to build resiliency and lower energy bills.
Nearly $400 million was going to be invested through the Department of Energy's Grid Innovation Program to provide onshore connections for offshore wind power, improve the electric grid, and install energy storage through a project called Power Up New England.
But the President's Day One executive order abruptly halted offshore wind energy projects in their tracks, and the Department of Energy froze Power Up New England's grant. That project was expected to bring enough energy online to power about 2 million homes, and reduce energy costs for customers by up to $1.5 billion per year.
Energy demand is higher than ever and only increasing. Cheap, reliable energy is key to affordability. The future lies with low-cost wind and solar, not more expensive oil, gas, and coal. We have to increase energy supply or costs will continue to rise for the American people--and we will be dependent on importing energy to meet our goals.
Instead of focusing on ways to help lower energy costs, House Republicans are using this bill to further gut critical federal resources and advance their own ideological agenda.
Their cut of nearly half the budget for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is a direct attack on the programs that lower energy bills for working families, create good-paying jobs in our communities, and keep America competitive.
This bill revokes funding that supports hydrogen energy, batten, recycling, and energy improvements in public schools, as well as support for public-private clean energy projects.
Their bill undermines the very programs that help us stop the spread of nuclear weapons, detect nuclear activity, and uphold arms control efforts that make America and the world safer--and it underfunds efforts to clean up sites contaminated by our Nation's early atomic energy program.
All of this after Republicans passed the Big Ugly Bill, a law that gives massive tax breaks to billionaires and the biggest corporations while driving up home energy bills for families by as much as 30 percent.
I cannot support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote NO. Instead of working with Democrats to lower prices and invest in technology that promotes our energy independence, House Republicans are pushing a bill that raises energy costs for families and businesses, and eliminates good-paying jobs.
The CHAIR. All time for general debate is expired. Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.
The bill shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill is as follows:
The CHAIR. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in House Report 119-232, amendments en bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution 672, and pro forma amendments described in section 4 of that resolution.
Each amendment printed in the report shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and
It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the report not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees, shall not be subject to amendment, except as provided by section 4 of House Resolution 672, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of debate.
Mr. Chair, pursuant to House Resolution 672, I offer amendments en bloc as designee of Chairman Cole.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc consisting of amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 34, 35, and 36, printed in House Report 119-232, offered by Mr. Fleischmann of Tennessee:
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 672, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. Chair, this bipartisan en bloc amendment was developed in coordination with the minority. It contains noncontroversial amendments addressing important issues at agencies funded in this bill. These amendments have been agreed to by both sides.
Mr. Chair, I respectfully support its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, which would require the Appalachian Regional Commission to conduct the study on the inclusion of low Earth orbit satellites to be used for economic development.
The United States should be encouraging and embracing new technological advances that help bridge the broadband gap across rural regions, ensuring all Americans are connected to the modern economy.
Many towns and communities within my district in southern Ohio still lack access to broadband, which, frankly, is unacceptable. Without reliable internet access, students face challenges in completing homework, patients can't receive telehealth services, businesses are less incentivized to invest in their communities, and people can't work from home.
My amendment, which is included in this en bloc, will help show that low Earth orbit satellites have the capabilities to provide adequate broadband access to communities and create economic development within the Appalachian region.
As a co-chair of the Rural Broadband Caucus, I am committed to connecting folks as quickly as possible whether that be through fiber, wireless service, or satellites.
Congress should be implementing a technologically neutral broadband approach and the inclusion of this new technology will provide additional avenues to provide broadband to people in my district and across the Appalachian region and finally give them access to the modern economy.
Mr. Chair, I thank Congressman Taylor for coming to the floor, who is a fellow Buckeye. It is great to have southern Ohio and northern Ohio on the floor at the same time.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).
Mr. Chair, I thank the ranking member for her time.
Mr. Chair, data centers are sucking up our most precious resource: water.
Larger data centers can each drink up to 5 million gallons per day or about 1.8 billion gallons annually, usage equivalent to a town of 10,000 to 50,000 people.
At a time when the climate crisis is driving water scarcity even in places not used to shortages, we cannot afford to ignore this grave threat. As the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, I am not ignoring this threat.
Today, I am grateful for the inclusion of my amendment in the en bloc that gives the Federal Government the tools it needs to understand and address how new technological demands are straining our communities' water. It is a simple, commonsense step, and in the face of an otherwise catastrophic bill that slashes clean energy incentives and raises prices, I am grateful to find consensus around safeguarding water for our communities.
This amendment is one small step in the right direction. I will not stop fighting to protect water, to protect our children's future, and to protect our planet.
Mr. Chair, I urge the adoption of this amendment en bloc.
Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hill), my friend and also the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
Mr. Chair, I first say thanks to the distinguished chair and thanks to Members on both sides of the aisle for bringing this important bill to the floor, H.R. 4553, our Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
Mr. Chair, my amendment today includes funding to the operations and management account under title I of this bill, which is the funding for the Army Corps of Engineers.
Specifically, I would like to highlight my application that the Little Rock Army Corps has submitted on behalf of a river in my district, the Little Red River, for the Sustainable Rivers Program.
Mr. Chair, the Little Red River has become home to a sizable and attractive wild brown trout population. It is a regional mecca for trout fishing in the mid-South.
For example, the Little Red River is home to the former world record 40-pound brown trout. Over 25 miles of fly-fishing water and over 1,000 fish per square mile brings anglers of all sizes, types, and ages to Arkansas.
Mr. Chair, because of Arkansas' many rivers, lakes, and other natural beauties, recreational fishing that is done on the Little Red River now contributes $1.2 billion and 10,000 jobs to the Arkansas economy. However, despite this beloved place in Arkansas' heritage, this river's existing tail water trout fishery has been struggling for years.
After careful conversations with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, the Little Rock Army Corps of Engineers, and groups representing recreational fishing, I want to voice my support for the Little Red River's application to the Sustainable Rivers Program.
The Sustainable Rivers Program would allow the Little Rock Army Corps to plan effectively for the environmental stewardship that correctly assesses water trends and helps the Little Rock Corps decisionmakers make good, low-risk decisions for the benefit of this trout fishery.
It also prevents the need for new and required equipment, environmental reviews, such as those required under the National Environmental Protection Act, and changes to the current water control plan.
Mr. Chair, additionally, this program would build upon the previous success that the Arkansas delegation achieved in the last Congress for the White River Basin Comprehensive Study.
Mr. Chair, I thank the leadership of the committee, I thank the Rules Committee, and Chair Foxx for adding this amendment under consideration for the floor today and approved by the Rules Committee. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Representing the largest fishery on the Great Lakes where we have white fish, perch, and pickerel, I would be very interested in the gentleman letting us know how long brown fish grow. What is their length?
Well, a 40-pound trout is not anything like the deep freshwater fish of the Great Lakes, but if you had a 26-inch fish, that is a huge brown trout. I was fortunate enough to be out in Wyoming looking for rainbow trout, and if you found one that was 15 inches, you would be flabbergasted. I am proud that Arkansas held the record for the brown trout for about 25 years.
This Sustainable Rivers Program is an important program through the Corps of Engineers for our freshwater fishery in Arkansas and across the country, and I thank the gentlewoman for the consideration.
Mr. Chair, my amendment increases and decreases $50 million for the Corps of Engineers in order for me to bring attention to the failure of the Corps of Engineers to dredge a particular section of river that winds through the heart of my district.
The Vermilion River, for a 17-mile stretch, is prone to flood. The Flood Control Act of 1941 established that this river should be maintained at 9-feet deep and 100-feet wide.
In 1956, the Army Corps of Engineers classified the project as an operation and management project to be maintained at 9-feet deep and 100-feet wide for a 17-mile stretch of a river that runs through a density of population and has never been maintained. The river has been dredged one time in that period of time. In 1997, they dredged 1 mile.
When I came into office, I focused on getting it done. The Corps said they needed money. I asked how much. They said: Well, we really need science first. We need to study it first.
All right. How much do you need for studying it?
I got them that, a quarter of a million. They had data done by a top IT university in the entire world with 500,000 data points. Across 17 miles of river, it was determined that dredging needed to happen, so the Corps of Engineers said: Okay, we need $50 million to accomplish this.
I got them the $50 million. They have been sitting on that money, Mr. Chair, for 4 years, and we have had enough. I believe the Corps of Engineers is not in compliance with Federal law nor are they in compliance with the will of this body nor are they performing according to the funding of this body, and I intend to do something about it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. Arrington), the chairman of the House Budget Committee and my dear friend.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes good on President Trump's executive order to supercharge U.S. energy dominance by harnessing advanced nuclear technologies.
In the heart of west Texas, at Abilene Christian University, we are building a first-of-its-kind molten salt research reactor, a game changer, no doubt, for making nuclear energy safer, more efficient, and deployable.
This project, Mr. Chair, isn't just pie in the sky. It has generated over $110 million in private investment, $112 million from the State of Texas, and just last month, thanks to the leadership and vision of Secretary Chris Wright, has received a conditional commitment from DOE to provide its fuel.
This is the only molten salt reactor to ever receive a construction permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the first research reactor to
Mr. Chair, this advanced nuclear technology is the best chance for America to beat China in the very important nuclear power race and secure our Nation's future energy security.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cloud), who also is the vice chairman of this Appropriations subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I thank our chairman for his great work on this bill. I am happy to say that this bill supports the much-needed transition away from the policies of the previous administration in regard to energy and water and puts us on the right path, which is much needed, to support the President's agenda.
It does this in a few ways. It cuts waste, fraud, and abuse. It preserves our nuclear stockpiles so America can continue the President's mandate of peace through strength, and it works to restore our energy dominance and security that President Trump accomplished in his first administration. Yet, the Biden administration worked to undermine us at every step along the way.
Mr. Chair, $5.1 billion in green new energy scam funds are being transferred to various nuclear programs, including the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, which helps companies get closer to building nuclear facilities. This is extremely important.
We saw how the EV mandates and the policies of the previous administration spent billions and billions building only a handful of charging stations, again undermining America's energy dominance.
In the base of this bill, there is $50 million for the ARDP demonstration programs and $77 million for risk-reduction projects. We secured close to $5 billion in Army Corps projects that improve navigation and operating waterways for vessels which strengthens our economy, helps us to export, and helps us to lead on the world stage.
Projects like the Matagorda and Corpus Christi Ship Channel projects provide waterways for imports and exports, resources like LNG, crude oil, fertilizers, chemicals, and petrochemicals. The Corpus Christi Ship Channel alone exports the highest amount of crude oil in the country and is one of the top exporters of LNG to our allies and friends around the world, being the number one energy export port in the world.
Water is going to be a major issue as we continue to go forward and develop. There is language in here that points to desalination projects to help receive research and development funds so we can continue to lead, grow, and develop, and it contains language for the Bureau of Reclamation to develop seawater desalination facilities as we continue to move forward.
Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his leadership on this and for the great work in supporting the President's agenda.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a necessary amendment. It addresses the importance of all types of energy research and development, R&D, funding at the Department of Energy, DOE, specifically, the energy research being conducted at the Office of Fossil Energy.
Any effective plan to handle increased energy demand must take into account our Nation's vast supply of coal and natural gas and our talent for technological innovation.
Artificial intelligence and the data centers to support it are going to require a boatload of additional power. While we don't know the exact amount of electricity we need, we know it is going to be a lot more than we have today because our country is facing increased electricity demand for the first time in 10 years. The appetite of AI and data centers is enormous. AI needs to be developed, controlled, and led by the United States of America, not an adversarial or competitive nation like China.
China is projected to increase its emissions for the foreseeable future and reportedly began construction in 2024 on coal units equivalent to 94.5 gigawatts of power. That is a lot, Mr. Chairman.
Additionally, China is financing a number of coal-fired plants in Africa and other countries with emerging economies. China is responsible for 93 percent of new coal power plant construction, and I don't believe that we should let our expertise and our vast amounts of coal in this country, good, clean coal, wither.
As I have said before, in the developing world, more energy means more hope and less poverty, and that helps us, as well. We take for granted, in this case, that our lights are going to come on when we hit that switch and turn it on. That is not always going to be the case if we don't continue to use all-of-the-above energy strategies.
Developing countries don't want to force their people to live in poverty because of a lack of energy, so they are going to use coal. What we can do is produce that coal. We can help them if we unleash our technological advantages and help find better ways to use coal and natural gas more cleanly. We should use our expertise in finding ways to control emissions with carbon capture and other pollution control technologies.
That is why DOE funding for fossil and renewable research is vital. We need to produce and then export the best, cleanest, and efficient energy technology to the world. It helps us, and it helps places like India and sub-Saharan Africa, where many of their people don't have a steady supply of electricity. Nobody can blame them for using dirty coal and those Chinese technology plants, which are not as good as the U.S. plants, because they want to make sure their people have a chance at prosperity, as well.
DOE plays an important role in this R&D, but we can do a lot more for fossil energy innovation and exploration. That is what the amendment does.
In the past few fiscal years, the delta between renewable energy research and fossil energy has really widened for the research that we are doing.
I am advocating with this amendment that we shouldn't ignore our fossil fuel efficiency and carbon mitigation research.
My amendment increases the fossil energy account by $6,875,000, or 1 percent, with an offset from the departmental expenses account.
To be clear, I am not against renewable energy research. I just believe we shouldn't be putting all of our eggs in one basket.
I urge my colleagues to support an all-of-the-above energy policy and,
We ought to use it. God blessed us with this resource. We ought to use it. We ought to use it cleanly. We ought to use it responsibly. We ought to be able to export our technologies to the rest of the world. If we don't do the research, we can't do it.
I ask everybody to support this all-of-the-above policy plan and support my amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 printed in House Report 119-232.
Mr. Chair, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 4553.
Mr. Chair, my amendment No. 21 is to the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2026.
My amendment No. 21 prevents the Army Corps of Engineers from closing campgrounds around Lake Lanier. My amendment will ensure that these campgrounds are open for my constituents and people from all over the country to enjoy the outdoors in Georgia's Seventh District.
Lake Lanier is the most visited lake of 464 federally operated lakes in the United States, with well over 10 million annual visitors from all over the country. The Army Corps runs the lake and the campgrounds and parks surrounding it.
This summer, the Corps closed many of the campgrounds around the lake, citing a lack of manpower and resources. Congress had provided $8.7 billion in annual appropriations for 2025, which was actually $1.5 billion more than the agency's own requested budget. They cited safety concerns and manning issues, which we addressed appropriately, although they announced the closures after they actually did it.
Thanks to the efforts of myself, Congressman Clyde, and our amazing local officials, State legislators, and county commissioners, we were able to reverse most of these closures and keep almost all of our parks open under the control of our local governments.
Congressman Clyde and I also introduced the Lanier Parks Local Access Act to cut red tape and allow local partners to efficiently allocate budgetary resources properly across all campgrounds.
Nevertheless, the Army Corps of Engineers should never be able to shut down our facilities without any accountability.
In today's day and age, where people are hooked on their cell phones and electronics, it is more important than ever to protect our outdoors so that our constituents can touch grass instead of a computer screen.
In short, citizens should never be denied access to the very parks that they fund.
Mr. Chair, in rising in opposition to this amendment, I do so because the amendment prohibits funds provided by this act from being used to close campgrounds or parks operated by the Army Corps of Engineers that are located at or around Lake Sidney Lanier in Georgia.
I can certainly understand the strong interest in preventing the Corps from closing campgrounds and parks in any particular area and certainly this one. The Corps is one of the Nation's leading Federal providers of outdoor recreation. They do not provide it in my district, though it would be nice if they did.
In this place, the Corps' recreation sites receive more than 260 million visits each year and include more than 400 lake and river projects in 43 States. They have a very broad reach.
Unfortunately, the Corps of Engineers' recreation funding has declined in recent years, and I support the notion that we do not want the Corps to close recreation sites due to lack of funding.
However, this is an issue that affects hundreds of sites across dozens of States. Then there are places like I represent where we don't have any Corps sites but we would like one.
I don't believe we should begin the practice of using funding prohibitions to carve out special designations but, instead, should develop a comprehensive solution to address the challenge of funding Corps recreation sites.
For this reason, at this moment I oppose the amendment. I look forward to working with my colleagues to develop a solution to the larger challenge at the Corps. The door is open if we can find other sources of funding.
Mr. Chair, in order to address my peers' concerns, I will restate in the middle of this where I said specifically $8.7 billion in annual appropriations in 2025, which was $1.5 billion more than they requested. This is not underfunded. This is not declining. This is actually more than appropriate to keep those parks open.
They had a manning issue, which was brought on by themselves, by not manning when they had the appropriate funds. Then when the President put a limitation on that, we addressed that. It was opened up again. We actually helped them recruit and staff. We actually opened up to local governance, as well. It is not like we didn't provide multiple solutions to keep those campgrounds open.
They also have objections to safety issues because of the inability of safety vehicles getting to those places. Ironically, by limiting the access, the traffic is more congested and is made more unsafe.
I happen to be a safety officer, trained in Monterey in the military, to ensure these kinds of things were actually addressed. I want to make sure they are not only funded but also very safe and manned appropriately.
Mr. Chair, all those issues were actually taken into consideration. I don't think this is a partisan issue at all. I definitely want to see people have access to those very funded things. This actually produces funds. This actually is a moneymaker for the government and is well- funded and should be well-staffed.
There shouldn't be any objections to this from the standpoint of the concerns that my colleague has. I think we did address those things appropriately.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. McCormick).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 printed in House Report 119-232.
Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the use of funds to implement or enforce the Delaware River Basin Commission's rule to ban hydraulic fracturing within the Delaware River Basin.
The best way to combat high energy prices is to produce more energy in America and in places like my own Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the second largest natural gas producer in the Nation.
Unfortunately, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats at the Delaware River Basin Commission have instituted a hydraulic fracturing ban for a portion of the State of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, stripping away property and mineral rights from Pennsylvanians in contravention of the will of the State's 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 the mineral rights of Pennsylvanians, all while keeping prices high.
To be clear, this amendment simply prohibits the Delaware River Basin Commission from implementing or enforcing its hydraulic fracturing ban but does not impact the ability of the States in the Delaware River Basin Commission to regulate hydraulic fracturing as they see fit.
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 disproven by the facts.
The safety of hydraulic fracturing has been demonstrated through its extensive use across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and across the country for decades now.
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 of New York City reservoirs are upriver from Pennsylvania or on the Hudson River, which does not connect to Pennsylvania, precluding any impact in Pennsylvania from reaching these reservoirs.
Mr. Chair, the intention of this amendment and its primary impact will be unleashing Pennsylvania's full energy potential by allowing Pennsylvanians in the river basin to use their property and mineral rights as they see fit as free Americans, subject to the laws passed by their elected Representatives.
It is time to stop this underhanded attack on property rights, representative government, and State sovereignty and restore American security. Opposition to this amendment is support for the hydraulic fracturing ban and for higher energy, in particular, natural gas prices for our constituents.
Mr. Chair, I urge passage of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition because this amendment, as I understand it, creates a funding prohibition related to the Delaware River Basin Commission.
The Delaware River Basin Commission is a Federal interstate compact agency charged with managing the water resources of the Delaware River Basin on a regional basis without regard to political boundaries.
As established by law through the Delaware River Basin Compact that went into effect in 1961, which is a half century ago, the Commission consists of the Army Corps of Engineers and the four basin State Governors. Those States include Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. Each is a significant place in the union.
The Corps of Engineers and these States work as equal partners for planning, development, and regulatory action for the river basin. Given the Commission's statutory mission, it analyzed the risks to water resources posed by high-volume hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling techniques.
We know something about this in Ohio; that is for sure.
Through a public rulemaking process, the Commission developed regulations related to high-volume hydraulic fracturing within the Delaware River Basin.
As a reminder, the Commission consists of the Governors of the four basin States--Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York--and the North Atlantic Division commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
It does not strike me as the proper role for Congress, particularly through an appropriations rider, to overrun or overrule regional and local governments on this matter.
While the commission's work could be further discussed, I am also concerned that this implicates funding provided to the Delaware River Basin Commission as community project funding on behalf of a Member of this body.
For those reasons, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to think about all this. I will be voting against this amendment, but I think there is a little more homework that has to be done on this one.
Mr. Chairman, I have done my homework for years now, and it is the same song every time because nothing changes. While I agree with the gentlewoman from Ohio--she does know something about this and, of course, it is allowed in Ohio, but she said that it is not appropriate to overrule regional and local governments, but that is exactly what the DRBC does. It overrules regional and local government.
By the way, it overrules the Commonwealth Government. While the Governor has a say, there are four other voting members who can overrule that Governor. Quite honestly, what we don't need is somebody from another State telling us how to run our business.
There is no political accountability. We don't vote for people in Delaware, New Jersey, and New York. They are wonderful people, and we appreciate them, but our job is to represent Pennsylvania. That is what I am doing. Pennsylvanians want to have access to their land and to their mineral rights, and they should have it, not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.
Mr. Chair, I urge passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 printed in House Report 119-232.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment eliminates earmarked funding for the Delaware River Basin Commission.
Unfortunately, this bill includes an earmark providing nearly three- quarters of a million dollars to the Delaware River Basin Commission, marking just the third time the Federal Government has provided the DRBC funding since 1998.
The unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the DRBC have unilaterally instituted a hydraulic fracturing
The result is a prohibition on the development of critical shale plays in eastern Pennsylvania that can bring desperately needed natural gas to the market and the unconstitutional taking of the mineral rights of American citizens.
This attack on Pennsylvania energy and American energy is at a time when residential natural gas prices are near record highs, and my friends on the other side of the aisle literally run ads saying that I increase their energy prices while they do it every single day and they are just about ready to do it again.
It creates significant inflation for my constituents and the constituents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and it empowers our enemies abroad.
The earmark in this bill rewards the radical commissioners with money from the very taxpayers and ratepayers the DRBC is attacking.
Providing funds to such an out-of-control, radical commission is a step in the wrong direction that incentivizes others to follow its lead, and it keeps our energy costs high.
This amendment would prohibit Federal funding for the DRBC, ensuring that we do not further incentivize this commission to attack American energy and the rights of Pennsylvania's citizens.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, as I am listening to this debate, and I haven't studied the maps completely, it sounds like Pennsylvania's effluent flows into points east of Pennsylvania.
We understand this challenge from Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana. We have our own tristate issues there.
This amendment prohibits funding for the Delaware River Basin Commission. It is hard to oppose the gentleman from Pennsylvania, but established by law through the Delaware River Basin Compact that went into effect in 1961, the commission consists of the Army Corps of Engineers and the four basin State Governors. Those States include Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York.
I guess any State could disagree, but the purpose of a commission is to try to get people to work together.
The effluent that is flowing from Pennsylvania into New Jersey may have to be tested for its content.
I don't really know, but the Corps of Engineers in these States work as equal partners for planning, development, and regulatory actions for the river basin.
While the commission's work could be further discussed, my strongest reason for opposition to this amendment is that the underlying bill provides $715,000 to the Delaware River Basin Commission as community project funding on behalf of a Member of this body.
The community project funding process allows Members of Congress to request funding for their community to meet urgent needs that they identify, and there is a rigorous process for the vetting and inclusion of community project funding including strict transparency and accountability rules.
I am a little surprised that one Member would target another Member's community project funding through an amendment on the floor.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to work together and to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the community funding process, just understand if you are not familiar with congressional jargon, that equals earmark. That is three-quarters of a million dollars to this organization that heretofore hasn't needed the money because they extort members of the States that they exist in all kinds of fees, applications, and licensing agreements from townships and other municipalities for private individuals. That is how they are paid for. Yet now we are going to pay three-quarters of a million dollars from the Federal Government when we are $37 trillion in debt.
While I am happy to agree that we should test the effluent, I am good with that, but apparently we don't care about the effluent from Ohio to Pennsylvania or from Pennsylvania to Ohio where we conduct the same activity. Oh, by the way, there have been no cases of any issue where hydraulic fracturing caused some effluent issue that I know of or that I imagine my counterpart on the other side of the aisle can speak to.
As a matter of fact, I said that the Obama-era EPA said that it was completely safe.
While I agree that we should do those things, and if there is a problem we absolutely have to get after it, but we are just throwing money at this thing when there is no evidence that there is a problem. There is zero evidence that there is a problem, number one, and there is zero evidence that they need any of this money, but there is $37 trillion of evidence that we don't have the money to pay for it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 printed in House Report 119-232.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E, program.
Modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, known as DARPA, the agency funds research and development of advanced energy technologies.
It sounds like a noble goal.
Despite a purported goal to identify and promote revolutionary advances in energy, the agency is more focused on misguided, ineffective climate and so-called green priorities.
For years, ARPA-E has drifted from its mission and provided grants to companies and projects that are neither high risk nor something that the private sector cannot and does not support.
Among recent awards, ARPA-E has supported the Net-Zero Game Changers Initiative, which is subsidizing climate-warming refrigerants and Jetsons-style electrification of aviation.
With all due respect, as a member of the Transportation Committee, if they want to electrify aviation, God bless them. Let them and the Wright brothers from the gentlewoman's great State of Ohio invest. It is always better when the private sector invests. It is always more efficient, and the outcomes are always better.
The Trump administration has also called for the elimination of this program, and rightly so, recognizing the private sector's primary role in taking risks to commercialize breakthrough energy technologies with actual, real market potential, not made-up ones by the good idea fairy from the Federal Government.
Mr. Chair, my colleague's amendment would eliminate the Advanced Research Projects Agency, or ARPA-E.
ARPA-E's mission is to fund projects that are not yet addressed in the private sector but can bring about a transformational shift in current energy technologies.
Nearly 75 percent of ARPA-E awards go to small businesses and academia. ARPA-E projects have led to over 1,200 patents being issued and have attracted more than $14 billion in followup funding from the private sector. I have actually witnessed this with many companies, Mr. Chair, and this has been a very successful program.
Perhaps to ease my colleague's concerns and his great desire to reduce funding, the bill already includes a 24 percent reduction from fiscal year 2025 to ARPA-E funding. Therefore, I must respectfully oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Chair, I certainly appreciate the chairman's view. I think his view is actually the same as mine, recognizing that it has already had a 24 percent reduction. Quite honestly, that is great that it has produced all of these patents, but wouldn't it be better if the private sector produced those patents? Right now, the American taxpayer is paying for those patents, but you know who is not getting any of the money, the royalties, or the licensing for those patents? The very taxpayers who pay the bill.
Again, I get that many see this as a great jobs program, and it provides a lot of great things for America, but those things should be provided by the private sector because we simply cannot afford to pay for all of this stuff. Something has to give.
The private sector wants to make money. It wants to get patents. It wants to license things. Good for them. They should do it. The American taxpayer doesn't want to pay for it. If they are paying for it, where is the return on the investment?
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 printed in House Report 119-232.
Mr. Chair, this amendment eliminates funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program and transfers that savings to spending reduction. This is another wasteful, so-called green energy handout program that should be and must be eliminated.
The ATVM Loan Program has been plagued by a failure to produce viable products, political favoritism, inefficient use of taxpayer funds, a failure to create promised jobs, and a significant potential for fraud and misrepresentation.
Unfortunately, this is to be expected from this kind of program. The very nature of the program ensures that it will be the government selecting winners and losers based on political considerations, as opposed to actual marketable technologies.
Instead, we can and must empower the market to provide consumers with products they actually want rather than forcing them to adapt to whatever technology the bureaucrats and good idea fairies in Washington, D.C., think they want or demand that they want.
Despite the massive amount of subsidies provided through this program and others to electric vehicles, it is clear that the majority of the American people do not want them.
The government-funded EV bubble appears to be deflating. The truth is, 98 percent of all cars on the road today are gas-powered, and 97 percent of all annual car purchases are gas-powered.
I am not against EVs. If you want to buy one, God bless you, go buy one. It is just that the Federal Government should not be involved in it. What is the proper role of the Federal Government in buying your car? I submit it is not the proper role.
Despite literally paying folks to produce and buy these cars, overall market penetration has been minimal, sales are slowing, and consumer sentiment is moving away from EVs.
According to McKinsey & Company, the place where the last Secretary of Transportation worked, 46 percent of current battery electric vehicle owners are likely going back to internal combustion engine vehicles for their next purchase.
Consumer Reports found EVs to be associated with 79 percent more problems than conventional vehicles. It is absolutely clear that this program has failed, and we need to stop the forcing of Americans to transition to EVs, even though we think that they should and they don't want to.
It is long past time to finally bring an end to the green new scam and defund this misguided program, as well as all the other DOE loan programs that pick winners and losers based on politics rather than markets.
Mr. Chair, I say to the fine gentleman from Pennsylvania that I drive a conventionally powered car. I put gasoline in my car. I don't have a favorite. I had a brother who was a race car driver, so he tried everything.
This amendment, though, would strike all funding provided in our bill to oversee and administer the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program, ATVM for short.
All I have to say is that we need lots of hands on deck in inventing the new overground transportation systems for this country because, globally, we are falling behind, and the companies know it.
This program is currently responsible for carefully vetting and conducting oversight of more than $30 billion in loans that are either active or have conditional commitments. There are ATVM loan projects across the country, across industrial America--my colleague and I share that, both bounty and struggle--in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, New York, Michigan, and Indiana. These are projects that support the production of advanced vehicles, vehicle components, and critical minerals.
I am actually fast at the task of building a Toledo car because I don't want all of those gizmos they put on the cars today. You are forced to buy it when you go in, but you don't want it. Then, if it breaks, it costs $500 or more to get it fixed. People don't want all of that stuff. If they want the stuff, let them select it.
However, the ATVM program is projected to add almost 40,000 jobs nationwide, and we need it. Today, we are faced with an amendment to undercut those investments and jobs across our country.
Even for those who do not support the critical work of this program, eliminating this funding is truly cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Mr. Chair, if you want to increase fraud or hinder the ability of the Federal Government to interact with private business quickly and efficiently,
Without the necessary support to advance and oversee these investments, we risk our national security by letting our international competitors, China in particular, outpace our efforts at home.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this misguided amendment.
I have staff members who drive hybrids. They like those. I don't like the particular hybrid one of them drives because it is too close to the ground and you feel the road too much.
We all have opinions based on what size we are and how we can see out the windows and all, but I really do think that anything that has to do with advanced technology vehicle manufacturing is something I do not want to displace in the array of options that we have as a country. There is too much at stake here.
We have just seen the rebirth of the steel industry and are fighting for that every day. I was just up at the Soo Locks in Michigan looking at our ability to move steel and other material from Duluth all the way down through the seaway and then out to the world. We are working very hard on reinvesting in manufacturing America.
Madam Chair, I would not at all support the elimination of this program or the cutting short of this program at a time when America really needs it. So much of our componentry has been shipped offshore because they pay cheap wages. They pay penny wages, and they can move componentry.
Madam Chair, I had something happen to my car, and they took out the part. Sure enough, a foreign part failed. I could have been killed. You look at this, and I thought: I know this wasn't made in our country. Where was it made? You can guess.
We have to restore American manufacturing. I think that this is one way that we can do it.
We also have to invent new fuels. We, in our region, flew the first biofueled F-16 aircraft in this country. It didn't crash. They loved it. We are inventing the new fuels of the future, biofuels.
Half of the corn and soy in my region goes into fuels. It is a good thing it does because we have lost our agricultural markets to Brazil and Argentina selling to China, so our farmers aren't exporting into China anymore because of what is happening globally in the marketplace.
For manufacturing America, I oppose the amendment because I want invention here. I want manufacturing here.
Madam Chair, the gentlewoman from Ohio and I certainly agree that we shouldn't be forced to buy things for vehicles that we don't want. They are heavier. They are more technologically sensitive. I mean, you are essentially driving a computer around. Like the gentlewoman said, when it breaks, you are paying through the teeth for the whole thing. We certainly agree on that.
Yet, Madam Chair, that is all being forced on us by Washington, D.C. It comes out of this town. That requirement and those mandates come from this town.
To the 40,000 jobs that this supports, Americans are great at building cars. I don't care whether you drive a hybrid, an electric vehicle, or a traditionally powered vehicle, including diesel. That should be your business. Yet, this picks the winner and says: You are going to drive an electric vehicle, subsidizes it, subsidizes the manufacture of it, and then subsidizes the purchase of it.
Madam Chair, no one is subsidizing the purchase of my vehicle. It has 340,000 miles on it.
Even Elon--I talked to him, once a darling of the left, now much supported by the right--agrees that there should be no subsidies for these vehicles. He doesn't want subsidies on anything, and I agree with him on that.
As far as being in competition with China, unfortunately, China provides the vast majority of what makes these vehicles work. We are buying this stuff from our enemies. Let's buy it from Americans and let Americans determine what they want. What they have said is that they don't want EVs forced down their throats.
If they want to buy one, they can buy one. If they don't, then they can buy whatever they want. I am just saying that the government shouldn't be involved in paying for it. It is not fair to people who don't buy them and have to pay for them anyhow.
Madam Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 printed in House Report 119-232.
Madam Chair, Federal loan guarantee programs transfer the risk of the loans to the taxpayer, pure and simple. As with any government subsidy, they reduce market discipline of loan recipients. You are not worried if you are getting a loan because the taxpayers are going to pay it. You don't care whether you produce anything or not.
The checkered past of the DOE's loan guarantee program demonstrates that it is not immune from these concerns. 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, paid for by the taxpayer, before filing for bankruptcy and leaving the taxpayer holding the bag and getting nothing for it.
To add insult to injury, A123 Systems and Fisker Automotive were purchased by Chinese companies for pennies on the dollar. The taxpayers paid, and China was enriched, meaning the CCP was the ultimate beneficiary.
Madam Chair, this is crazy that we are even talking about this. What government supports another government that says that they are your enemy or that you are their enemy? China has said that we are their enemy. Yet, we are selling them, at pennies on the dollar, these taxpayer subsidized failures. It is outrageous.
Madam Chair, the so-called Inflation Reduction Act provides for approximately $11.7 billion for the Loan Program Office to issue new loans. This additional funding raises significant concerns that the program will, once again, be used as a piggy bank for energy sources and vehicles that the American people don't want and that drive up costs to consumers.
People will ask why everything costs so much. It is because we are subsidizing it. When you are guaranteeing the loan and the loan fails and you are on the hook for it, the American taxpayer doesn't know that they cosigned these loans, but they did.
Like I said, to add insult to injury, then China gets the place. It is unbelievable that we should even have this conversation, but we do.
Madam Chair, I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, this amendment would effectively eliminate the administrative expenses for the loan guarantee program.
That would do two things: First, it would prevent any new loans for nuclear projects. Second, it would remove the Department's ability-- this is very important--to conduct oversight for the existing loan portfolio. That is moneys that have already been loaned.
As the Chair may know and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know, I am a champion for nuclear energy in this great Nation of ours, and I am so proud of the way that we are moving forward. This program is so critically important to the development of our new nuclear technologies.
The administration is counting on the Department's loan programs to revitalize the nuclear industry and deliver advanced reactors to the electric grid for years to come.
Nuclear energy represents our best option to meet our energy demands for the future in a safe, efficient, and cost-effective way. This loan program will be an important part of that strategy.
In addition, eliminating the loan program's administrative expenses would jeopardize the government's ability, again, to receive loan payments and ensure the financial health of the existing portfolio. We must ensure proper oversight of taxpayer funding.
Madam Chair, for these reasons, I must respectfully oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, I certainly respect the chairman of the committee and his views, and I say this: Next year, when I offer this amendment, I will leave some room in there for administrative purposes to oversee the loans that are already out there. That is a fair argument.
Yet, I would say this, too: I am the proud Representative of Three Mile Island, which is going to be reopened without any government assistance. It is privately owned. They made a deal with Microsoft, which just proves the point.
The American taxpayer already pays the rates for electricity. They are already paying the investors for the investment in nuclear, and I am a great supporter of nuclear. I just don't think it should be the position of the Federal Government to take money out of people's pockets to pay for these things.
Madam Chair, maybe you live in an area where you are not serviced by nuclear power. Maybe you live in south central Pennsylvania where Three Mile Island is going to reopen, but all the money and all the power is going to go to Microsoft. Why should the consumer pay for that?
I am sorry. We have figured out how to do nuclear power and do it well in the United States of America. Quite honestly, probably one of the only times it is screwed up is when the Federal Government gets involved with it. I understand the chairman's position and I appreciate it.
Madam Chair, I still urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 28 printed in House Report 119-232.
Madam Chair, I rise to offer this amendment to reduce funding for the Northern Border Regional Commission, or the NBRC, to fiscal year 2019 levels.
We are changing up here a little bit. We are looking for ways to reduce spending so the American people can keep their money, so we don't have to go further into debt. This is just another unnecessary, redundant program. Like the other regional commissions, the NBRC provides economic development assistance to projects in various States, in this case, Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont.
These commissions simply serve as a slush fund for parochial and regional projects with little to no national nexus. There is no Federal connection to these things.
Let's take a look at some of the funded programs taken from the 2022 annual report, which is the latest one available: $304,000 to purchase a sound system for an auditorium in New Hampshire, over $350,000 to expand rail yard capacity in upstate New York, another $350,000 for a sailing center on Lake Champlain.
Madam Chair, these projects are probably awesome. They are probably all great. Some of them ought to be funded by private investments and others should be funded by States or localities. Instead of pandering to special interest groups, we must pare back these wasteful programs that only serve as a boondoggle for a limited slice of Americans.
The sailing center on Lake Champlain sounds awesome, but most south central Pennsylvanians aren't going there, but they are paying for it. They get to pay.
Let's be clear: This amendment does not zero out the commission's funding. It simply reduces the funding to pre-pandemic, pre-Biden spending levels.
I think most people agree we are spending too much money. Let's start there and see how we can do better.
Madam Chair, I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Chair, the gentleman's amendment reduces funding for the Northern Border Regional Commission by $13 million.
The Northern Border Regional Commission is a Federal-State partnership focused on economic and community development within the most distressed counties in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and New York.
Except for New York--but New York in the north is different than New York in the south--many of these States don't have very many Members of Congress.
When you look at Vermont, I actually have more citizens in my district than the State of Vermont does in its entirety. The Northern Border Commission really does focus on places that often get ignored simply because those States don't have enough people in them to warrant the kind of attention maybe Pennsylvania gets because of its number of people, or California.
The NBRC was created by Congress in 2008 to provide infrastructure and economic development assistance to projects in counties that had varying degrees of economic and demographic distress. These investments lead to new jobs being created.
I have seen what it has done, for instance, in the Appalachian Regional Commission. It has taken a while, but I think many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle from these States, where these commissions function, will agree and say it is the first time that kind of help has come in creating new businesses and trying to create roads that didn't exist and try to promote economic development in really some of the forgotten corners of America.
It is critical to support the rise of all Americans to become part of a thriving middle class. In some parts of the country, it is more difficult than others.
I can guarantee where there has been deindustrialization because of the outsourcing of production, there ought to
I think we are becoming more sensitive to it, and these commissions provide us a very important means to do it.
Madam Chair, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. Actually, I think part of Pennsylvania, is it not covered by the Appalachian Regional Commission? Will the gentleman yield?
I just think that when you look at some of the money that goes out to different places in the country, Pennsylvania hits higher than Ohio does actually. For us, the Appalachian Regional Commission in southern Ohio has been just terribly important.
Has it been the most important vehicle for restoring what was lost or trying to convert to other economic activities? No. Are we crawling forward? Yes. At least we are not falling behind even more.
Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, but I have to oppose it.
Madam Chair, I certainly appreciate the gentlewoman's arguments. I just say that there is a guy named ``Friedman'' who was traveling overseas. He came upon a public works project. Everybody was down in the ditch with shovels digging--many men digging with shovels, and he said to the person running the thing: What is with all of the shovels? Why don't you buy them some equipment so they can get this work done faster? The guy said: This produces a lot of jobs.
Mr. Friedman said: Why don't you give them all teaspoons instead and you can have even more jobs, or at least the job can last longer.
Of course, throwing money around produces jobs. As far as it being infrastructure, a sound system for an auditorium, while it is infrastructure, I don't think--many people think of infrastructure as roads, bridges, airports, ports, things like that, not a sound system or a sailing center. Those are nice things to have, but those are parochial. Those are local interests that should be provided at least by the State, not the people in the Federal Government. We have lost sight of the role of the Federal Government, which is why this amendment is in order.
Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 29 printed in House Report 119-232.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer this amendment to halve the funding for the Southwest Border Regional Commission, again trying to save some money by not spending money on redundant things.
Yet again, this commission serves as a duplicative slush fund for parochial interests, this time for projects in the southern border regions of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas.
This commission only had its first chairman confirmed in 2022 and was only funded starting in fiscal year 2021, so it is relatively recent.
Look, I know folks on this side of the aisle care about the border. I imagine and hope that folks on the other side of the aisle care about the border. However, the answer to solving the border problems is to actually enforce our Nation's immigration laws, not to give $4 million to a commission that does not even appear to have an operational website.
By the way, this current administration, the Trump administration, is handling the border, so we don't need to waste another $4 million on this commission.
The commission received $250,000 in FY21 but is now being funded at $4 million in this bill for zero results.
Can anybody show or tell me what the results of this commission are?
Again, this amendment simply strikes this figure in half, so even though it is wasteful and useless generally speaking, I am only taking away half, which is still $2 million.
I don't care whether you are from Ohio or south central Pennsylvania, $2 million is a lot of money.
Mr. Chair, I urge support of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces funding for the Southwest Border Regional Commission by $2 million.
The Southwest Border Regional Commission was established by Congress in 2008 to address economic distress along the southern border regions of some pretty important places--Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. In December 2022, the Senate confirmed the first Federal co- chair for the commission.
Think about the delay in the co-chair--that took a large number of years--which enables the commission to convene and begin other activities. I would place the burden there on the executive branch for waiting such a long time to nominate someone and on the Senate to actually clear the name.
These investments lead to new jobs being created, and many of these places have very small towns that don't even have parking lots in their little bakeries or their restaurants. It is critical to support the rise of all Americans to become part of a thriving middle class, especially in the forgotten towns and regions of our country.
I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment on behalf of people who are trying to better their way of life, against all odds.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, of course, all these States--Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas--are on the border. If we are funding this organization to deal with the border, I don't know what to say other than it is duplicative. If you disagree with that, I am not sure what to say to anybody about that.
I have been to each one of these States, and of course, people who own a bakery want a parking lot. I had a business, too, and I wanted trucks and employees, and I needed tools. Do you know what I didn't do? I didn't go to the Federal Government for that. I sucked it up and paid into my business from the money that I made conducting my business, and I grew my business. That is America, not calling on the Federal Government to send a couple of million dollars because I want to make things nice for myself. We get it. We hope all Americans can do great things and make it nice for themselves.
Our government is out of money. It is broke, $37 trillion and climbing. We don't have any money. All this is borrowed money, Mr. Chairman. Every cent of it is borrowed. Who borrows money to do things they don't need to do that somebody else in the government is already doing?
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be postponed.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30 printed in House Report 119-232.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment to reduce funding for the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, the SCRC, to fiscal year 2019, so not zeroing it out, just taking it back to prepandemic levels, so we can try to afford some of the stuff that we are borrowing money, again, to pay for.
Again, this commission serves as a duplicative slush fund for parochial interests. People say: Where does all of my tax money go? Here is another example. This time, it is for projects in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia.
Again, many of these projects are worthy. The question is, should the Federal Government be paying for them, especially when the Federal Government doesn't have any money? The commission operates duplicative programs that are better addressed at the State and local levels.
From 2010 to 2020, the SCRC received $250,000 annually, all without having an appointed Federal co-chair. Just think about that. I know $250,000 is nothing around this place, but there was nobody at the wheel that whole time. That number has now ballooned to a whopping $16.25 million in this bill.
There is absolutely no reason for that dramatic increase in funding, especially when funding projects with no national nexus, like electric vehicle charging stations, stormwater management, and green infrastructure, according to their own 2023-2027 strategic plan.
There is a charging station down the street from me. The owner of the place put it in. He probably got money from the Federal Government. That is probably why he did it. He probably wouldn't have done it on his own. I have to pay for it. How is it fair to me? I don't own an electric vehicle. A lot of people don't own one, yet we are paying for this one.
Our constituents simply do not have the money for these projects that have no impact on their lives because they don't live there. In many cases, it drives up inflationary spending, which is the $37 trillion I keep referencing.
Every time we borrow money here, it makes everybody else's prices go up. We have to quit borrowing it, especially to pay for things that we can't afford, don't need, and somebody else is already doing.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces funding for the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission by $16 million, a commission that was established in 2008, but unfortunately, the Governors of the respective States did not appoint those who were to manage the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission until just a couple of years ago, so there was no way that it could get off the ground.
If you have traveled in that region of America, you would come back a different person, so I urge you to do that.
The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission's mission is to build sustainable communities and strengthen economic growth across the Southeast region, including places in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. The Southeast Crescent Regional Commission invests in the region's economic future through a grant program, publishing research related to the region, and income-producing learning experiences.
Many people there have never started a business, but they want to. You must have had a good father or mother to help you get into business--I don't know--but it is important that opportunity be seeded in all parts of our country to help communities seize opportunity, address economic disparity, and advance prosperity. It is critical to support the rise of all Americans to become part of a thriving middle class, where possible.
Mr. Chair, I also wanted to mention the gentleman voted for the big billionaire bonanza bill that added $4 trillion to the U.S. debt.
Mr. Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I certainly thank the gentlewoman for her viewpoints and comments. I have lived in Florida and Georgia--they are wonderful States--and traveled through all the rest.
I have an awesome mother who helped me in that business and was a part of it. I don't know my father. That is American ingenuity. That is striving even against all odds, like the government, your taxes, your insurance, your payroll, your receivables. We have done it, and we did it without the help of the Federal Government. Many people want to do it. Some people get help from the Federal Government. It is unfair to those who do not.
Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania will be postponed.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Fleischmann) having assumed the chair, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4553) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to "Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan...
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 104) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211, nays 208, not voting 12, as follows:
Mr. JACKSON of Illinois changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted by the Bureau of Land Management Relating to "Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan"
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 106) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, nays 210, not voting 6, as follows:
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There are 2 minutes remaining.
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RELATING TO ``NORTH DAKOTA FIELD OFFICE RECORD OF DECISION AND APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 105) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``North Dakota Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan'', on which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 215, nays 211, not voting 5, as follows:
So the joint resolution was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 672 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 4553.
Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran) kindly take the chair.
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4553) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, with Mr. Moran (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, a request for recorded vote on amendment No. 30, printed in House Report 119-232, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) had been postponed.
Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 119-232, on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order: Amendment Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 by Mr. Perry of Pennsylvania.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote in this series.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 23, printed in House Report 119-232, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 195, noes 235, not voting 6, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
Mr. HARIDOPOLOS changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 24, printed in House Report 119-232, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 143, noes 285, not voting 8, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 25, printed in House Report 119-232, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 77, noes 347, not voting 12, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 26, printed in House Report 119-232, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 140, noes 286, not voting 10, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted No on Roll Call No. 230.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 27, printed in House Report 119-232, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 120, noes 306, not voting 10, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 28, printed in House Report 119-232, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 124, noes 303, not voting 9, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 29, printed in House Report 119-232, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 127, noes 299, not voting 10, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 30, printed in House Report 119-232, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 120, noes 307, not voting 9, as follows:
The Acting CHAIR. There is 1 minute remaining.
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Hamadeh of Arizona) having assumed the chair, Mr. Moran, Acting Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4533) making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the 25th anniversary of the extraordinary impact that Parents Challenge has made in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Parents Challenge empowers low-income families to access the best schools for their children by providing critical financial support for tuition, tutoring, transportation, technology, and school supplies. School choice opportunities span the full spectrum of educational options, including traditional public schools, private schools, charter schools, and home schools.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join me in congratulating and thanking Parents Challenge for its steadfast commitment to empowering parents with school choice.
Over the past 25 years, Parents Challenge has enriched the lives of more than 4,000 low-income students and their families.
Mr. Speaker, ICE is out of control. Everyone needs to know the nightmare that is unfolding for my constituent and his family.
Last month, ICE detained Benjamin Guerrero-Cruz while he was walking his dog. Benjamin is a rising senior and in Junior ROTC at Reseda High School. He is a kid who wants to serve our community. He has been in ICE detention for the past month, separated from his family and friends.
Last week, ICE transferred Benjamin from California to Arizona. Less than 24 hours later, Benjamin was slated to be transferred again to Louisiana but was instead sent back to California. This all occurred without his family knowing.
This is why I introduced the INFORM Act. The INFORM Act brings transparency to ICE's decisionmaking process and fights for the dignity of detainees.
When I visited the Adelanto Detention Facility to get answers into ICE's decisionmaking process, ICE blocked me. I will keep fighting and seeking justice for Benjamin, his family, and all immigrants.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Wesley LePatner, a remarkable New Yorker who was senselessly murdered in late July. Her passing is a tremendous loss to all who had the privilege of knowing her.
Wesley was a remarkable leader, an accomplished executive who oversaw Blackstone's real estate investment fund, a devoted wife and mother, and a true force for good in our community.
Through her work with the UJA-Federation of New York and her tireless volunteerism, she poured her energy and wisdom into strengthening the Jewish community, supporting Israel, and mentoring those who followed in her footsteps.
Her life was defined by service, compassion, and conviction. She gave generously of herself, balancing a demanding career with the steadfast devotion to her family. In every space she entered, she lifted others up.
Today, we grieve with her husband, Evan; their children, Emerson and Jonathan; her parents; and all who loved her, including her colleagues at Blackstone.
May Wesley's memory always be a blessing, and may her example continue to inspire us to lead with purpose, generosity, and love.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advocate for America's foresters, who are in desperate need of our help. Under our current tax code, forest owners do not receive tax relief from the loss of their timber crops.
We are in the heart of hurricane season, and countless foresters are left wondering if the next storm will be the one that shuts down their family farm for good. This is unacceptable.
My bill, the Disaster Reforestation Act, offers a simple fix to an issue that has harmed American foresters for far too long. Under the Disaster Reforestation Act, foresters will be able to deduct the true value of timber destroyed by natural disasters from their taxes. This would help provide immediate relief for landowners affected by wildfires, hurricanes, or other disasters.
This bill will save family forestry in America, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation. I urge its immediate passage.
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart tonight to note the passing of a really good friend and colleague who I came up with in the State legislature, Mr. Sam Paredes.
He was a strong, strong advocate of protecting all of our rights as Americans, focusing on the Second Amendment with his work with Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America, and through the foundation.
Beyond that, Sam was a good man, a great patriot, and a great family man. His family was right there beside him working the events, working the efforts out there to protect people's basic freedoms on the Second Amendment.
Sam was a man of strong faith who believed in God and loved Jesus and would always sign off each night to his family with: All is well in the kingdom. You don't find a lot of people like that in the political realm there who are beyond politics.
The movement that he helped build for the Second Amendment is stronger because of him, and that legacy will continue long after we can't remember all about it. His unwavering commitment to liberty and, indeed, his leadership helped shape the national movement to protect, keep, and bear arms.
Beyond that, the man himself, his personal attention to people to make sure they are okay, to be that friend, to be that big bear of a guy, you just don't see very many people like that in this world, especially in the realm of politics, as I mentioned.
He will be severely missed. He was greatly loved by his family. It was a surprise that we lost him, and I will miss him, as well.
Indeed, he was a great man and a great patriot. There is not anything I could say that even fulfills what a good man this is, so God bless his family. God bless Sam Paredes.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 21 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, September 4, 2025, at 9 a.m.
