H.R. 2289 – American Broadband Deployment Act of 2026

Good afternoon. The committee will come to order without objection. The chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Today the rules committee is convening to consider four measures, H R eighteen ninety-seven, H R four six nine O, H R five five eight seven and H res one one eight two. H. R. eighteen ninety-seven, the ESA amendments of twenty twenty-five would implement a series of precise reforms to the Endangered Species Act, ESA, that would establish clear statutory definitions, focus on species recovery, and consolidate the ESA permitting process. In addition, it would provide incentives for the recovery of listed species, promote accountability for agency actions, and create a backdrop against frivolous litigation. With these reforms, the ESA can be augmented to effectively serve and support wildlife across America's vast and rich environment. H R forty six ninety, the reliable Federal Infrastructure Act, Mr. Langworthy's legislation would strike onerous regulations that are not oriented to present-day construction realities. Those on the left have always salivated over hyper-aggressive green energy policies, so much so that when they create policy on the issue, they do everything they possibly can to over-regulate everything in existence. What's the result? A serious lapse in common sense, increased cost burdens, mandates being used like edicts and arbitrary efficiency targets that are categorically insane. This legislation works to undo that madness by helping rein in inflated construction costs, boost the timelines of projects, unleash innovation, and facilitate facilitate an overdue return to common sense in policy making. hr fifty five eighty seven the harnessing energy at thermal sources act of twenty twenty six hastens the production of geothermal energy development while lowering cost and cutting regulatory red tape this legislation makes a series of clarifications that will help unbind the hands of geothermal operators thereby accelerating the development of this It would strike duplicate to federal permitting requirements if a state-issued permit has already been issued to the operator. Further, it would also allow geothermal projects to advance when the federal government does not have a controlling stake of the subsurface geothermal estate. And finally, we'll turn to HREAS eleven eighty-two. a resolution in support of the invaluable contributions made by rural communities across America and the policy progress that has been made in support of them. This important resolution will serve to bind Congress to a commitment of delivering for rural America. We are utterly dependent on our rural communities for food, energy, and American-made products, and yet decades of federal policy have let these communities slip through the cracks. As this resolution lays out, the one hundred and nineteenth Congress has turned this dynamic around and we must continue on that trajectory. With that, I look forward to the discussion that we'll have here today, and I now yield to the ranking member for any comments he wishes to make.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. Um, so, after Republican's late night shenanigans last week, I think it's important to recap what happened so that the American people understand exactly what what went on here. Republicans spent most of last week negotiating with themselves over FISA. The biggest point of contention has been whether to include a new requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained before searching through previously collected data if that search is an effort to obtain the communications of US persons. That's key. It's about searches of already collected data. Under current law, no warrant is required uh for that kind of search. Many of us on both sides of the aisle believe that should change. That is exactly what the Biggs amendment we offered and voted on in this committee last week would have done. Unfortunately, my Republican friends voted to not make that in order. But instead of having these debates out in the open, Speaker Johnson worked with a small handful of Republican holdouts behind closed doors. The result? Rules Committee Republicans posted the text of a brand new bill at ten thirty, on Thursday night, and then told us we would be on the floor debating it within the hour. No committee meetings, no mark-up, only thirty minutes to review the text and get to the floor. One of the first things I saw when we got the text was a section starting with the title " Warrant Requirement". For a moment, I thought they actually done the right thing and included a real warrant requirement. But they had not. Their so-called warrant requirement section simply restated existing law that the FBI can't unilaterally target US persons when collecting surveillance, that's already illegal, um and not at all what the current policy debate is about. Even worse, the sloppy way they drafted this provision may have actually expanded warrantless surveillance of some cases, not eliminated it. So it became clear very quickly that Republican leadership, both here and in the administration, were tr- were trying to pull one over on the entire membership of this House. They said a deal was reached. In reality, no deal existed. They claimed uh there was a new warrant requirement. There wasn't. Republicans apparently thought that if they slapped the words " warrant requirement" on a section title, and rushed it to the floor members and the press would not notice that the text did no such thing luckily we noticed it we exposed it in real time on the floor uh and the deeply flawed proposal went down in the end a bipartisan agreement was reached to clear uh a uh ten day pfizer extension by unanimous consent to allow more time for negotiations and a part of that agreement was a commitment from Republicans to post the final product text at least seventy-two hours before any vote. And I hope that they honor that commitment. Because the process we saw last week was an embarrassment. And it was sloppy, it was deceptive, and it was shameful. And it should never, ever be repeated. And also last week, Republicans wasted time working on a do-nothing resolution to wait for it, pat themselves on the back for passing their one big ugly bill into law. Mister DeGuss uh even asked republicans i wonder what they're gonna do next week are you gonna introduce a different commemorative resolution you know that was a joke right i mean we do not expect you guys to to take that literally and yet here we are with another do nothing resolution this time recognizing the work of the house of representatives for rural communities let me repeat that not a bill that does anything to actually help rural communities. No. Republicans are passing a resolution congratulating themselves for their own bills. I mean, you can't make this stuff up. They are literally giving themselves a participation trophy. Meanwhile, families are struggling to pay for groceries, to pay for gas, to pay for housing, and to pay for health care. And this, in light of all of that, is what Republicans think Congress should be doing? Another self-congratulatory resolution? that helps nobody this resolution does nothing and if it passes and if it passes nothing nothing will change but that is the story of this majority at a time when people want congress to lower costs and make life a little easier republicans keep using their power to reward the powerful and waste everyone else's time i wish they stopped with the meaning with with i wish they they stopped with that meaningless resolution because uh it only gets worse as you go down the list Look at the rest of their bills. More giveaways to corporate interests. More favors for polluters. More bills written to make life easier for big companies and harder for regular people and local communities. The common theme here, though, is that Republicans are choosing corporate corruption over the public interest. They are choosing fossil fuel companies and well-connected lobbyists over families back home trying to stay afloat. And now we hear the farm bill may come up next week. Apparently, for the first time since January, Republicans have remembered that they can call for amendments. Let me repeat that. They have not asked members for an amendment to a bill in over one hundred days, since January. For months, this majority has shut down debate, blocked all submitted amendments from coming to the floor, and tried to turn the house into a rubber stamp for Donald Trump. And now, I bet you expect applause for allowing a little bit of the process uh you have all spent months uh trying uh trying to destroy. But let's be clear. Regardless of the process, this farm bill is a disaster. It's awful. It's terrible. It's beyond words. It is a giveaway to big ag and chemical companies. There's actually liability protection in this bill for people who make pesticides. Like who thinks like that? It protects a broken food system. And it will drive up hunger even further and worsen the Trump affordability crisis by locking in close to two hundred billion dollars in cuts to Snap and act it as part of their big ugly bill. This bill does nothing to reverse those cuts, nothing to address those cuts. And in fact, we're hearing that more cuts in Snap are coming in their reconciliation bill. And forgive me if I don't have faith that Republicans are seriously interested in making anything better through the amendment process. So, whether it's these absurd messaging resolutions, giving yourselves gold stars, these corporate giveaway bills, or the farm bill coming next week, which is a a a big wet kiss to the chemical companies, um, and it screws over a lot of small and medium sized farms all throughout this country and makes hunger worse, uh, the story is the same. This majority is not serious, it is not meeting the moment, and it is not working for ordinary people. The American people need a Congress that will fight to lower costs and actually help them live with some dignity. Instead, Republicans are helping the polluters, helping the corporations, and helping themselves. I yield back.

Thank you, Mister McGovern. Without objection, any prepared statement that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel, Chairman Guthrie. ranking member Pilon from the committee on energy and commerce. They sent the big guns today. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes and that you address all legislation under your committee's jurisdiction in your five minutes. Chairman Guthrie, I welcome your testimony.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Chairwoman Fox and Ranking Member But Governor, I'm pleased to be here to discuss a bill and a resolution uh that, today, that demonstrate how the Energy and Commerce Committee continues to work to improve the lives of Americans. First, I'm pleased to speak in support of H. R. four six nine zero, the reliable Federal Infrastructure Act, led by my friend and your colleague on this committee, Congressman Langworthy. This legislation would repeal a ban on fossil fuels for new and renovated federal buildings. Current law requires the Department of Energy to revise federal energy efficiency standards to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in new and renovated federal buildings by twenty thirty unfortunately renewable energy cannot be expected to perform take this past january when winter storm fern when coal and natural gas significantly increased their output to meet demand while new england burning trash contributed eh while in new england burning trash contributed more energy than wind and solar combined uh this legislation does not say federal buildings cannot use renewable energy The bill simply reverses a top-down mandate that eliminates energy choice. If an energy source can contribute to the electricity mix without a parallel, reliable backup like natural gas, then there's nothing prohibiting its, uh, consideration. Based on experience, however, wind and solar have not been able to keep up. Republicans, this Congress has fought for consumer choice, allowing Americans to make the best decisions for themselves when it comes to appliances, vehicles and how they power their homes. That's why I'm also here today to support House Resolution one one eight two, which highlights several additional ways in which the House of Republicans has sought to strengthen rural communities as Congress. For example, we have enacted legislation to unleash domestic energy production, such as reversing the Department of Energy's restrictions on LNG, and requiring FERC approval that grid policies will preserve electricity and reliability. House Republicans have worked to enhance health care, quality and access, We have also bolstered health resources for rural communities. We have also enacted the Support Act and the Halt-Fendo Act to provide crucial resources to rural communities devastated by the opioid crisis. The Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Republican Conference have worked hard and continue to work hard this Congress to celebrate economic growth uh op- and opportunity for the American people. I look forward to your questions and I yield back.

Mr. Guthrie. ranking member alone, you're ranking now.

Thank you, Chairman Fox, and I'll submit the full statement for the record and try to summarize it, if that's okay. Um, I, obviously there are two bills, one bill and one resolution within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee that we're considering today. But on the first one, uh, the resolution, uh, with regard to rural areas, I have to say that I completely agree with, uh, with what Mister, our ranking member, McGovern said. i mean it it's kind of like i don't know my my mother would always say self praise stinks and i think that's what you're getting here in other words it's not actually accomplishing anything it's just basically trying to pat yourselves on the back and say oh the republicans did all these wonderful things for rural areas so let's just acknowledge that but you're acknowledging it for yourself which i think is a little a little crazy uh the bottom line is if you add up all the things that are mentioned as to why you're congratulating yourselves they don't really add up to much um rural areas basically face the same problems uh that everybody else faces, with higher prices, inflation, um you know, health care that that uh that uh i- is is also not only going up in terms of cost of premiums, but also increasingly not accessible. Uh, I would argue that actually these things are probably even worse for rural areas. And um, I I don't see anything in here, even if it were accurate that would change any of that. I mean, all I hear all the time I don't have any rural areas but in in my district, but we have a a lot in New Jersey. And when I go there I hear the same thing, which is, you know, the uh, I'm using the Affordable Care Act and I my premiums uh doubled or tripled because uh the House Republicans and the President didn't extend the tax credits or the subsidies um my gas prices are going through the roof I mean they're well over of four dollars than most of the state in New Jersey right now, and that's impacting fertilizers and the ability for me to, you know, produce, uh, uh, vegetables. You know, we're the Garden State, so we still produce a lot of vegetables, and those prices are going up. So it just doesn't matter. I mean, the bottom line is that whatever you're you say you're doing in this resolution, uh, doesn't address the real problems, uh, that rural areas today face and the rest of the country faces, frankly. So, To me, it's it's just a nothing resolution, self a- again praising yourself, which you know you really shouldn't be doing. That's not what we're here for in Congress, to talk about how wonderful we are. Um, but the other bill, the um the reliable Federal Infrastructure Act is just another hand out to the fossil fuel industry. It repeals a uh a f- a a fossil fuel phase-out that was set up in a bipartisan manner under President Bush. In other words, the idea was, and I was here, was that we were trying to have the federal government kind of lead the path away from fossil fuels because we knew that clean energy was cheaper, we wanted more efficiency, we wanted electrification, uh, because we knew that, uh, ultimately, uh, that was going to lower prices and be more reliable. I I I completely disagree with uh, Chairman Guthrie that this is less reliable. I I think it's more reliable. And the bottom line is whoever in in envisioning what the situation might be a few years down the road from when this bill passed, bipartisan, all the things we're concerned about are more true today than ever, because the price of gasoline, uh, the price of oil products, all of that is going up. So right now, gas is up more than a dollar per gallon. Diesel prices are over five dollars per gallon. Residential natural gas prices have increased by thirteen percent since President Trump took office. uh and and so the prices are surging thanks to trump's reckless war uh in iran and rather than focusing on that and saying hey this is a good idea to try to phase out fossil fuels and and serve as a a lesson for everybody else because what we're facing now with this gas crisis and petroleum crisis you say oh no no well just double down and and we'll rely more on fossil fuels than ever i mean It make, it made no sense when this bill was passed a few years ago, under President Bush. It certainly makes no sense now when things are going through the roof in terms of oil and gas. So I, I just don't understand um what this is all about. The idea uh when this was passed years ago was to create more efficient federal buildings, more modern technology with electrification, uh and and to scale up and become and use as an example, not do what uh uh what um the republicans are trying to do now. So um again, I don't want to keep uh saying the same thing over and over again, but this makes absolutely no sense. It made it made sense at the time to uh phase out fossil fuels. It makes sense when this was passed. It makes sense even more now. And not to repeal it makes no sense at all. So with that I yield back, Madam Chair.

Mm-hmm. thank you very much um i'm gonna defer my questions till little later um miss fischbach you're recognized

thank you madam chair and thank you mister chairman and the ranking member for being here and i just wanted to say i know the ranking member is so excited to be here we we walked over together and and he had a little spring in his step he was so excited to come to rules but um but i do have a a a question for the chair regarding um uh the uh the section four thirty three issue and um you know it it may have good intentions but i think that um that it has been a concern before under other administrations and i'm wondering if maybe you can talk a little bit about that because this isn't something new we are trying to address.

well thanks yes as as my friend the reigning member mentioned it this was two thousand and seven and in starting in so the fossil fuels are supposed to be ramping down starting in twenty ten and it just been difficult for every administrator we've not met the the goal so it started in twenty ten to completely be uh eliminated by twenty thirty in our federal buildings and in two thousand seven uh you know that was before the shale revolution that was before uh the permian basin of of west texas was considered they knew they were not out of oil but they knew they didn't have the and gas but they didn't have the technology to get it. We now have that. And so, uh, to say that it's cheaper to have wind and solar just, I don't think it's accurate. To say it's reliable, we quote what happened in a denim opening statement with, uh, storm Fern. So But, uh, but you're but what you're saying is previous administrations have difficulty doing a Republican and Democrat administration starting in twenty ten. And so what we're saying is it's just it it is one of those things in two thousand seven let's say in twenty five years where everything's gonna be clean, energy-free, unless passed a bill to mandate that, and the technology just hasn't, reliable technology hasn't kept up with it, hasn't been able to be implemented, no administration's met the targets. And what we're saying is just just take it off the books, because it's something that can happen and it's difficult to, it's not gonna happen by twenty thirty, that's that's for sure. And it is something that uh we have the, with the, with the American energy production, I will uh admit american people are hurting today because of what's going on in iran to prevent from iran from having a nuclear weapon and hopefully that is short term you gotta know that the policies that we put in place lot of it through the one big beautiful bill but others had to barrel oil down to about sixty dollars a barrel where people in texas were saying that it's difficult to to even produce oil at sixty dollars a barrel because it was so cheap and so that's the structure we set up we now have a an issue that is causing real concern for the american people i'm not gonna dismiss that but in the end we're gonna have a nuclear-free iraq and our i think we'll get back to the place where where our policies took us which was closer to sixty dollars a barrel bull

and mister chairman i think it's fair to say and you can correct me if i'm wrong but this doesn't stop anyone from using wind or solar or whatever but it what it does is truly truly create the options so that they can look at all of the sources instead of trying to meet some kind of artificial um artificial standard in law

exactly i mean there are some states that they're mandating i can hold a

um

chart up to show which states mandate it more than others and which one has the blue being more expensive

mmm

energy the red being less expensive energy and so uh states can still i mean well this would be federal government making decisions but you can make the same decisions you just aren't mandated to go full uh wind and solar

Well, you can actually make an informed decision and take a look at everything and decide

Yeah.

which option fits that um fits that building best.

Well, what's been consistent with Mister Langworthy here is he has several bills in this area. Let areas have choice. Let areas make choices on what's the best for their community and what fits them the best. And if some states, as you look here, but uh as I showed, had chose to have higher prices because they want different types of energy, that's their decision as a state. Um But uh it's not affordable and certainly not sustainable. And it's not a good not a good decision for the American taxpayer.

Well thank you for being here today,

Thank you.

and thank you Mister Langworthy for bringing the bill forward. And I yield back.

Thank you Miss Fishbox. Mister McGutton, you're right to introduce

Well thank you. Um. Yeah, I just can't quite get this H res eleven eighty two. Um. With all that's going on, uh, that this is what you bring to the floor. I mean, I come from a district, um, that has close to nineteen hundred farms. Uh, I tore those farm- I tore farms every year, I meet with hundreds of farmers every year, and I gotta tell you, not one of them have, has ever said, " You know what we need? We need a non-binding resolution for you to tell us that you care about farmers and the R- and rural America." I mean, they, they actually want, they're hurting right now because of the policies of this administration, and because of the policies of the Republicans in this Congress. And I'm looking at HR- H-RAS eleven eighty-two. It's a non-binding resolution. Uh, basically, um, patting yourselves on the back for for a bunch of stuff that, uh, that you're past, most of which, by the way, n- has never become law. Well, you control the House, you control the Senate, you control the White House, and most of these things that you're patting yourself on the back for never became law. Um, I don't know, if if Democrats controlled all three branches of government, I'd like to think that uh a lot of what we were trying to champion would actually become law uh but all of this is you know you know praising you for all kinds of stuff that uh yeah again um most of it is has has done nothing to help anybody I mean actions speak louder than words I mean this is this resolution is five pages of words with literally zero action five pages of words with literally zero action you get twenty of of its twenty seven clauses are just Repub- uh, Republicans congratulating yourselves for bills you've already passed, and as I mentioned, most of which have not become law. Um, I mean, the resolution can't become law, uh, only says it supports rural America in the title. I mean, I'm looking through the actual text, and it basically just pats House Republicans on the back for strengthening um rural communities. I mean, I'm trying to understand what the goal of this bill is. Uh, Chairman Guthrie, maybe you can explain it to me like like of all the things going on right now with all the challenges that rural communities and our agricultural communities are facing right now like why why is why is this a a priority

well i think it's important to to show and uh there's there's always sense of congress in different resolutions that that we pass and that the work of this congress has been to support rural communities i can go through the list of whereas's in the bills that that um for for example the support act which people with uh recovery uh half Fentolac which is devastating not just rural America but all all of America with with drug um and substance use disorder I I can go through the list if

yeah but it but

you want but the idea is to to say that we are working to help rural America.

but but right but n- but n- but none of none of this in this bill does that and that this bill does nothing to address anything you know the resolution pats republicans on the back for quote historic investments in rural healthcare and you do that at a time when over three hundred and thirty eight rural are at risk of closure conversion or service reduction from substantial healthcare cuts in the republicans big ugly bill by the way including thirty five hospitals in kentucky um you know

yeah that's a that's a list from our governor that's not an accurate list actually

uh well we we did

i've i visited some of the several of those hospitals in my district and i went to them and they said they don't know why they're on the list they're not looking closing and all they did was scare their employees

well

well uh you you have a trillion dollars in medicaid cuts coming plus a whole bunch of other wonderful things that have yet to kick in um you know be prepared to have your phone ringing off the hook you know on on on

uh i think massachusetts is getting a hundred and sixty two million

on on on food on yeah on food insecurity and poverty they're higher they're higher in rural areas because of your policies and they're getting worse but you guys you cut snap benefits for every person who relies on this program with your big ugly bill um and you've already kicked two point five million americans off of snap snap And all the cuts in the in the big ugly bill, they haven't even been implemented yet. Um, and now we're hearing that in the in your next budget resolution reconciliation bill, you're talking about even deeper cuts in SNAP. You know, just just so people on this committee understand, because I think sometimes you don't, but the average SNAP benefit is about two dollars per person per meal. I don't think they do. You know, and that's the benefit you're going after. Um, and again, already people are losing their benefit. hunger is getting worse in this country food insecurity is getting worse in this country it is also a healthcare issue which means more cost for our medical institutions so nothing in this at all addresses any of that and i and i'm just trying to look you know um i mean uh i mean usa today says seventy percent of farmers can't afford fertilizer one third of the global fertilizer fertilizer trade passes through the straits of hormuz according to the un Um, I mean I I don't think my farmers can go with this bill and go in and purchase fertilizer at a cheaper rate, because passing a a sense of Congress resolution that does nothing, I mean, they're out they're out they're out of their minds about how they're gonna be able to make ends meet and be able to stay in business. There's a there's a Farm Bureau study uh, i- that says six in ten farms say, you know, uh, uh, farming is getting worse in this country. is becoming more difficult. And people are beginning to think that they can make a living farming in this country. And there are all kinds of national security implications to that as well. I mean, I want a robust agricultural system in this country, so we don't have to import everything from halfway around the world, that we can rely on local producers to provide the food that we need, uh, to feed our uh, to feed our population. And we also have surveys that increasingly, farmers the people who grow our food are saying they can't afford to put food on the table for their families. I mean, this is the the reality. And I I just I point all this out is because I'm sick, and we did this last week, but I'm sick and tired of this kind of stuff being brought to the fore when we ought to be figuring out ways to help people get by during these difficult times. If you guys want a war with Iran, you can have it. That's your choice. Uh, understanding but we've already spent over fifty billion dollars on that war none of it paid for but all of you deficit hawks and people who care about the debt when it comes to war it's no big problem but already how many how many how how much could we have helped farms in this country with that money how many hospitals could we have built how many you know how many uh schools could we have built how many roads and bridges could we have fixed and and again you know nothing here addresses any of the challenges People in uh uh in our rural communities don't want our sympathy. They don't want us to say, " Oh, we feel bad for you." They want our help. They want us to do something. And I don't care, you you guys are not doing a damn thing, and people are getting fed up with it, people are angry. And this kinda proves my point. This is much ado about nothing. Um, we should be bringing substantive legislation to the floor that actually will improve the lives of our our rural communities and of our farmers in particular. And that's not what we're doing. So I, I'm, I, yeah, I'm, I'm kind of fed up with all this. I don't have any more patience for resolutions to pat ourselves on the back, to pat Congress on the back, for basically making people's lives more miserable. We ought to be more serious and more focused in how we're spending our time here. Because by the way, we're not doing much while we're here in session. We're not spending very much time doing substantive things. And I predict when we get to it, the end of july you guys aren't gonna wanna come back um because you're gonna be busy trying to save your seats um in various congressional districts across the country but this is just frustrating um and i i thank you both for being here but i i wish you were here on something else uh you're back

thank you mister mcgovern mister scott you're recognized

thank you madam chair and um i represent rural america i represent about thirty counties as a matter of fact and And our hospitals are in trouble. They're in trouble because of a piece of legislation called the Affordable Care Act, that gave a select group of monopolies total control over the finance of the health care system. And I can tell you my hometown hospital has millions of dollars in outstanding claims. Um, I believe it is UnitedHealthcare. I believe it is UnitedHealthcare that the CEO told me, uh, owes them the millions of dollars. And it is, uh, an issue again of the insurance carriers not being willing to pay their claims and and this is i think particularly harsh the the insurance carriers are particularly harsh through their medicare advantage plans towards especially our rural hospitals who obviously have cash flow issues and the legal uh fees to fight these um gorillas of insurance companies uh, i is much harder on the smaller ones, but but the the way they got those monopolies is through the Affordable Care Act. So if you wanna talk about the the problems that exist with finance and and health care finance and hospital finance, I'll tell you uh, I I think you're right about the challenges out there, uh, but but you can't ignore the fact that when you effectively took competition out of the market and and supersized the select few health insurance companies that have control of the pharmacy benefit managers uh and and are answerable to nobody uh including state insurance commissioners that's that's where the problem when i meet with my hospital administrators in georgia tell me the problem is it's in the insurance carriers not paying the claims so we can we we agree that there are problems there we have we have disagreements over what caused those problems but they're definitely problems uh and uh and i think it gets back to the insurance carriers not paying their claims um the the other thing i wanna say is this about about the american farmer the american the the farm economy in this country has been in trouble it it was in trouble long before president trump took office long before and uh certainly uh farmers spend a lot of money on diesel and so and so uh when diesel prices go up it hurts the american farmer uh i will tell you i'm thankful that i have a president in the white house and a secretary of agriculture uh, that has made it very clear that they intend to help the American farmer. And I look forward to those proposals to help the American farmer because I do believe that having a strong and vibrant agricultural economy, so that we're not dependent on foreign sources of fuel or food, um, is, is important to America. And I'm thankful that we've got a president that believes in, in energy and food independence from, from other parts of the world. So, so that said, uh i wish we could pass more meaningful legislation but as you know uh when every democrat walks out there and simply votes no on the floor of the house of representatives on the procedural votes and we have one or two or three republicans that vote with them then uh all of a sudden it becomes very difficult or impossible to pass any legislation so so mister chairman would would you like to speak to some of the issues that have been raised here

Yeah, I'm

I certainly trust you and I know you're a good man for

I mean the Thank you, and and I and I appreciate I know the passion of my g- my good friend from Massachusetts, and I and I appreciate, but since the the bill passed, we've had a lot of the your the things that you've raised, the press raises the concerns, and sometimes we it we wanna come to the floor and just break through the noise. And for instance, uh, the it's it does say here, rural transformation, historic investments in rural health care. Now Massachusetts got a hundred and sixty-two million dollars and and the from the Massachusetts plan it says the rural through the rural health transformation program we will catalyze transformative investments that strengthen rural MA I guess that's Medicare advantage Massachusetts Massachusetts communities enable them to thrive and sustain improved health care for generations. It will one um ensure rural resident can readily access health care services, generate opportunities to to improve health and well-being of rural residents, and three scale systems and policies, investments to meet unique needs of rural communities. So the money did flow to Massachusetts, a hundred and sixty-two million. They say it's a an investment into over a billion over five years and to transform rural health care in Massachusetts. So

And this and this is the Rural Hospital Fund where that you're talking about,

It's the Rural Transformation Fund.

Jeremy. Right. And and that is where we get the money to the to the actual health care provider,

Yeah.

instead of to the insurance company. Is that correct?

That is correct.

and that and that is the difference we want to get the money actually to the provider where uh again i think these these the monopoly in the insurance industry is the reason that the healthcare providers are not being paid and and and the demand that we give the supersized insurance companies that had over over a trillion dollars in revenue that if we had given them uh i think it was thirty was it thirty billion mister chairman more that the democrats were demanding in subsidies to a group of carriers that had one point four trillion in revenue that somehow that was gonna save the system

yeah that

and we gave the money to the actual providers

i know that number was more ways than means but i think it's it's it's close to that that number i believe that's accurate

yeah we we believe that the money should go to the provider not to the insurance industry and with that madam chair i yield

thank you

thank you very much mister scott miss ganlon you're recognized

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd yield first to Mister McGovern.

Yeah, so Mister K- Scott just said a whole bunch of stuff that I just feel I need to respond to some of it. First he said, ba- basically blaming Democrats for not bringing more substantive legislation to the floor. I I I thought I heard everything. The the bottom line is, you control everything, um, and uh, and we vote against the rules because you give us nothing to vote for. I'm the one every week in this committee trying to offer bipartisan amendments to bring to the floor so we can debate them and we can vote on them. And every week, you all vote against them. So, if you want democratic support on process, maybe work with us and make a few things in order. Uh, the idea that we should just go along to get along, and get nothing, uh, in terms of what we care about? I mean, that that that's ridiculous. And in terms of big insurance companies, hey, I'm one of the biggest critics of big insurance companies around here. I've I'm ha- I have no pr- If we were bringing a bill to go after big insurance, I'd be happy to join with you. uh i i hope we would have a bill that i could be happy to join with you on but there's not a damn thing in here that talks about going after big insurance companies so to complain about you know oh you know the the problem with uh you know the cost of rural healthcare's these big insurance companies you know when again there's you bring nothing to to fix it uh it just rings hollow and then the other thing is jim guthrie i mean talking about the money that was sent to massachusetts That that whole program is a pittance to respond to the deep cuts in every other health care program that exists, including a trillion dollar cut to Medicaid. You know, I mean, uh, our states all across the country are gonna be have a impossible task of trying to fill in the holes to make sure people don't fall through the cracks. You created this mess. You know, and to throw a few dollars here or a few dollars there and say, oh, you should all be happy. Yo, you you got all this. I I mean, talk to your governors. You know, talk to the people who run the health care agencies in your states. They are panicked. Um, and by the way, you know, talk to your farmers. Uh, the price of fertilizer, the price of diesel, going through the roof. And this is what we bring to the floor. You know, a bill that expresses our the sense of Congress that we're good to, we care about uh our rural communities. I mean people have had enough. I thank the General Lady for yielding.

Thank you, Mister McGovern. Look, I was hoping that since apparently there's nothing urgent and and there's some time on the floor this week that maybe the speaker would see fit to schedule a vote on the bill that passed the Senate unanimously to fund DHS with the exception of ICE and CBP but apparently Funding the government is not a priority for this speaker, so here we are. Instead, we have H res eleven eighty-two expressing support for rural communities. And I'm really struggling to understand what this non-binding resolution is supposed to do or what it's supposed to accomplish. It has no funding, it doesn't make new law, it doesn't repeal old laws, it doesn't help the family farms can't buy fertilizer because of the shortages that trump's war has caused. It doesn't help them buy diesel, the price of which has gone up because of trump's war against Iran. It it doesn't bring back the markets like soybeans in the midwest that have been destroyed because of trump's tariffs. It doesn't help farm families who can no longer afford health care because congress refused to extend the uh premium tax credits under the a c a. Doesn't help rural hospitals that are closing because republic. cut nearly a trillion dollars in their big ugly bill bill and trying to rename and rebrand that bill with a nine binding resolution doesn't make it any more palatable to the American people who've seen that bill the big ugly bill for what it is and they hate it Americans want to see real action they want to see solutions to the cost of living crisis that is eating their checkbooks they they don't wanna see us squander billions of dollars on unnecessary wars And with all the crises facing our country right now, a non-binding resolution saying, hey, Republicans did a good job passing a lot of bills that didn't become law, um, doesn't seem like the way to go. Ranking member Pallone, is there anything you would like to add?

Well, I mean, I, as I said before, I totally agree with you and Mister McGowran about this resolution. It doesn't do anything. Uh, and it certainly even if everything that they claim to have done, uh, is true or had passed, which is you, as Mister McGovern pointed out, most of it hasn't passed, um, isn't going to make any difference because prices, fertilizer, oil, gas, everything keeps going up and it doesn't matter whether in rural America or in, uh, or in the rest of the country, um, you know, the affordability crisis is real and this isn't doing anything or the Republicans aren't doing anything to address it. I I just wanted, if I could respond on the second bill about the federal buildings, um, and I and I guess I'm responding to Chairman Guthrie, you know, he he kept saying, well, if you don't if if you eliminate this mandate that federal buildings move towards away from fossil fuels towards electrification, towards more efficiency, they can still be efficient, they can still uh electrify or or use uh clean energy. But that's I mean, that's not going to happen with the Trump administration, right? if you eliminate the mandate, then the Trump administration, which is so focused on fossil fuels, is gonna move totally away, uh, from exactly what we were trying to accomplish. They're, you know, they're, they're determined to just use oil and gas and and not do anything that creates more efficiency. And we've seen that with the other bills that have come before the House, in terms of what what, uh, the Republicans are trying to do. So, to suggest that, you know, that somehow this is gonna happen, on its own without the mandate, it's just totally not not the case. But in addition to that, I just want everyone to understand that the reason that this was done on a bipartisan basis a few years ago, under the under President Bush, was because we realized that um we wanted to set an example with federal buildings. We know that we would save money. I mean, it's estimated that we would save about three million dollars per year for federal buildings uh if if we move in this direction away from fossil fuels. And that probably was true ev- is even more true today because price of oil and gas keeps going up because of the Iran war but beyond that the the whole idea was to encourage more efficiency and to look at new technology and and and chairman guthrie said oh well that doesn't work we haven't

Mm-hmm.

been able to keep up with the reliability and you know with the new technology well it's that first of all I don't think that's true but if you eliminate the mandate you're certainly not going to keep up with you're certainly not going to encourage new analogy or or more efficiency. And the last thing I would say in that respect is, if anything that has happened in with this Iran war uh has taught me a lesson and I think everyone should understand, look at the example of China. We don't hear much about China anymore around here, maybe because, you know, the the Chinese uh negotiated the uh the uh cease-fire, right? And, you know, because the Trump administration couldn't, so China negotiated it, right? But the one thing we know is that China spent time over the last ten, twenty years moving towards clean energy, trying to diversify so that they weren't as relying on oil and gas. And that has now borne fruit because now they realize that that was the smart thing to do. And instead we do the opposite, right? We double down and say, we're gonna use fossil fuels, we're not gonna move towards clean energy, and we're just falling further and further behind. in this competition, if you will, with China. And I don't hear much anymore about, you know, uh, any of the Republicans saying, oh, we're in competition with China, we're gonna beat China. They don't say that because they realize, in my opinion, that China is making the right decisions when it comes to their economy and the way that they fuel their economy in terms of their energy use, and to now say that the federal government shouldn't try to move in that direction, uh, towards more clean energy, is uh whether somehow it's gonna happen on its own because you know the trump administration is gonna do it it just is not true so i just that's all i i appreciate the opportunity to be able to express uh my opinion on that

well then i i share your concern and it's not just that the trump administration is doubling down on its preference for um fossil fuels but it's paying people not to develop alternative energy sources i mean we have breaking news this week that the Trump administration is paying a billion dollars to a French energy company to pay them off for the fact that it cancelled their leases to build offshore wind. And instead it wants them to um invest in LNG or something. But so we're actually actively paying people not to invest in sustainable energy sources. It is madness, it is um it's a waste of taxpayer dollars and it just has no eye on the So, I appreciate your bringing that up.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, and I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Scanlon. Uh, Mr. Langworthy, you're recognized.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. I I wanna focus on uh my legislation within the rule, H R forty six ninety, the reliable federal infrastructure act. Because when you strip this down, it's a it's really about something simple, whether the federal government and federal agencies are allowed to build infrastructure based on what actually works, or whether they're forced to follow a one size fits all mandate coming out of washington uh right now we're dealing with a federal standard that requires agencies to meet aggressive fossil fuel reduction targets without always taking into account cost reliability or what energy source makes the most sense in the given region chairman guthrie uh when these kinds of mandates are in place what does that mean for the overall cost of building federal facilities and are we seeing projects become more expensive because of that

well they do become more expensive because the argument is if you take away the mandate that you won't develop these other sources of energy you only don't develop them if they're not as efficient if they're cheaper and the the market will go where the right price is and that eh so the argument that it's gonna be more expensive if you take away the mandate just doesn't doesn't fit you know our area have four knocks and the geography of geology or geography i guess geology kentucky as a natural lot of natural gas so fort knox actually is all can go off the grid and sustain itself but you couldn't build a new building after twenty thirty at fort knox unless we got rid of our ability to to not sustain itself so uh that's uh there there's a lot of these and and it goes back to you can't you know so this calls for president trump's in office now this goes back to twenty ten when there's not been a target met because we just haven't it was uh a lofty goal but you know, it's in statute. That's when you put these things in statute. Like we did repeal the every two thirds of every American car had to be electric by twenty thirty-two which is just impossible to do and I even got Secretary Granholm to admit in a hearing that it was impossible to do. But you put these out and you put them in statute and when you can't reach them, either got to say is it possi- is it even possible to do what this law says? I don't think it's even possible to do it. But if it was possible, is it the right thing to do? Would you wanna shutdown fort knox's energy independence so it can run off reliable clean energy um that's not reliable i don't think so that's a good good suggestion

yeah and i think that's the problem that new york's faced right now with uh really adopting what they call the clcpa which basically the green new deal and now they're trying to figure out how to get out of it because they violated their own law because they haven't met the standards um it's not practical it's certainly not reliable and it's it's far more expensive on the pocketbooks of our constituents uh but they can't seem to wiggle out of things uh politically

but someone someone would ask you i mean i'm i know you're asking me correct me if i ask uh i know um yeah i probably would say so i went to college in new york and a lot of people out here think of new york as new york city but it's extremely rural state up the once you get up the hudson river and so do those i i would assume that those mandates that new york has put in has affected farmers with anything and their electricity rates if cause when you look at the blue states

no it's it's effected

i mean most of these blue states california illinois are massive farm states but look at where you see the expense it's had to effect your farmers

uh my district is massively rural and it is it's certainly um uh hurting you know these arbitrary standards have have hurt across the board and including our farmers i mean the the amount of demand uh needing to come out of our grid that can't meet that um is uh really hitting people

well if if you assume the agency is gonna choose the the the the most uh efficient and the best design and you limit them to one design then it does take away their ability to find the best most practical design now i'm not saying in some areas that being clean energy wouldn't be the most practical i'd have to think hard to think of an example but if you take away their options it is necessarily gonna limit their ability to be more practical

right because this standard goes far beyond you know putting led light bulbs in i mean we're talking about you know fully electrified buildings in a place where electric might not be plentiful and might not be uh as practical as natural gas or or other um, more traditional energy sources, uh, there. Well, thank you very much. Uh, if an agency is operating in a part of the country where certain energy sources, like natural gas, is clearly the most reliable and cost-effective option, it seems like common sense that they should be able to use it. But instead, we've put a framework in place, uh, that can steer away from that, even when it drives up the cost or complicates the project. Now, taxpayers should not be on the hook for policies that drive up the cost of constructing federal infrastructure. while making it less reliable at the same time. Uh, agencies should be able to tailor building design and construction to their actual needs instead of chasing arbitrary targets set in Washington that have never been met in the first place. Uh, my legislation helps rein in those inflated costs, speed up project timelines, and allow for more innovation in removing rigid top-down mandates. And it's about bringing a little bit of common sense back to how the federal government builds and operates and i look forward to his passage and i yield back madam chair

thank you mister langworthy mister negus you're recognized

thank you thank you madam chair uh good afternoon chairman and uh ranking member appreciate you both being here uh i know i believe that the ranking member uh perhaps uh expressed some thoughts early on during the course of the hearing at least is my understanding uh that reflected some of the comments that i made in the last hearing that we held uh when we were here a week ago so just by way of background so that the chairman and and ranking member you both can have full context uh for some of my questions i posed what i thought was a authentic and candid question to my colleagues last week uh but apparently it's been more of a rhetorical question which was are we going to continue entertaining these commemorative resolutions do republicans intend to to spend every week here into perpetuity, or at least the remainder of the hundred and nineteenth Congress in the Republican majority, uh, spending their time doing commemorative resolutions. Lo and behold, we're back, and we're doing the same thing again. Uh, H res eleven eighty-two. Um, Chairman Guthrie, the resolution here, I'm gonna quote. This resolution says, expressing support for rural communities across the United States, Right? And then, I'm just gonna jump a little bit, it says quote, and recognizing the work of the House of Representatives in the hundred and nineteenth Congress. What does that mean to you? Uh, uh, what, what, you say recognizing the work. The, what is the purpose of this resolution? It's to recognize your work?

Does the work have to work with Does the work the House of Representatives has done for rural communities? the White House or with We've talked about the Rural

What, but why do we need to do that?

Transformation Fund. What do we need? Well

Why do we need to recognize you?

What do we need for us to meet? Work in the work of the House.

That's what this resolution is doing.

We'll work at the House, representatives.

Okay, why do we need to recognize the Republican majority?

Because I, as as you've heard, there's been a lot of rhetoric here, even today,

Sure.

about you you always my good friend always heard the big ugly bill, and always says that. And we all say they're good things. There were really good things that were done in the bill.

But why do we need to

I just I just did round tables with people on my district getting three thousand dollars back to work for tips,

I I understand that's your position, Mr. Chairman.

blue-collar people.

I guess what I'm saying is You have a position.

But as an opportunity

You b- uh, hold on, uh, let me just.

Okay.

You believe that the Republican majority has pursued policies that have benefited the American people. The ranking member disagrees with that. Why do we need to pass a resolution saying, quote, recognizing the work of the House of Representatives? I, why why do you need that recognition?

We are pa- Well, then we need to pass a r-

Why why do you all need this pat on the back?

I think we need to pass a resolution to cut through a lot of the noise that's been out there to say that we have worked hard for the role of people in this country.

So this is a press release? That's basically this is

This is this is a it's a resolution.

Well, no, I I understand that it's a technical resolution,

Yeah.

but I guess I guess my point is it functions as a press release because it doesn't achieve anything. It's essentially a tool that the Republican majority is using to recognize themselves.

Well, it's a it's a statement of our it's a statement uh you voted for resolutions before in the past,

And I I I'll just say, Mr. Chairman, uh Your predecessor,

I'm sure.

you know, the person who uh not your predecessor, excuse me, the uh the ranking member who was excuse me the chairman who was here last week presenting on the other commemorative resolution that we did uh at least that resolution did not say at the top and in the conclusion that the whole purpose was to recognize yourselves i mean that that that i think is very

was to recognize all of us some of the things that

well

some of the things in this bill we all voted for the support act a lot of us voted for the support act i mean it's it's a work in progress

well well i do uh we didn't vote for the the big ugly bill

You voted, a lot of you voted for the fault hit, the fault halt fentanyl act that helped rural communities, the support act that helped people that are uh suffering from sudden matter of fact your colleague from Colorado was the co-sponsor of the legislation. And so it's not just listening what the Republicans did,

My humble

it's listening what Congress did.

I hear you. My humble request would be because I I don't Well, I don't wanna speculate, but I suspect this is not your brainchild, this resolution. Did you come up with this resolution?

I worked on the support act with uh, with with Congresswoman Patterson from your area, so there are things that we've done by partisan partisan

What was that? No no no no no, I'm not talking about that. I'm saying this resolution, this isn't your, you didn't draft this.

I wasn't the, I'm not the sponsor of this.

You're not the sponsor of this.

I'm not the sponsor of this.

I don't th- I mean I I take you to be a very serious legislator, Mister Chairman. I I you you you all you work on a lot of bills

Well I wasn't the sponsor. I'm not dismissing this, this is not being serious,

with the ranking number.

but I'm not the sponsor of this.

I I hear you. And I'm I'm not I'm I'm just suggesting to you and and maybe i'm making a humble request

mmm

the same request i made to the chairman last week can we just stop with these commemorative resolutions recognizing the republican majority or recognizing the house of representatives let's just be done with recognizing the house let's work on policies that's all i'm saying i i don't really understand this obsession that the republican majority has developed in the last few weeks with passing resolutions recognizing the house what like we get it we understand that you are proud of the work you did and so let's move on and let's do new work

and i and i wanna clarify for you that not everything in here is bipartisan i'm not saying was biased but there were some things in here that were bipartisan i wanna i didn't wanna use someone's name and say they endorse the resolution i wanna make sure that's clear

i hear you i know i know i know not at all i'm not uh uh yeah no and i mean of course

yeah there were things in here that were bipartisan

i take that point as well i'm just suggesting to you

yeah

um and of course i mean we could test out some of these whereas clauses which are

hmm

awfully broad awfully vague and without much empirical evidence, at least as best as I can tell. But in any event, we're gonna have to agree to disagree, maybe we'll have a debate on the floor on that front. I wanna talk about HR uh forty six ninety, Mister Langworthy's bill, uh that you all were just discussing previously. This is the reliable federal infrastructure act. Now, as I understand it, this legislation essentially repeals the requirements that existed previously that were originally enacted in nineteen seventy six is that

think two thousand seven is what i know of it but

why is the original law was passed in nineteen seventy six and then it was amended in two thousand seven

mmm amended two thousand seven is what the basis was

correct so nineteen seventy six right the original law was signed

right

signed by a republican right by gerald ford

mmm would have been gerald ford in seventy six if yeah

correct and then in two thousand seven this bill passes signed by president george w. bush

Correct.

Republican, right? Right?

Right, correct.

Okay. I went back and looked. Do you know how many House Republicans voted for this mandate that you're now trying to eliminate?

I don't know. I don't have the answer to that.

Ninety-five Republicans. Ninety-five Republicans. A lot of them are still here. In fact, some of them are on your committee. Uh, Mister Bill Craya- I don't want to pronounce this right, Bill Crayas, is that

Bill Rock.

Bill Rockus.

Bill Rockus, Mister Bill Rockus.

All of it. two thousand seven was here in two thousand his his father was here too so i don't know if it was him or his father but yeah

he was i would oh well maybe this is this his son that's

i don't know yeah

boracus was his father was in congress all right well i'm not well i'll have to decision

i'm not sure he could have been here too i don't know which one that would have been

maybe it's him maybe it's his dad regardless there are ninety five republicans

yeah

who voted for that bill i will say uh to her you know the madam chairwoman did not vote for it i went back and looked and she she was against these uh you know this mandate in two thousand seven And I I take it as against them now.

I'm sorry, my colleague was here two thousand seventy,

But I think he was.

came before he, I was here, so he would have been here.

Yeah, correct.

But his father, he he followed his father here.

I think That's that's okay in any event. Yeah, that We we can go through his family legacy later. Yeah. The point is this. Ninety-five Republicans supported this, thought this was a good idea, thought it was a prudent thing to do. George W. Bush agreed. Mm-hmm. This Republican Party that you remember of very different than I think the republicans that most of the country has been accustomed to in the past. This to me is a very deep and extreme departure from what was a bipartisan consensus

Right? Go ahead.

that we oughta well, uh, you know, the I I we'll see the the ninety five republicans or at least those who are still here, uh, who voted, uh, in a way that was very different than the chairwoman's. But I I I don't have the same uh, feelings as you could probably imagine that the chairwoman does. I I think that we all should have deep regret at the fact that what used to be a bipartisan consensus has now is no no longer the case. And I, Recky Maripolon, I don't know if you care to expound about on this. I don't know if you were here when we when this you were here.

Well, I was here. Yes.

Of course you were here. You remember this well, but I just I guess what I'm getting at is it's remarkable to me that there was a time when trying to, you know, achieve consensus on issues like this, uh, was something that was valued and revered. And now that's no longer the case. And you're you're you're under you're unwinding mandates, not democratic mandates. These are republican mandates, republican requirements. Don't lay it at the feet of democrats. This was a bill that ninety-five republicans voted.

Well, uh, two thousand two thousand and seven,

Yes.

this bill passed when democrats were in the majority.

And who was the president, Madam Chair?

Uh, well, you just said George W.

Uh, correct.

Bush,

Bush, no, W.

but but this was a bill brought forward by Democrats.

Bush signed this. Sure. Yes. Okay, so just to be clear, so the record is crystal clear, uh, I wanna make sure your chairwoman is right, and I'm I of course wanna make sure that uh we're very exacting in our language. The original legislation signed by Republican President Gerald Ford, amended thirty five years later, sup with the support of ninety five House Republicans and a wide bipartisan margin in the United States Senate, and signed into law by republican president george w. bush. This is the requirement, ranking member, that your chairman and uh his colleagues find to be repugnant and odious and over overwhelming in scope and scale. Your your thoughts?

Well, I'm just repeating, I mean, I I I know that the reason it passed and the reason it was signed by President Bush, because it was seen as something that was good for the future. In other words, the idea would be that federal buildings would set a standard of of efficiency, of um, you know, looking at new ways of doing things that would be more reliable. Um, and um, and if you think about it today, that sort of looking at the future is even more accurate because now, you know, with the Iran war, brought on by the president and supported by the republicans, it's uh, the the price of uh oil and gas is uh at an all-time high, well maybe not all-time for at least for the recent past. And so they were trying to come up with ways at the time on a bipartisan basis to uh to make things more efficient and not rely so much on oil and gas in the future because they knew we had to diversify. Um and um I I I w- the uh the understanding that was

No, it wouldn't.

there on a bipartisan basis is more true today than ever.

Yeah, I couldn't agree uh more, ranking member, and I know we're gonna have a fulsome, robust debate on the floor. So I hope I have a chance to debate my Republican colleagues, uh, who were so effusive in support of this twenty years ago, who apparently have changed their tune. One question, one final question for the chairman, I know the chairwoman will indulge me here, um, given our colloquy previously. So, I I just wanna eh go back to H res eleven eighty-two. Th this is the celebratory resolution extolling the the virtues of uh

OK.

the work that's been done by the Republicans in the hundred and nineteenth Congress. I assume this applies to, I mean it's, a lot of the policies you're listing here were bills that were passed last year,

Mm-hmm.

right? Last fall, last winter, last spring, is that right?

This winter, so I'm this winter.

Okay.

Yep.

And you said you're not the sponsor of this bill, correct?

Not the sponsor of the bill.

Who's the sponsor of the resolution?

Uh, Congressman Fuller, do you remember?

How long has Mister Fuller been in Congress?

He was sworn in last week.

So, five days?

I don't know, that can't count the days.

Yeah, six days.

Yeah, last week.

Kind of fascinating that somebody who's been here for six days is the author of a resolution applauding the house republican conference and all the work that it's done for the last fourteen months. I suppose that's not from personal knowledge.

Okay.

Maybe that it's it's from reading the press releases from uh from the house republican caucus perhaps. Anyway. I yield back.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Breed.

It passingly interesting that um for something that you all think it doesn't do anything you're spending so much time discussing it mister roy you're recognized

yeah i mean time i i don't intend to use my entire five minutes or whatever our allotment is but uh i do just wanna ask uh the chairman um we've had a whole lot of time in here talking about a resolution um which uh is striking is it is it not the case at the end of the day that the point remains like many things that the house of representatives have been passing on behalf of the american people for example the save america act to try to ensure that we have only american citizens voting in american elections we have voter identification for example uh the legislation we are talking about here in terms of uh ways in which we can have uh energy uh that is available that is affordable that is reliable uh that drives down prices for the american people etcetera that at virtually every turn that legislation hits a uh what i call fake filibuster threshold in the united states senate of sixty votes and that therefore part of this is of course a messaging operation and that's part of what we do and there is a bill here to message that we've in fact passed those things the american people should know it and that rural communities that wanna have affordable energy that are being denied that by virtue of the regulatory state the ridiculous mandates uh the absurdity to suggest that so-called green energy is in fact green when it is and that it is cheaper when it is in fact massively subsidized and therefore not cheaper it is only cheaper for some people at certain times by virtue of the subsidy that is making it more expensive by the fact that we're racking up federal debt and costing people more money on the back-end and driving interest rates up and making housing more unaffordable et cetera et cetera is that roughly correct

that's uh that's correct absolutely correct

um i i think and then i just think that merits observation so like resolutions not resolutions i don't love them i don't like post office namings i don't like about crap that we do in congress generally like everybody knows that uh and that's that's a bipartisan statement that is not a nonpartisan statement uh the fact of the matter is the purpose of this action is to recognize an actual threshold question the united states senate is operating a fake threshold which one of their key strategists is out publicly saying they want to blow up immediately upon getting the majority in order to pack the court with thirteen judges add four left leaning judges uh make DC a state and other things right they're they're actively talking about that reality meanwhile what we're trying to do is say wait a minute maybe the senate should actually have to do their job maybe they should actually have to filibuster actually go to the floor do debates do the things that the founding fathers meant in terms of a cooling saucer and then let it play out if we can pass the save america act great if somebody wants to put on the floor in the united states senate turning d. c. into a state i violently oppose that but you know look fine then put it on there but have to debate it out cook the clock use two weeks three weeks The Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty um four took, I think it was upwards of ninety days, eighty days or something like that, uh being on the floor of the Senate. And it and I think it's important that again this resolution is a part of that. Right? It's a recognition that we're trying to pass stuff and it's hitting a wall in the Senate. And thus it has been. The Senate has been used as a leverage spot at sixty votes in both directions, and to usually just continue the status quo. American people wanna know why we're thirty nine trillion dollars in debt? That's it. That's why we're thirty nine trillion dollars in debt. We never actually have to have and force a vote.

Right.

We never actually have to have a serious debate and force the issue. Instead, we end up in exactly the situation where it's leveraged against each other, in order to force some compromise bill that everybody can get on the same page. And watch it happen on FISA. Right? That's what's gonna happen. The the the powers that be and the frickin' intelligence state are gonna come together and say we must pass clean FISA or people will die. And we're not gonna have a robust debate about it because the powers that be in the Senate, the powers that be in the House and the administration, just like happened last time when I had a very liberal member of the House who voted with Biden on the floor of the House on FISA, instead of passing the protections of of warrants, he chose not to decide with Biden and now he's on the other side of that argument. Okay, fine. I'm not even naming him because I'm not trying to make it personal. What I'm saying is that's what's happening. And it's happening on every issue under under the sun. So I do not fault putting a resolution on the floor in order to make the case that we're trying to make. Um, I think that's uh the the the reality the the the the bill though that that that you guys are here talking about, the design of that legislation, right, is to say, look, we're gonna uh repeal those mandates because we're looking at trying to get it back to saying well you can't have these struttle buildings have ninety percent requirements with respect to green energy. because frankly it's a fraud anyway

mmm

cause it's all being subsidized and then you're having to rely on reliable power in order to have power up in those buildings in the first place and nobody talks about

mmm mmm

all the green negative impacts of the frickin' windmill parts getting buried all over, you know, the the country the uh extent to which we're now having to have inefficient energy because they're they're not up when solar and and when when you have a cloudy, windless day and i just wonder if the bank member has anything to say about that, and then i'll yield back to you.

well i'm just saying so we the dates that that uh mister brought up so nineteen seventy six i was twelve years old i guess it was i remember waiting in gas lines with my i remember

i was four

i remember waiting in gas lines with my father two thousand seven if you're it's it's stuff that that you do some people do here it's like the frustrating thing here in twenty five years so it's twenty six i get the math but twenty

yeah

five years now twenty thirty that was a convenient day to pick all federal buildings are gonna be a hundred percent clean energy and in two thousand seven that was before the permian basin board was the shell revolution

right

before all the other things so just that that republicans have changed their tune since two thousand seven the whole energy nature of america has changed since two thousand seven we're we're energy independent uh i will tell you when i was in nineteen seventy six if what was if the state of hormuz was closed down

yeah

we wouldn't be paying four dollars for gas we wouldn't have it now it is a problem uh and it is something we need to get hopefully we get addressed soon though not having a nuclear ram is worth it to me

yeah

But, but what I, what my point is, is that energy, and it has changed over twenty-five years. If you hada said back in two thousand seven, look the way Europe's going, America and Europe had the same size economy in two thousand eight. We're almost twice the size of economy. Could you imagine if America had a half the economy now? Half the economy because we made decisions like Europe, to over-regulate, overtax, and, and go green? Like the, at the level that they went? I'm, I'm all for clean, I'm all for clean energy but uh at the level do you imagine if our economy was half the size that it was and and so think about what decisions europe made in two thousand seven and eight we luckily i i i don't know what happened i wasn't here in two thousand seven i know that speaker pelosi was just freshly minted speaker and i know uh the environment was a big agenda item for hers and so in the end probably from cap and trade to alright let's just do federal buildings but imagine if we'd gone the whole economy towards the federal like they did federal buildings in two thousand seven like europe did they have half the economy we have. Could you imagine half America and half the economy?

I appreciate the chairman. I'll yield back my time. There's a lot of ways in which we should not follow Europe. That is one of them. I yield back.

Uh, I agree with you, and I I will say I'm sorry, Mister Neguse is not here, but I remember very well meeting with President uh, Bush and his saying at about the time that this bill was passed, probably that within ten years, everything in this country would be being run by batteries. And we're not anywhere near to that. Miss Leisure Fernandez, you're recognized.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I think that our colleague, uh, Chip Roy asked a very interesting question, is Americans wanna know why we have the debt. Now, uh, Mr. Chairman, can you tell me your big, beautiful bill, uh, what it did to the national debt? how much

well i know that we did uh have entitlement reform unless well it depends on the number you pick for the growth

how much

so what cbo said for growth i don't have the actual number off the top of my head but i think they did like one point six percent economic growth

four point seven trillion so there was a four point

but it but but if you go with the real growth you have you're not gonna see that same issue

cbo wait so cbo cbo said four point seven trillion dollars so four point seven trillion dollars is is a lot And when you add that to the other tax cuts of the Trump administration, the uh Trump won, so four point seven trillion dollars. That's what they said, and that's what we are starting to see, because not only are we not getting four point four point six growth,

That's if we go under two percent.

oh my God, but we're not getting that growth, are we? Because of the terrorists,

I think we're above it, actually.

because of the terrorists, because of the war, America is not seeing the growth that we're going. And the other thing that we're not seeing is we are what we are not seeing is that wind and solar and i'm gonna say this over and over again cause you all come in here and say wind and solar are so expensive the subsidies guess what wind and solar energy are cheaper than electricity from fossil fuel plants even without subsidies renewable energy is staying competitive and i think that that's important because this is data this is based on data. It's reported in the Scientific American. Uh, ranking member, isn't that true, that wind and solar, even without the subsidies, are the cheapest and fastest energy we can bring on board?

Absolutely, and and again, that's one of the reasons that you see China, for example, moving ahead with all of it, because they know that that's the energy of the future, they know that it is cheaper, and they know that we can't rely on uh oil and gas uh forever.

well and the idea that we would not hold ourselves and say we should we're the federal government we spend so much money let's let's make sure we use ourselves as an example let's hold ourselves up to higher standards on all kinds of things we need to hold congress up and the american government up to higher standard but the other piece about it guess who benefits from wind and solar it is world america world america benefits from wind and solar i'm very upset mr. chairman you said the permian basin and you talked about texas guess who has the guess who represents the permian basin

you're right you should be upset new mexico i've been to the nuclear plant where they're

i no not nuclear plant i represent

mmm

well i know but i know but it's right north of the permian bay i've been there so you're right

yeah yeah well

you're right permian basin now also straddles new mexico as well

not only that we are the second largest oil producers in the country but guess who else we are we have the second At at one point we had the largest wind farm in the country.

Hmm.

Now, the great thing is it's no longer because other people are doing that. And you know who that wind farm ba- benefited? Not just the people in the Permian Basin, but ranchers and rural counties who are getting the tax run of you. And I've gone to the schools that train uh the students who are gonna work on those wind farms. And Mister Fuller, did you say Mister Fuller brought this bill? at the school as well now and where is he from

yes georgia

now did you know that in georgia with the with the uh ira uh they they had nineteen large projects ten billion dollars in wages and these are wages being paid these are funds these are payrolls in say with the world america and so if we're gonna celebrate

mmm

pat yourselves on the back, you should also say now we're really sorry that we are sort of attacking the kinds of energy that's good in for rural America, because that's what you're doing here.

Well, we're just saying let people choose the energy. We're not saying you can't do wind and solar.

Oh, that's not

We're just saying to choose the most efficient energy.

that's not what's happening. When you make it

Well, that's what our bill we're discussing before the rules say.

Yeah, but when when this administration makes it harder and sues and stops, and freezes renewable energy projects which is about uh all forms of energy when they start prioritizing and all you guys do is bring bills that benefit fossil fuels and you are constantly beating up on renewable energies and you are misstating the facts about what you if you

but this bill just says you can't ban fossil fuels

well but

it doesn't say you have to use fossil fuels you just can't ban it

everything you guys do uh ranking member uh how many bills how many bills have you

which is what it says

They've brought boards and they've been

Well, the point of the matter is

never had a re- re- renewable energy.

Yeah, the none. And and and, you know, the on the Energy and Commerce Committee, the Republicans keep saying, oh, we're for all of the above energy, but that's but they don't do that.

They brought no bills, the men of the world.

Everyth- Absolutely. But beyond that,

Now that

it also would say that, as I said before, that if you eliminate uh the legislation that was passed in two thousand seven, that mandates that you move towards renewables, they're they're not going to consider renewables at all, because that's

Mr. Chairman, do you remember how much uh when the oil and gas companies went and met with uh candidate Trump how much uh he asked them for as campaign competition?

I have no idea. I've never heard that.

It was a billion dollars.

Yeah. I have no idea.

He asked them a billion dollars and then he said he'd really do well by then. Uh, they didn't quite make the billion, but they They have they have done pretty good by them, and he has been proud by them.

I I will tell you,

They have

I've I've heard from old people that they didn't like six dollar, sixty dollar barrel of oil which our policies brought about, and that because it's made it cheaper for American people.

Well, you know, now he's really doing a good job of raising, uh, those gas, uh, that that per barrel price, which will be good for New Mexico, because we're gonna get more income. But you know who it's really bad for?

Well, think it'd be good for the world for Iran not to have an nuclear weapon.

You Right, you know, you know who uh high gas prices are really bad

what's bad for people driving everybody driving

but how about rural america

is absolutely cause they have to drive further i'm not dismissing that whatsoever

you have to drive further in rural america it takes eleven hours to go from one corner of my district to another eleven hours

yeah

yeah

it's a beautiful state a big beautiful state big beautiful state isn't it

it's a beautiful state but you know what they it is a beautiful state but you know what they don't like they don't like the fact that their tractors

hmm

yeah it is a beautiful state

hundred gallon tractor diesel that's how much more they're having to pay

it's expensive it is more expensive today then but i'm i'm not having a nuclear ram will be important,

Oh.

but it is expensive, I'm not dismissing that.

That's it could be good. There there was a treaty I think that uh we were involved in, that New Mexico, I represent Los Alamos National Lab, and you know we have the uh uh nuclear non-proliferation tools that we would have been able to use if we would have just stayed in that treaty that would have reduced that, because there was a choice. And if you're gonna talk about patting yourself on the back for everything you've done for world America, how about arguing and stand standing firm against this war which is hurting world farmers? You heard that poll was done by the Farm Bureau Association. Seventy percent of farmers don't think they can make it now because of the cost of the war. And then let's talk about the tariffs. You haven't sort of said everything you've done on the tariffs. why cause you've done nothing to help on the tariffs what has happened with the soybean farmers do you have an idea of what's happened with the soybean farmers

well hope well china hasn't just recently made a commitment to buy more soybeans so hopefully that will come to pass

under this administration why and they because they we destroyed their export market thanks to trump's tariffs you have to acknowledge that

well we do trade a lot one third of every kentucky soybean does go overseas not always to china It does go overseas and China's commitment to buy has been something the president's focused on and we do need to get trade and and agriculture moving again.

Oh, it's I mean that's the thing is that we keep hearing we keep hearing uh congresspeople republicans talk about their how they're doing ba- good by rural America and they pass a bill that is look at all these pages. Oh my god, how many where do you know how many where as's you have in here?

Uh, I don't know the number.

Oh my God, there's all kinds of harasses.

I can count them if you like.

Do any of these harasses lower the cost of gas, of diesel for that tractor, uh, ranking member?

Do w- does any of these

Are you talking to me?

Yes.

The uh, no, I mean, it has no, it's just uh commemorative, as you said from the beginning. It doesn't actually do anything.

Yeah, and I think that the the other issue that is really hurting rural America uh is the fact that there are two kinds of cuts that our hospitals are gonna hurt from and it's that there are the medicaid cuts one in four individuals living in rural america relies on medicaid and then the affordable care act cuts are really gonna hurt and what happens is when those hospitals which have such small margins when people show up and they can't pay the bill, then that hospital suffers. And the little amount that was sent for royal hospitals, is that enough ranking member to make up for the cuts in Medicaid, to make up for the cuts, uh, to make up for the elimination of the ACA, uh, tax credit, uh, premiums?

Absolutely not. And I'm glad you brought that up because, um, uh Chairman Guthrie uh talked about that rural fund, rural health fund, and it's a pittance compared to the losses from Medicaid, the losses to hospital with what they're doing with the uh provider tax, uh and that's why you're seeing all these comments about the number of hospitals that may close. I think he he dismissed what the Governor of Kentucky said, uh that there might be thirty some hospitals in Kentucky. Uh, we, the a list just came out the other day in New Jersey, fifteen possible hospitals. And we actually had percentage-wise the best, uh, amount of money that came, uh, from that rural fund. Uh, and when I talked to the hospital administration, they said it's a drop in the bucket. I mean, it's, I don't even think it's, uh, like even twenty per not even like five percent of the losses that the hospitals are are are getting.

Right. It's it's not enough, and I have visited every s you know, almost, I think almost everything, one of the hospitals in my district that's at risk, and they're very honest, and they tell you why and why those numbers don't work. And, uh, the big, beautiful bill. I understand why the Republicans wouldn't have wanted to try to, uh, rename it and rebrand it, but you can't rebrand the kind of hurt that our world, uh, hospitals are gonna suffer because of Republicans' bills. they actually do something, but what they're doing is hurting rural America. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez. Um, seeing no further persons to ask you any questions, I thank our panel for coming today and um tell you that you are excused.

Thank you.

I now welcome our second panel, Representative Hageman and Representative Stansberry from the Committee on Natural Resources. Your full statement will be submitted for the record and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. We ask you address all legislation under your committee's jurisdiction in your five minutes. We ha- um Representative Hageman, I welcome your testimony. Representative Stanberry.

Good afternoon. Thank you for having me today. You know what? I really like the theme of youth, I really like the theme of where you can take a photo and like, you can put up with it. I like the theme of youth, I really like the theme of youth, I really like the theme of youth.

Yeah.

Of the ESA. Grizzlies were listed as threatened in nineteen seventy-five. The recovery goal was five hundred bears. The population is now over eleven hundred bears, and they have expanded well beyond their critical habitat interior in into areas that are not part of the historical range. They have been recovered, they have met the recovery goals for almost three decades. And Wyoming has invested over fifty million dollars in grizzly bear recovery. But serial litigants and activist judges have rejected the scientific consensus, and my constituents are the ones that bear the costs. Rarely a week goes by without a new story of a grizzly bear attack, whether it's grizzlies in Wyoming, a rancher who has lost over half of their cattle, to wolves listed under the ESA, a water district facing potential costs exceeding three hundred million dollar mitigation for non-resident fish species or recreational and commercial fishermen whose livelihoods are at risk due to harsh restrictions on their industries. ESA's reach and its impact is significant. While the ESA has had some successes recovering species from the brink of extinction, they are few and far between. The ESA's current recovery rate of roughly three percent is not something we should be proud of, and nor should we accept this as the best that our nation can do. What this also is is a reflection of the fact that the ESA is no longer about species recovery and protection, but instead has become a powerful tool used to control land and water use, regardless of whether a species is thriving. It is a fundraising mechanism for the wealthiest NGOs in the country. H. R. eighty-nin- e- eighteen ninety-seven prioritizes recovery of listed species by incentivizing private landowners and wildlife managers. It pairs objective and incremental recovery goals with regulatory relief. Currently regulated parties see no direct benefit from a species' overall health w- when a species' overall health improves, only continued regulatory burdens. Under this bill, as a species improves, so does the regulatory environment. This creates positive incentives to invest in species recovery and clear pathways to species delisting. H. R. eighteen ninety-seven also furthers the House's work to streamline the federal permitting process. It ensures section seven consultations are based on the effects of the action itself, and effects that are reasonably certain to occur, not worst-case scenarios dreamt up by federal bureaucrats. The bill also codifies the environmental baseline to include existing infrastructure, ensuring federal agencies focus on the effects of an action in today's terms, not on hypothetical effects from decades or even centuries ago. The last time Congress reauthorized and amended the ESA was in nineteen eighty-eight. In the nearly four decades that have passed, the reach and impacts of the ESA have grown exponentially. Now is the time for Congress to act in a bipartisan way to improve outcomes for both the listed species and our constituents affected by them. Next we have H R fifty-five eighty-seven, the HEATS Act, sponsored by Representative Kim, which would reduce duplicative permitting requirements for geothermal projects operating on state and private lands. Currently, geothermal o- geothermal operators on non-fed land are required to undergo full federal permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act if they intersect any quantity of federal subsurface resources, even if the federal minerals being produced are minuscule. The process creates unnecessary delays for developers who must already comply with rigorous state-level permitting requirements. H. R. fifty-five eighty-seven would address this issue by relieving the Bureau of Land Management of the obligation to permit geothermal well geothermal wells on state and private lands where the federal government holds less than fifty percent of the geothermal estate. Crucially, this bill upholds strong environmental standards by stipulating that federal requirements may be waived only if operators obtain drilling permits and comply with state-level historic preservation laws. These common sense common sense reforms will streamline the permitting process for geothermal energy project projects and reduce agency workloads allowing BLM to focus on projects with a majority federal nexus. By cutting red tape and streamlining development on state and private land this legislation will help unleash the heat beneath our feet

Thank you very much, Miss Hageman. Miss Sandsbury, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is always an honor to be here in front of the Rules Committee, but unfortunately tonight it is under the circumstance of having to defend some of our most bedrock environmental laws including the endangered Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. Two weeks ago, an American crew circled the moon in a historic mission that reminded us that American science and innovation can do great things and reminded us of the fragleness of our home here on planet Earth. And it seems particularly ironic that on the week that we are celebrating Earth Day, the Republican majority is bringing several bills to the floor that seek to gut some of the most successful environmental protections in American history and on the face of planet Earth, including one of the most successful conservation bills to protect endangered species. In fact, the ESA has not only been one of our most successful, it has helped to save iconic species like whooping cranes, peregrine falcons, gray wolves, and the very symbol of America itself. The bald eagle. But what is particularly stunning is that these attacks come to some of the most bipartisan bills in the history of this country. In fact, the ESA was signed into law in nineteen seventy-three by Richard Nixon, of course a Republican, and passed unanimously in the Senate and four hundred to twelve to four here in the House. It was championed in fact by a Republican senator from New Mexico named Harrison Schmidt, who you might recognize as an astronaut who was the only geologist ever stepped foot, yes, on the moon. The passage of the ESA followed the passage of NEPA three years earlier, also signed by Nixon, and also passed unanimously in the Senate. Why? Because fifty years ago, Republicans in this body believed that saving wildlife, protecting the planet, and investing in science was not a partisan issue, but a patriotic duty. It is noteworthy that even then, Under immense pressure from the very same industries that are lobbying to pass these bills here today, oil and gas, mining, logging, and real estate development, they still passed unanimously in the Senate and with overwhelming bipartisan support. This is of course in stark contrast to what we see before us today, as we see those same industries pushing these bills fifty years later, but with support from our colleagues across the aisle. H R eighteen ninety-seven would core provisions of the ESA and threaten countless endangered species. It would lead to premature dis- delisting of species, gutting protections for critical habitat, opening the door to junk science, expanding the use of the God squad, limiting the ability of tribes, communities, and those most affected to stop bad actors in the courts, and prioritize corporate profits over our people and our environment. H. R. fifty-five, eighty-seven, or the heats act is in truth a wolf in sheep's clothing, which hasn't been able to be passed out of Congress because it bypasses and guts the National Environmental Policy Act. It allows corporations to drill under public and private lands, potentially for miles, without consideration for public safety, drinking water, cultural resources, and in reality represents a backdoor to permitting that our oil and gas industries have sought for years. And all of this represents years of influence by special interests and big money in politics. In fact, the coordination between those special interests, lobbyists, and conservative think tanks, culminating in Project Twenty Twenty Five, which these bills are seeking to deliver on. In fact, Project Twenty Twenty Five specifically calls for the changes that are in these bills. So if you have any question about where they came from, I think it's very clear that this is all about corporate giveaways. But the peculiar thing above all else is that no one asked for this. No American people asked for this. In fact, the ESA is widely supported by Americans, seventy-five to ninety percent of Americans across the ideological spectrum support species recovery. Americans are not asking you to gut protections for the red fox, or the right whale, or sea turtles, or manatees. Oil and gas lobbyists are. And we know that they're all big campaign donors, which maybe explains why we're sitting here today. So let's call these bills what they are, corporate giveaways to a system that the American people know is deeply corrupt under the guise of energy and minerals dominance, and something that they have argued for a half century to do. But Madam Chair, let's get back to the business of the American people, to protecting our public lands,

Thank you. representative stanberry um i'm going to defer my questions again and allow um congresswoman Fischbach to begin i have some questions and i'll come back to them a little bit

thank you madam chair and and i i just wanna say wow there was so much that was going on in that testimony that you gave miss stansberry and uh uh and i will tell you you say nobody's asked My cattlemen in my district whose whose cattle are being killed by gray wolf, they asked. They asked us to do something. They've been asking years and years and years, and I have an incredible frustration. The folks in my district have an incredible frustration regarding the gray wolf population because they have recovered. And the only reason that they won't do anything about it is because uh the politics of it to make sure that um that recovery is not public is not something they uh acknowledge um scientifically but they have recovered and they are they're they're killing animals i mean there's i i don't know how many photos i've seen they can take down a a a huge animal a cat uh uh a steer they take dogs they've killed dogs they kill they if family dogs tied up in the front yard in these So, so when you say that nobody asked, my folks have been asking us to do something about this in particular. And so I, I, I, I, I know there was a lot going on in your testimony, but I, I, you really, um, we have to help these folks. And these animals, the gray roof wolf has recovered. And I, I, I just wanted to give you, um, uh, Congresswoman Hageman the opportunity to respond to some of that, because there was so much going on. so many accusations.

Well, I I I think that you are exactly correct, and I think that the hysteria itself is indicative of the misinformation that was provided to this committee in relation to the Endangered Species Act. The reality is is that the Endangered Species Act, as I have pointed out, is no longer so much about species recovery or protection, it is a zoning ordinance. It has become a mechanism by which very wealthy NGOs can control large swaths and water resources. And are there endangered and threatened species in the United States? There absolutely are. And everybody, everybody on this side of the aisle wants to invest the money and the resources to protect those. The whooping crane is a perfect example of that. But when we spend the kind of money that we do on the gray wolf in Minnesota or Wisconsin, uh, to keep it on the list, when we spend the money and the resources that we do to keep the grizzly bear on the list in Wyoming, in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, we are no longer able to spend those funds where they are needed, such as on whooping crane crane recovery. One of the things that strikes me as so odd in Washington, D. C., is nobody seems to have ever heard of the concept of opportunity costs. They act as though we can continue to spend unlimited amounts of money and resources on something that is fully recovered by every single definition. The grizzly bear has recovered. Both Democrat and Republican administrations have stated that the grizz the greater Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly bear is recovered, yet there is a judge in Montana that the Enviros run to, they they uh they uh shop for the jurisdiction, they venue shop, they run to him every time, and as soon as the agency, the the people with the so-called expertise move to delist, they run to that judge and he relists the grizzly bears. They used to do the same thing with the gray wolf. I filed my first lawsuit in two thousand and two over the recovery of the gray wolf in the state of wyoming we met the recovery goals by two thousand and two. Within seven years we met the recovery goals after they were introduced into my state from Canada. Not reintroduced, introduced, brought in, an apex predator, brought in and shoved down the throats of our cattle producers, our sportsmen, uh our outfitters and guides. Within seven years, wyoming's efforts, we had fully recovered that species. It took me fifteen years of litigation to finally get a circuit court of appeals here in Washington DC, to approve the Wyoming wolf management plan because it was perfectly robust enough to protect that recovered species. In two thousand and seventeen they were finally delisted in the state of Wyoming, and we have done a fantastic job. The state of Wyoming has done a fantastic job of managing and protecting the recovered gray wolf population. But what they're also able to do is manage and protect other species as well. not just our livestock producers, not oil and gas producers, but to protect our other species as well, our elk population, our moose population, our deer, wild turkey, our dogs, all of that. We are able to do it all. And that's why this this hysteria of having this idea that only the federal government is able to manage these species has been belied by everything that has happened since the Endangered Species Act was adopted in nineteen seventy-two. What this modernization does, what these policies do is actually make sure that there is much more of a partnership between the federal agency or state agencies and the land owners who are the ones that are responsible for protecting these species not the people sitting in washington d. c. those are the ones that actually protect these species those are the ones that pay the cost when you have the bureaucrats and the judges and the very wealthy environmental ngos that refuse to allow for reasonable uh, management of these species. I've been to Minnesota. They call the, the, the North, there's no deer left. The wolves have killed them. It is a dead area because of the gray wolf in Minnesota. So it's easy for us to sit here and act holier than thou and talk about going to the moon, when there are people in Minnesota who just went broke because they can't raise sheep anymore because of the gray wolf population.

Absolutely. And and I appreciate that input because it really is, it's very frustrating and I I want to see that partnership, I want to see it addressed. They uh they have recovered and we absolutely need to help the folks out that are dealing with this, living with this every day, that they are and I when I say they come into the front yard and and eat dogs, they do, they family pet. And uh that's those are not they are not um, tame animals, these are dangerous animals that are that are in people's yards. And so, a- and and taking cattle down, and we absolutely need to be able to regulate, we need to be able to do something about it. I appreciate the the the fact that we were able to um to grow them and and re- they were able to recover but now we have to deal with the result and we have to address it. And I thank you for bringing the bill forward and with that I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Fishbaugh, Miss Scanlon, you're recognized.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, look, all year House Republicans have been prioritizing bills that attack our nation's protected lands and our endangered species and today we have a bill that would end the Endangered Species Act as we know it. House Republicans are proposing to make it harder for animals to be listed as endangered, easier for animals to be taken off the list, And they wanna block Americans from challenging those decisions in court. In practice, the Trump administration's pro-polluter Department of Interior is already aggressively de-listing animals from the endangered species list. The administration has already turned the entire federal government into a giant pay-to-play scheme, so it doesn't require too much imagination to see how this bill would be used. If this bill becomes law, I guarantee that you will see lobbyists pitching clients that for the right price, we can get whatever animal you want off the list. And who do you think that will benefit most? The mining industry, the oil and gas industry. It's definitely not everyday Americans or the environment. As representative Stansbury related, Americans support these environmental laws, and Republicans used to. But with the flood of dark money, that the Citizens United decision has allowed into our politics. Every week it's the same thing. We're seeing more Republican bills to gut environmental regulations so polluters can pocket more profits and it's politics at its worst. Representative Stansberry, is there anything you want to add in response to what we've been hearing?

Thank you, Congresswoman Scanlon. You know, I I actually do wanna just respond briefly about Minnesota because I I'm really glad actually the recovery of wolves in Minnesota was brought into this conversation because there are three states which are ranked in the top tier for species recovery and Minnesota is one of them because they have one of the most successful state recovery programs. And it's because they rely on the best available science, that is real science, not junk science. It's because they make sustained, steady investments in staffing. and in species recovery, and it's because they have one of the bo- the most successful wildlife management programs in the country. And so actually, uh, the Congresswoman made my point. This very bill actually guts the fundamental federal programs that Minnesota has succeeded in species recovery around because they have a strong state program that actually is coupled with the federal program. But many states don't have a strong state program like Minnesota does, and the whole point of having federal legislation is to make sure that all places are protected. Now I also wanna just note that even though I appreciate the impassioned um arguments today for folks who've been impacted by reintroduction, especially predators, this sixty-six page bill that's in front of you doesn't mention either wolves or bears. Even once, it's not actually in this bill. What this bill does do is it guts the definition of critical habitat, it guts the definition of science, it guts data standards, it redefines what the baseline for species recovery is, it guts funding for the federal government, it prioritizes what species can actually be prioritized and allows that to be a political decision, it guts mitigation, and it changes the very definition of jeopardy which is the foundation for making sure that species don't go extinct. And so, while I completely understand, especially coming from a state where um predator reintroduction has impacted our farmers and ranchers and we're working hand in hand with them, that's not what this bill is about. This bill is actually about getting fundamental programs that have saved countless species in America.

Thank you for that clarification, and I yield back.

thank you miss kendall and mr. scott you're recognized

thank you madam chair and uh i won't speak for everybody on my side but i can tell you from my standpoint the problem i have with the the esa is that it's no longer about the species it's it's become a way for uh radicals to stop people from doing things and sometimes it's construction and sometimes it's recreation and i just you know the right whale i think is the perfect example of that and so um there are approximately three prop strikes a year um with regard to the right whales and under the biden administration the proposed radical solution to the prop strikes on the right whales was to eliminate the ability to fish offshore for the whole eastern seaboard now now granted you could fish offshore but Only if you agreed not to travel above ten knots, which is about twelve miles per hour. So, it, it, it's not If it were about the species, you wouldn't exempt your, your donors in the wind and solar business from the responsibility of killing the whales. And instead, what do you do, you attack the American family who simply wants to take its kid fishing. And so, you know, there are lot of emotional arguments, um, that I hear from the other side, but what about the stupidity of the rules and regulations that you propose that are a flat-out attack on the American's way of life, like taking, simply taking their kids fishing? So I, I, I mean, I, I like the bill. Um, if you have anything you'd like, else you'd like to add to it. Miss Hagerman, I mean, I I I think that the stupidity of the proposal under the Biden administration that effectively eliminated offshore fishing on the east coast over the right whale and getting rid of a lot of military training in certain areas because of the right whale when there have been documented three prop strikes a year on average while you exempt your wind and solar donors uh it's just proof to me that the you know the Endangered Species Act is no longer about the endangered species. And if you wanna talk about the the bald eagle, who I love, there are a few in my area now and I'm very glad to see them.

Mm-hmm.

Uh, the fact of the matter is, you know, they're people that obtained permits to kill bald eagles, and I wish we would do away with that. So, um, I I'll turn it over to you, Miss Hagerman, if you got anything else to say other than that, I'll yield my time.

Well, first of all, just to address the final issue that you stated about the bald eagles, Uh, there are other reasons as to why the bald eagle, uh, has recovered. And that is one of the things when - when the left talks about the science and the best available science, they then ignore it when it does not fit their pur- their - their purpose or their narrative. And I think the bald eagle is really the perfect example of that. And I think going to the point that you have made, wind farms have been absolutely devastating to the bald eagle population,

And

absolutely devastating. Yet that is really the most sacred cow to the Democrats that I think that there is is wind farms. Uh, trying to convince us, I was listening with great interest to the previous panel, trying to convince us that wind and solar provides more affordable energy. Tell that to the people in Europe. Tell that to the people in Australia, that are trying to get to net zero. Their energy bills are astronomically higher than ours are, because of the absurd energy policies that they are pursuing. and again i'll go back to what i stated earlier about opportunity costs uh when you increase the cost of the very basics such as being able to heat or cool your home uh then it is it's going to have a a dramatic impact on everyone um the wind the wind farms they they actually uh they're getting a buy if you will for killing the the bald eagles going back to

yeah

the absurdity of the endangered species act and what the biden administration did Uh, the last administration's vessel speed rule on the Atlantic coast just really identifies and demonstrates the weaponization of the ESA. NOAA relied on an obscure procedural provision in the ESA to put vessel traffic along the Atlantic coast into a strangled hold. This was a textbook ex textbook example of executive overreach and an over-reliance on worst-case scenario fabrications that would have harmed public safety and decimated coastal com- economies. Passing this bill is a recognition that fictional precautionary assumptions are unscientific, and should not be used to justify draconian restrictions on the American people. Uh, I I I would also say what this bill really does is it focuses back on the experts, uh, in species management. Um, I'm not aware of States that don't have the game and, uh, don't have game and fish departments. I've I've looked at some of the work that the game and fish department of Minnesota has done on the gray wolves. And I think it's, it, it, it is just absolutely malpractice, the way that the Game and Fish Department in Minnesota has managed gray wolves and and ad- and addressed them. But in tho- in those states that actually believe that the Endangered Species Act should work, as it was intended, I think that you find a lot of great success stories, like in Wyoming. Wyoming's Game and Fish Department, they, is absolutely second to none when it comes to species management, no matter what it is, in terms of protecting wildlife corridors, in using and relying upon the science that has been developed. There are nine people in the game and fish department that are dedicated to grizzly recovery and protection. Uh, as I indicated, we've invested fifty million dollars, and one of the things that I think is the most important part of this legislation after having practiced in this area for many years before I came to Congress is creating that much stronger partnership and providing the mechanism and the leeway for providing that partnership, or creating that partnership between the state, the federal agencies, but most importantly the land owners themselves. One of the things that the Endangered Species Act, and I do believe the Enviro said this is, this was actually intended by many of them, has has created a situation where they they view the land owner as the enemy, rather than the the the folks that can actually protect these species. I've always said introducing gray wolves in Wyoming was one of the greatest real estate moves uh that was possible, and talk about fragmentation of beautiful ranches. Uh because the devastation brought by that apex predator on their cattle herds and their sheep herds incentivized them to sell out to developers because of the impact. So uh when you ignore the land owner and ignore the impact on the land owner, and ignore the fact that you are destroying their their economy and their economic wherewithal to survive, what you've done is pushed them into selling and developing. So I think that those are some of i used to think they might be unintended consequences i now think they're intended that i yield back

i agree with you they're intentional

thank you mr scott mister mcgovern

well there's there's there's so much i wanna say um but um i won't um i'm not surprised that republicans are bringing this bill to the floor and i'm not surprised at the rationale for bringing it to the floor i would just simply say that i strongly disagree uh with this legislation, I will associate myself with the remarks of Miss Scanlon um and um and since everything that possibly can be said has been said but not everybody has said it, I will just leave it at that and yield back.

Um I'm still gonna defer my questions. Mi- Miss Leisure Fernandez, you're recognized.

Thank you, uh thank you very much uh Chairman, and and thanks you to both of you for uh coming before us so that we could have this spirit debate i did uh note that there was something that representative hagerman uh said that i wanted to speak to and that was what we should be spending our money on uh and and and i think that that's really important that cause representative hagerman talked about prioritize what we spend our money on and these are choices that we make uh as the federal government i love uh uh speaker amerita pelosi would always say a budget uh your values right and and i think that's very key our problem is that trump's values with regards to rural america are to cut the programs that hurt rural america uh i'd like to enter into the record madam chair an article from the st. louis rad- uh radio dated april twentieth twenty twenty six titled trump's nearly five billion proposed cuts to usda could hurt world america

without objection

uh uh you know it's it's a twenty percent budget cut uh that he is proposing for the usda and these are cuts to the communities we are talking about us and then the other things they do is us farmers face new era of trade deficits as global markets shift. This administration has done more to hurt rural America than any other that I could think of. And, you know, I I I don't know whether Representative Hagelman's district is larger than mine. Uh, but but you're a whole state, right? Uh, and you travel the way I do. Uh, eleven hours, uh, corner to corner. we know this, we meet with our ranchers, we meet with our farmers, I come from a ranching family, I come from rural America, and I think that the choices we are making are hurting rural America, the choices Republicans are making are hurting rural America. And with regards to the bill on endangered species, we also know that when you allow the local entities to work together, on coming up with solutions it makes sense when you make sure that tribes are involved in that process that ranchers that the original conservationists uh represent Hekimen when you refer to enviros sort of i always think that the ranchers and farmers in my district are some of the original environmentalists cause they have concerned themselves with conservation like no other cause their life depends on it Their life depends on an ecosystem that honors everybody. And there is this saying, uh, that, uh, Ralphie Hill, who passed away unfortunately recently, uh, he said, " Un poquito para vos, un poquito para Dios, un poquito para las criaturas de Dios." A little bit for us, a little bit for God, and a little bit for the creatures of God. and i think that the enviros that i know are trying to honor that prayer once again i think i am the last democrat so if there's is there anything else you'd like to add to this representative stansberry

well i think as the ranking member said uh and thank you congresswoman ledger ferenandez um a lot could be said and certainly lots of different species have been named but What I'll just say is that the science is very clear. Species recovery fundamentally requires a landscape-level view of how we manage our lands, and that requires coordination, collaboration with private landowners, ranchers, and that's why the previous administration put into place a public lands rule. They created a landscape-level view. It's why we passed climate resilience uh legislation. It's why we made historic investments. uh, public lands, private lands, private and public waters, and it's why all of us support state coordination, tribal coordination, but I guess I think where I would leave things is that while those are all great in concept, we're here to discuss sixty-six pages of a bill that guts the fundamental definitions that have protected ninety-nine percent of American species from going extinct. And I think especially at this moment, as we're facing climate change, especially in the West, historic drought, this is not a time to be gutting those protections. Now is a time to be collaborating and working to save our species from extinction. And as you mentioned, this isn't just a economic imperative, this is really a moral imperative. What do we wanna leave behind for our children? Do we want our children to know the wonder of a right whale existing on planet Earth? Do we wanna know Do we wanna know that our grandchildren will have sea turtles? Do we wanna know that our grandchildren will experience the joy of seeing a manatee in Florida? All those all those species are being protected by this law in its current state, and that's as much a moral and spiritual imperative as it is an economic imperative. So I thank you for bringing that.

Un poquito para las criaturas de Dios, a little bit for the creatures of God, and with that, Madam Chair, Uh, I uh will oppose this bill, cuz I think we do need the laws that protect the creatures of God, and uh I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Lazar-Fernandez. Miss Halchen, do you have any questions?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, before I go into my commentary on the bill, I'd just like to ask, um, or on on a particular bill, uh, I'd like to ask, uh, Representative Hageman if there's any any response to anything that you'd like to make remarks on before I go into uh my my comments in question.

So I grew up in an ag family. Most of my family are still ranchers in Wyoming. And uh uh they are the original environmentalists. They're the ones that actually protect the resources. Um and that is why the Endangered Species Act has been so damaging, because it has uh it has been very destructive to our ag industry. to our cattle producers, our sheep producers, uh to others uh in terms of just uh you can go across the board, that's what you see in Wyoming, but it it uh that's why I I think that it is so important with the changes that we're making in this legislation to provide more of that collaborative relationship between those that are actually on the ground providing the resources for the species and those that are making the decisions. So Other than that, I'm just happy to answer your questions.

Thank you. Um, well, I wanna thank, uh, my friend Chairman Westerman for his, uh, work on these bills, um, especially the ones that allow geothermal energy production to flourish and to streamline the permitting process. I wanna use my time to focus on the Harnessing Energy at Thermal Sources Act. Geothermal represents a critical source of reliable around-the-clock base load power that can strengthen our domestic energy while lowering costs and improving grid stability for communities and manufacturers alike. Um, I've seen the effective use of geothermal systems firsthand in my district. Margaret Mary, uh, hospital in Batesville, Indiana, installed a geothermal energy system that will save the hospital, uh, two hundred and twenty thousand dollars in utility savings within five years. Uh, in fact, I was amazed at the technology uh and how it can be so cost effective for heating and cooling in particular um and uh very impressed with margaret mary leading the way on this project uh under current law developers can be forced to navigate duplicative permitting processes simply because of a small federal mineral interest that means navigating multiple layers of environmental review sometimes up to six separate reviews which drives up cost increases uncertainty and delays projects that could otherwise deliver reliable domestic energy. Uh, Congresswoman Hageman, for districts like mine, where it's heavy in manufacturing for the local economy, um, affordable and reliable energy isn't an option, it's essential. How would this bill help, um, manufacturers and business owners and and hospitals and school systems in my district access reliable and affordable energy under this geothermal bill.

Well, the heat stack will help build abundant diversified baseload of power on the nation's grid. Manufacturing depends on reliable and low-cost energy, and that's exactly what geothermal can provide. By increasing available power, this bill will help to ease the strain on the nation's electricity grid and ensure the consumers have access to affordable energy. While most high-quality geothermal resources are concentrated in the west, new technologies are making geothermal power economical and aerically easily considered unsuitable. By streamlining the permitting process, we can encourage investment in these innovations and significantly expand the number of regions across the country that are viable for geothermal development. Yeah.

I would encourage anyone who has not, uh, visited a geothermal project to do so. Um, really incredible technology that I'm I'm grateful, uh, to have in indiana's ninth district thank you congresswoman and i yield back madam chair

thank you very much i'm going to yield myself some time um first i wanna say that i i i believe that congresswoman hegeman congressman ledger fernandez and i all agree that those who live on the land are the best stewards of the land um uh having grown up farming and uh farmed as an adult and with my husband i know that and i've always resented uh the fact that the government thought that it could run my land better than i could run my land um and i resent many of the rules and regulations that exist around our owning our own property and what we do with it as long as we're not doing any damage to that property so i appreciate the comments that you've made and even uh congressman congresswoman lester fernandez representative hageman does the heats act eliminate environmental reviews and opportunities for the public to provide input

uh no it does not the heats act eliminates duplicative reviews in cases where states are already completing permitting processes for geothermal projects And the States have a rigorous review process for these kinds of projects, sometimes more vigour vigorous actually than the federal government. Opportunities for public input aren't eliminated either. My home state of Wyoming has a robust public input process built into its regulations and other States have similar frameworks. Also, when compared to unelected bureaucrats all the way in DC, it'll be much easier for communities to hold their local regulators accountable for the permitting decisions that they make. And one other thing about the HEATS Act is that if a state does not have a state his p- historical preservation program in place, then they have to go through the National Historical Preservation program. They still have to go through that processing. But in the state of Wyoming we have what's called the SHPO office, the State Historical Preservation office, and they're the ones that actually do the on the ground work. And so what this would do in Wyoming is if it's less than fifty percent federally owned resource, then we would go through the state permitting process, but we take care of all of the historical preservation issues in Wyoming. It's a very robust office.

And it is certainly, I think, more in the interest of the people of Wyoming than it is for the entire country to care about what's happening there.

Mm-hmm.

Um, I see uh, is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting. And I um, the witnesses are excused.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

Thank you. Thank you. It's good to be here, Mr. Thank you.

Thank you all.

The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentlemen from

madam chair i move to committee grant hr four six nine zero the reliable federal infrastructure act closed rule the rule leaves all points of order against consideration of the bill the rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read the rule leaves all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended the rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce for their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of HREAS one one eight two, expressing support for rural communities across the United States as stewards of the environment, major suppliers of the United States energy resources, critical providers of food production and manufacturing capacity, and drivers of national economic stability, and recognize the work of the House of Representatives and the hundred and nineteenth Congress in support of those vital communities under a closed rule. The rule provides that upon adoption of the resolution, each job be in order without intervention of any point of order, Rule provides that the resolution shall be considered as read. Rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by that, by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, or the respective designees. The rule further provides for consideration of H R one eight nine seven, the ESA Amendments Act of twenty twenty five under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. Rule provides that in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print one one nine dash two three shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read the rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended the rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources or the respective designees the rule provides one motion to recommit the rule further provides for consideration of hr five five eight seven the harnessing energy at thermal sources act of twenty twenty six under a closed rule Rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill,

Yes.

shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended shall be considered as read. The rule waives all the rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective designees finally the rule provides one motion to recommit.

Um, thank you very much. You've heard the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule?

Well, Miss, Madam Chair, there's not a lot to say, I mean, again, four more completely closed rules. Um, and I know amendments were offered, but these are all closed, I guess that's the new Republican uh mantra, everything is, no debate, no amendments, just shut everything down. But I do have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee add a section to the rule to provide for the immediate consideration of the Senate's amendment to HR seventy-one forty-seven, funding lawful department of homeland security agencies debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair in ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees madam chair madam chair this is a this is the deal you know it and the people at dhs not getting paid know it the senate has now passed twice unanimously this compromise legislation that would fund all the law abiding agencies under the department of homeland security Not a single senator objected. The Senate Majority Leader offered the motion. Elizabeth Warren and Ted Cruz both did not object. They both agreed that they should move forward. So stop standing in the way of funding these agencies and put this bipartisan bill on the floor end this Republican DHS shutdown I urge a yes vote on my motion, and I yield back my time.

Um there further discussion on the amendment from Mister McGovern. Miss Scanlon, you're recognized.

As as I suggested earlier, I would strongly support this amendment and we should be voting on this. There is no rational reason to hold up funding for DHS other than the two contested agencies within it. Um, the entire Senate agreed to it. Uh, the House would have an overwhelming majority. Um, it's being hijacked. by an extremist minority. Speaker should put the bill on the floor. Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you, Miss Gantlin. Further discussion, Miss Leisure-Fernandez, you're recognized.

Yes, I think it is much more important to fund uh the Department of Homeland uh Security in the way that the Senate has unanimously agreed to fund it, uh rather than uh passing resolutions that congratulate Republicans and do nothing for world America. so thank you for bringing the um uh uh motion representative to the government

further discussion on the amendment mister roy you're recognized

um yeah i'll just simply add that this is not from the department of homeland security it funds portions of the department of homeland security very specifically does not fund ice and border patrol both of which and both of whom are uh working on behalf of the american people and deserve funding that's the point and that is the problem and the fact of the matter is uh we should not be isolating uh those uh great americans who are serving the people of this country uh and to try to stop uh people from uh being harmed by people who are not supposed to be here um and we should uh we should be figuring out how to fund all the department of online security yield back

thank you further discussion

i'd i'd just say madam chair this is my way of the highway attitude especially when there's a unanimous senate that has recommended we do this and take the time to work out the other remaining issues um again is is why people hate Congress cause you get nothing done around here nothing gets ever nothing ever happens that's good uh for this country because of that attitude and again uh we have an here's the deal if every republican wants to vote no on this in the house then vote no on it you know that's fine but I think we ought to be funding FEMA I think we ought to be funding TSA I think we ought to be funding the Coast Guard I think we ought to stop this and by the way the big ugly bill funded ice um and cbp uh to an exorbitant um uh amount um if you wanna fund more let's bring that to the floor separately or here's a here's a better idea maybe sit down and negotiate uh in good faith and try to get a bipartisan product with that i yield back

madam madam chair

mister scott

on early friday morning the house used the tool of unanimous consent to adopt a piece of legislation

right

the difference in what we did and what the senate did is there were hundreds of members of the house of representatives on the floor when we agreed to unanimous consent each and every time the senate has agreed to it there have been less than a handful of members on the floor of the united states senate so uh i would tell you that if if if the senate wants to do a u c as a law making exercise then then they should do it when they have a significant percentage of united states senate on the floor of the senate just like we did one week just like we did on the house the other day there were hundreds of members of the us house of representatives on the floor the other day this is crazy when we agreed to the u c the other thing i want to point out is that customs and border protection they do a tremendous amount of work good work to protect us the atlanta airport is one of the largest ports of entry in the world and um the work they do there to make sure that harmful ag products don't come into the united states of america and contaminate um our seed supply and other things and our food supply in this country is extremely important so i'm not comfortable funding uh parts of dhs and leaving out customs and they do a tremendous amount of good work and they need to be funded as well as immigration and customs enforcement and with that i yield back

madam chair

mr. mcgovern

yeah i can't believe i'm gonna defend ted cruz and mike lee and john kennedy but the notion that they were had no clue that this was coming up not once but twice um

were they on the floor

yeah well it doesn't matter they they were hardly there there weren't hundreds of people on the floor

were they on the floor yes there were you were on the floor i was on the floor

yeah

and and this and and by the way they all admitted that they knew about it in advance. They all knew about it in advance. This is such, this is so ridiculous, the American people see through this. I can't wait till November comes because we need to stop this nonsense once and for all. Uh, you bet.

Thank you. Mister McGovern, I really take offense that you're saying that we should fu we have funded the law abiding agencies. Um, our the agencies that are not being are law abiding agencies. They're there to do a job. And if they, if there are people in those agencies that are not law abiding, they will be taken out. But to call two agencies of the federal government non-law abiding really offends me. So I I just wanna say, and I I think Mister Scott is correct in what he's saying.

Yeah, a judge said that. I'm I'm saying what a judge said, so I'm sorry you're offended,

Well

but the bottom line is a compromise was reached in the Senate, we should take it, and then we should fight about the differences um with regard to the two agencies, by the way, that are that are funded through the big ugly bill.

Well, we're not a unicameral legislature. We're a bicameral legislature.

I just want it to be a functioning legislation.

Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question's on the amendment. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

those opposed say no

no no

no opinion chair of the notice have it the amendment is not agreed to

i ask for a roll call

uh mr. McGovern request a roll call the clerk will call the roll

Mrs. Fischbach Mrs. Fischbach no Mr. Norman Mr. Roy

no no no

Mr. Roy no Mrs. Houchen Mrs. Houchen no Mr. Langworthy Mr. Scott

no no

Mr. Scott no Mr. Griffith Mr. Jack

no

Mr. Jack no Mr. McGovern

aye

Mr. McGovern aye Miss Scanlon Miss Scanlon aye Mr. Nguyes

aye

Miss Ledger-Fernandez

aye

this is ledger fernandez aye madam chair

no

madam chair no

the clerk will report the total

three a six nice

the amendment is not agreed to is there further discussion on the motion from the uh gentleman from texas hearing no further discussion the question's on the motion from the gentleman from texas all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye uh-huh

aye those opposed say no

no no

in the opinion chair the ayes have it the motion is agreed to

ask for a roll call on four closed rules

mister mcgovern asks for a roll call vote a recorded vote has been requested the clerk will call the roll

Mrs. Fischbach

yes

Mrs. Fischbach, aye Mr. Orman, Mr. Roy

aye

Mr. Roy, aye, Mrs. Halton, Mrs. Halton, aye, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. Scott

aye aye

Mr. Scott, aye, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Jack

aye

Mr. Jack, aye, Mr. McGovern

no

Mr. McGovern, no, Miss Galin

no

miss Ganlin no mr. Neguse miss ledger-fernandez

no

miss ledger-fernandez no madam chair

aye

madam chair aye

the clerk will report the total

six yeas three nays

the ayes have it the motion to report is agreed to representative roy will be managing this rule for the majority

and representative goose for the democrats

ok without objection the committee is adjourned Yeah.