H.R. 4690 – Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act; H.R. 5587 – Harnessing Energy At Thermal Sources Act of 2026; H.R. 1897 – ESA Amendments Act of 2025; H. Res. 1182 – Expressing support for rural communities across the United States as stewards of the environment, major suppliers of United States energy resources, critical providers of food production and manufacturing capacity, and drivers of national economic stability, and recognizing the work of the House of Representatives in the 119th Congress in support of those vital communities.
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Rules U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
We exposed it in real time on the floor, and the deeply flawed proposal went down. In the end, a bipartisan agreement was reached to clear a 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 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 Nagoose 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 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 the 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, for gas, for housing, and 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, 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 stop with the meaning with I wish they stop with that meaningless resolution because, it only gets worse as you go down the list of today's agenda. 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 100 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. You have all spent months 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 $200,000,000,000 in cuts to SNAP and act as part of their big ugly bill. This bill does nothing to reverse those cuts, nothing to address the cuts. And in fact, we're hearing that more cuts and snaps 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 big wet kiss to the chemical companies, and it screws over a lot of small and medium sized farms all throughout this country and makes hunger worse. 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.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. 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 Poloné, 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 to 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.
Speaker 3
Thank you. Good afternoon, chairwoman Fox, and Reck member McGovern. I'm pleased to be here to discuss a bill and a resolution that today 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 HR 4690, the Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act led by my friend and your colleague on this committee, Congressman Langworthy. This legislation would have repealed a ban on fossil fuels in 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 2030. 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 in New England burning trash contributed more energy than wind and solar combined. This legislation does not say federal bills 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 consideration. Based on experience, however, wind and solar have not been able to keep up. Republicans' Congress' fault for consumer choice allows 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 a house resolution 1182, which highlights several additional ways in which the house republicans have sought to strengthen rural communities as congress. For example, we have enacted legislation to unleash domestic energy production, such as reversing Department of Energy 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 Fentanyl 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 accelerate economic growth and opportunity for the American people. I look forward to your questions, and I yield back.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Chairwoman Fox, and I'll submit the full statement for the record and try to summarize if that's okay. 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, the resolution, with regard to rural areas, I have to say that I completely agree with what mister our ranking member McGovern said. I mean, it’s kinda like I don’t know. 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 crazy. 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 that much. Rural areas basically face the same problems that everybody else faces with higher prices, inflation, you know, health care that is also not only going up in terms of cost of premiums, also increasingly not accessible.
I would argue that, actually, these things are probably even worse for rural areas. And, 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 my district, we have a lot in New Jersey. And when I go there, I hear the same thing, which is, I'm using the Affordable Care Act, and my premiums doubled or tripled because the House Republicans and the President didn't extend the tax credits or the subsidies. My gas prices are going through the roof.
I mean, they're well over $4 in most of the state of New Jersey right now. And that's impacting fertilizers and the ability for me to produce vegetables, you know, where the garden states that 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 saying you're doing in this resolution doesn't address the real problems that rural areas today face, and the rest of the country faces, frankly. So to me, it's just a nothing resolution.
Self and, 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. But the other bill, the Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act, is just another handout to the fossil fuel industry. It repeals 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 kinda lead the path away from fossil fuels, because we knew that clean energy was cheaper.
We wanted more efficiency. We wanted electrification, because we knew that, ultimately, that was going to lower prices and be more reliable. I completely disagree with Chairman Guthrie that this is less reliable. I think it's more reliable. And the bottom line is whoever in envisioning what the situation might be a few years down the road from when this bill passed, bipartisan, all the things that we're concerned about are more true today than ever, because the price of gasoline, 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 $5 per gallon. Residential natural gas prices have increased by 13% since President Trump took office. And so the prices are surging thanks to Trump's reckless war in Iran. And rather than focusing on that and saying, hey, this is a good idea to try to phase out fossil fuels and serve as a lesson for everybody else because of what we're facing now with this gas crisis and petroleum crisis.
You say, oh no. No. We'll just double down, and we'll rely more on fossil fuels than ever. I mean, 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 just don't understand what this is all about. The idea, when this was passed years ago, was to create more efficient federal buildings, more modern technology with electrification, and to scale up and become and use as an example, not do what the Republicans are trying to do now. So, again, I don't wanna keep saying the same thing over and over again, but this makes absolutely no sense. It made sense at the time to 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'll yield back, Madam Chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. I'm going to defer my questions still a little later. Miss Fishbach, you're recognized.
Speaker 5
Thank you, madam chair. And thank you, Mr. Chairman and the ranking member for being here. And I just wanted to say I know the ranking member is excited to be here. We walked over together, and he had a little spring in his step. He was so excited to come to the rules.
But I do have a question for the chair regarding the Section four thirty three issue. And, you know, it may have good intentions, but I think 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're trying to address.
Speaker 3
Well, thanks. Yes. As my friend, the ranking member, mentioned it, this was 2007. And starting in 2010, the fossil fuels are supposed to be ramping down. And it's just been difficult for every administrator.
We've not met the goal. So it started in 2010 to be completely eliminated by 2030 in our federal buildings. And in 2007, you know, that was before the shale revolution. That was before, the Permian Basin of West Texas was considered. They knew they were not out of oil, but they knew they didn't have the gas, but they didn't have the technology to get it.
We now have that. And so, 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, did an opening statement with Storm Fern. So but you're saying previous administrations have difficulty doing a Republican and Democrat administration starting in 2010. And so what we're saying is it's just it it's one of those things in 2007, let's say, in 25 years where everything's gonna be clean, energy free, let's pass the bill to mandate that.
And the technology just has a reliable technology hasn't kept up with it. It hasn't been able to be implemented. No administration has met the targets. And what we're saying is just take it off the books because it's something that can't happen, and it's difficult to, it's not gonna happen by 2030. That's for sure.
And it is something that we have with the American energy production. I will admit American people are hurting today because of what's going on in Iran to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon, and, hopefully, that is short term. You gotta know that the policies that we put in place, a lot of it through the one big beautiful bill, but others had the barrel of oil down to about $60 a barrel, where people in Texas are saying that it's difficult to even produce oil at $60 a barrel because it was so cheap. And so that's the structure we set up. We now have 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 I think we'll get back to the place where our policies took us, which was closer to $60 a barrel of oil.
Speaker 5
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 what it does is truly create the options so that they can look at all of the sources instead of trying to meet some kind of artificial standard in law.
Speaker 3
Exactly. I mean, there are some states that they're mandated, and I can hold a chart up to show which states mandate it more than others, and which one has the blue being more expensive.
Speaker 3
Energy, the red being less expensive energy. And so, states can still, I mean, well, this would be the federal government making decisions, but you can make the same decisions. You just aren't mandated to go full wind and solar.
Speaker 5
Well, you can actually make an informed decision and take a look at everything and decide which option fits that building best.
Speaker 3
What's been consistent with Mister Langworthy here is he has several bills in this area. Let areas have a choice. Let areas make choices on what's best for their community and what fits them the best. And if some states, as you look here, put, as I showed, had chosen to have higher prices because they want different types of energy, that's their decision as a state. But it's not affordable and certainly not sustainable.
And it's not a good decision for the American taxpayer.
Speaker 5
Well, thank you for being here today. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Langworthy, for bringing the bill forward, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Yeah. I just can't quite get this H.R. 1182. With all this going on, this is what you bring to the floor. I come from a district that has close to 1,900 farms.
I tour those farms every year. I meet with hundreds of farmers every year. And I gotta tell you, not one of them has ever said, you know what we need? We need a nonbinding resolution for you to tell us that you care about farmers in rural America. I mean, 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 HRAS 1182. It's a nonbinding resolution, basically, patting yourselves on the back for a bunch of stuff that you're past, most of which, by the way, has never become law. But 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. I don't know. Democrats controlled all three branches of government. I'd like to think that a lot of what we were trying to champion would actually become law.
But all of this is, you know, praising you for all kinds of stuff that, you know, again, most of it has done nothing to help anybody. I mean, actions speak louder than words. I mean, this resolution is five pages of words with literally zero action. Five pages of words with literally zero action. Again, 20 of its 27 clauses are just Republicans congratulating yourselves for bills you've already passed.
And as I mentioned, most of which have not become law. I mean, the resolution can't become law, only says it supports rural America in the title. I mean, I'm looking at the actual text, and it basically just pats House Republicans on the back for strengthening rural communities. I mean, I'm trying to understand what the goal of this bill is. Chairman Guthrie, maybe you can explain to me, 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 is this a priority?
Speaker 3
Well, I think it's important to show, and there's always sense of congress and different resolutions that we pass, and that the work of this congress has been to support rural communities. I can go through the list of or as is in the bills that, for example, the support act, which helps people with recovery, halt fentanyl act, which is devastating, not just rural America, but all of America with drug and substance use disorder. I can go through the list if you want, but the idea is to say that we are working to help rural America.
Speaker 2
But none of this in this bill does nothing to address anything. You know, the resolution pats Republicans on the back for, quote, historic investments in rural health care. And you do that at a time when over 338 rural hospitals are at risk of closure, conversion, or service reduction from substantial health care cuts in the Republicans' big ugly bill. By the way, including 35 hospitals in Kentucky. You know?
That's a list.
Speaker 3
From our governor. That's not an accurate list, actually. Well I've visited 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 it did was scare their employees.
Speaker 2
Well, you have a trillion dollars in Medicaid cuts coming, plus a whole bunch of other wonderful things that have yet to kick in. You know, be prepared to have your phone ringing off the hook. You know?
Speaker 2
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. And you've already kicked 2,500,000 Americans off a snap. And all the cuts in the big ugly bill, they haven't even been implemented yet.
And now we're hearing that in your next budget resolution, reconciliation bill, you're talking about even deeper cuts in SNAP. You know, just so people on this committee understand, because I think sometimes you don't. But the average SNAP benefit is about $2 per person per meal, you know? And that's the benefit you're going after. And, again, people are already losing their benefit.
Hunger is getting worse in this country. Food insecurity is getting worse in this country. It is also a health care issue, which means more cost for our medical institutions. So nothing in this at all addresses any of that. And I'm just trying to look, you know, I mean, USA Today says 70% of farmers can't afford fertilizer.
One third of the global fertilizer trade passes through the Straits of Hormuz, according to the UN. I mean, I don't think my farmers can go with this bill and go in and purchase fertilizer at a cheaper rate because passing a sense of congress resolution that does nothing. I mean, 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 Farm Bureau study that says six to 10 farms say, you know, farming is getting worse in this country. It's becoming more difficult, and people are beginning to think that they can't 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 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 reality. And I just 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 floor 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. Understanding that we've already spent over $50,000,000,000 on that war, none of it was 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 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 schools could we have built? How many roads and bridges could we have fixed? And, again, you know, nothing here addresses any of the challenges.
People 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 guys are not doing a damn thing. People are getting fed up with it. People are angry. And this kind of proves my point. This is much ado about nothing.
We should be bringing substantive legislation to the floor that actually will improve the lives of our rural communities and of our farmers in particular, and that's not what we're doing. So I'm, yeah, 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 toward July, you guys aren't going to want to come back because you're going to be busy trying to save your seats in various congressional districts across the country. But this is just frustrating. And I thank you both for being here, but I wish you were here on something else. You're better.
Speaker 6
Thank you, madam chair. And I represent Rural America. I represent about 30 counties as a matter of fact, 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 financing of the health care system. And I can tell you my hometown hospital has millions of dollars in outstanding claims.
I believe it is United Healthcare. I believe it is UnitedHealthcare that the CEO told me owes them the millions of dollars. And it is an issue, again, of the insurance carriers not being willing to pay their claims. And this is, I think, particularly harsh. The insured carriers are particularly harsh through their Medicare Advantage plans towards especially our rural hospitals who obviously have cash flow issues, and the legal fees to fight these gorillas of insurance companies is much harder on the smaller ones, but the way they got those monopolies is through the Affordable Care Act.
So if you wanna talk about the problems that exist with finance and health care finance and hospital finance, I'll tell you. I think you're right about the challenges out there, but you can't ignore the fact that when you effectively took competition out of the market and supersized a select few health insurance companies that have control of the pharmacy benefit managers, and are answerable to nobody, including state insurance commissioners. 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 agree that there are problems there.
We have disagreements over what caused those problems, but they're definitely problems. And I think it gets back to the insurance carriers not paying their claims. The other thing I wanna say is this, about the American farmer. The American farm economy in this country has been in trouble. It was in trouble long before president Trump took office, long before.
And, certainly, farmers spend a lot of money on diesel, and so, when diesel prices go up, it hurts the American farmer. I will tell you, I'm thankful that I have a president of the White House and a secretary of agriculture 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, our food, is important to America. I'm thankful that we've got a president that believes in energy and food independence from other parts of the world. So that said, I wish we could pass more meaningful legislation.
But, as you know, 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 all of a sudden, it becomes very difficult or impossible to pass any legislation. So, mister chairman, would you like to speak to some of the issues that have been raised here? Yeah. I certainly trust you, and I know you're a good man.
Speaker 3
Thank you. And I appreciate I know the passion of my good friend from Massachusetts, and I appreciate. But since 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'd it, we wanna come to the floor and just break through the noise. And for instance, it does say here, rural transformation, historic investments in rural health care.
Now Massachusetts got $162,000,000. And in the Massachusetts plan, it says the rule through the rural health transformation program, we will catalyze transformative investments that strengthen rural MA. I guess, as Medicare Advantage, Massachusetts communities enable them to thrive and sustain improved health care for generations. It will, one, ensure rural residents can readily access health care services, generate opportunities 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, 162000000.
They say it's an investment into over 1,000,000,000 over five years, and to transform rural health care in Massachusetts.
Speaker 6
And that is where we get the money to the actual health care provider instead of to the insurance company. Is that correct?
Speaker 6
And that is the difference. We want to get the money actually to the provider where, again, I think the monopoly in the insurance industry is the reason that the health care providers are not being paid and the demand that we give these supersized insurance companies that had over $1,000,000,000,000 in revenue that if we had given them, I think it was 30, was it 30,000,000,000, mister chairman, more than the democrats were demanding in subsidies to a group of carriers that had 1,400,000,000,000 in revenue that somehow that was gonna save the system? Yeah. That we gave the money.
Speaker 3
I know that number was more ways and means, but I think it's yeah. It's close to that number. I believe that's.
Speaker 6
Accurate. We believe that the money should go to the provider, not to the insurance industry. And with that, Madam Chair, I yield. Thank.
Speaker 2
Yeah. So Mister Scott just said a whole bunch of stuff that I just feel I need to respond to, some of it. First, he said, basically, blaming Democrats for not bringing more substantive legislation to the floor. I thought I heard everything. The bottom line is you control everything, 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 could debate them, and we could vote on them. And every week, you all vote against them. So if you want democratic support on the process, maybe work with us and make a few things in order. The idea that we should just go along to get along and get nothing in terms of what we care about, I mean, that's ridiculous. And in terms of big insurance companies, hey, I'm one of the biggest critics of big insurance companies here.
I have no if we were bringing a bill to go after big insurance, I'd be happy to join you. 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 problem with, you know, the cost of rural health care is these big insurance companies. You know, when, again, this you bring nothing to fix it, it just rings hollow.
And then the other thing is, Chairman Guthrie, I mean, talking about the money that was sent to Massachusetts, 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, our states all across the country are gonna have an 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. You know, you got all this.
I mean, talk to your governors. You know, talk to the people who run the health care agencies in your state. They are panicked. And by the way, you know, talk to your farmers. 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 the sense of Congress that we care about our rural communities. I mean, people have had enough. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Mr. McGovern. Look. I was hoping that since apparently there's nothing urgent 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 HRES 1182 expressing support for rural communities. And I'm really struggling to understand what this nonbinding resolution is supposed to do or what it's supposed to accomplish. It has no funding. It doesn't make a new law. It doesn't repeal old laws.
It doesn't help the family farms that 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 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 premium tax credits under the ACA. Doesn't help rural hospitals that are closing because Republicans cut nearly a trillion dollars in their big ugly bill.
And trying to rename and rebrand that bill with a nonbinding 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 are eating their checkbooks. They don't wanna see us wander billions of dollars on unnecessary wars. And with all the crises facing our country right now, a nonbinding resolution saying, hey, Republicans did a good job passing a lot of bills that didn't become law, doesn't seem like the way to go.
Ranking member Polon, is there anything you would like to add?
Speaker 4
Well, I mean, as I said before, I totally agree with you, mister McGovern, about this resolution. It doesn't do anything, and it certainly, even if everything that they claim to have done is true or had passed, which is, as Mister McGovern pointed out, most of it hasn't passed, isn't gonna make any difference because prices, fertilizer, oil, gas, everything keeps going up, and it doesn't matter whether in rural America or in the rest of the country. You know, the affordability crisis is real, and the Republicans aren't doing anything to address it. I just wanted to see if I could respond on the second bill about the federal buildings, and I guess I'm responding to Chairman Guthrie. You know, he kept saying, well, if you don't if you eliminate this mandate that federal buildings move away from fossil fuels, towards electrification, towards more efficiency, They can still be efficient.
They can still electrify or use clean energy. But that's, I mean, that's not gonna happen under the Trump administration. Right? In other words, if you eliminate the mandate, then the Trump administration, which is so focused on fossil fuels, is gonna move totally away from exactly what we were trying to accomplish there. You know, they're determined to just use oil and gas 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 the Republicans are trying to do. So this suggests that somehow this is going to happen on its own without the mandate. It's totally 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 president Bush was because we realized that 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 $3,000,000 per year for federal buildings if we move in this direction, away from fossil fuels. And that probably was true is even more true today because the price of oil and gas keeps going up because of the Iran war. But beyond that, the whole idea was to encourage more efficiency and to look at new technology. And chairman Guthrie said, oh, well, that doesn't work. We haven't 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 gonna keep up with, you're certainly not gonna encourage new techno or more efficiency. And the last thing I would say in that respect is if anything that has happened in this Iran war has taught me a lesson, 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, Chinese negotiated the ceasefire. 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 reliant on oil and gas. And that has now borne fruit because now they realize that was a 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 behind in this competition, if you will, with China.
And I don't hear much anymore about, you know, 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, towards more clean energy, is 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 have. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to express my opinion on that.
Speaker 7
I share your concern, and it's not just that the Trump administration is doubling down on its preference for 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 1 billion dollars to a French energy company to pay them off for the fact that it canceled their leases to build offshore wind. And instead, it wants them to 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 a waste of taxpayer dollars, and it just has no eye on the future.
Speaker 8
Well, thank you very much, madam chair. I wanna focus on my legislation within the rule, HR 4690, the Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act. Because when you strip this down, 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. 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 a given region. Chairman Guthrie, 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?
Speaker 3
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, they're not as efficient. If they're cheaper and the market will go where the right price is. And that and so the argument that it's gonna be more expensive if you take away the mandate just doesn't fit. You know, our area, I have four NOCs, and the geology of Kentucky is a natural, a 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 2030 at Fort Knox unless we got rid of our ability to not sustain itself. So, that's, there are a lot of these, and it goes back to you can't, you know, so this calls of President Trump's in office now. This goes back to 2010 when there's not been a target met because we just haven't. It was a lofty goal, but, you know, it's in statute. That's when you put these things in statute.
Like, did repeal the every two thirds of every American car had to be electric by 2032, 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, you put them in statute, and when you can't reach them, either gotta say, is it possible, is it even possible to do what this law says? I think it's even possible to do it. But if it was possible, is it the right thing to do?
Would you wanna shut down Fort Knox's energy independence so it can run off rely on clean energy? That's not reliable. I don't think that's a good suggestion.
Speaker 8
Yes. I think that's the problem that New York's faced right now with really adopting what they call the CLCPA, which is 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. It's not practical. It's certainly not reliable, and it's far more expensive on the pocketbooks of our constituents.
But they can't seem to wiggle a few things.
Speaker 3
But completely. I'll ask you, I mean, I'm, I know you're asking me, Craig. As I know, 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 an extremely rural state once you get up the Hudson River. And so do those. I would assume that those mandates that New York has put in have affected farmers with their electricity rates.
Speaker 3
Because when you look at the blue states, I mean, most of these blue states, California, Illinois, are massive farm states, but look at where you see the expense. It's hard to affect your farmers.
Speaker 8
My district is massively rural, and it is certainly hurting, you know, these arbitrary standards have hurt across the board, including our farmers. I mean, the amount of demand needing to come out of our grid that can't meet that is really hitting people in the pocketbook now as the mandates come out of the utilities to build out the grid. Let me ask you this, Chairman Guthrie. Do these requirements make it harder for agencies to choose the most practical and reliable energy option when they're planning and building facilities?
Speaker 3
Well, if you assume the agency is gonna choose the most 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, 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.
Speaker 8
Right. Because this standard goes far beyond, you know, putting in LED light bulbs. I mean, we're talking about, you know, fully electrified buildings in a place where electric might not be plentiful and might not be as practical as natural gas or other more traditional energy sources there. But thank you very much. If an agency is operating in a part of the country where certain energy sources like natural gas are 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 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. 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. 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.
Speaker 9
Thank you. Thank you, madam chair. Good afternoon, chairman and ranking member. Appreciate you both being here. I know I believe that the ranking member, perhaps, expressed some thoughts early on during the course of the hearing, at least it's my understanding, that reflected some of the comments that I made in the last hearing that we held when we were here a week ago.
So just by way of background, so that the chairman and ranking member, you both can have full context, for some of my questions, I posed what I thought was an authentic and candid question to my colleagues last week, but apparently has been more of a rhetorical question, which was, are we going to continue entertaining these commemorative resolutions? Do Republicans intend to spend every week here into perpetuity or at least the remainder of the 119th Congress and the Republican majority, spending their time doing commemorative resolutions? Lo and behold, we're back, and we're doing the same thing again. HRES 11 82. Chairman Guthrie, the resolution here, I'm gonna quote, this resolution says expressing support for rural communities across the United States.
Speaker 9
Gonna jump a little bit. It says, quote, and recognizing the work of the House of Representatives in the 119th Congress. What does that mean to you? What you say recognizing the work. What is the purpose of this resolution?
Is it to recognize your work?
Speaker 3
The work the House representatives have done for rural communities. We talked about the rural.
Speaker 3
About you, you always my good friend already heard the big ugly bill. He always says that. And we'll say they're good things. Really good things that were done.
Speaker 3
Just do we need to, I just did roundtables with people in my district getting $3,000.
Speaker 9
You believe Mhmm. 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? Weird.
Why do you need that recognition?
Speaker 3
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 rural people.
Speaker 9
Well, no. I understand that it's a technical resolution, but 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.
Speaker 3
Well, it can, it's a statement of our statement. You voted for resolutions before.
Speaker 9
Your predecessor. The person who is not your predecessor. Excuse me. The ranking member who was, excuse me, the chairman who was here last week presenting on the other commemorative resolution that we did. 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, I think, is
Speaker 3
Very recognize all of us. Some of the things in this bill we all voted for. The supporter act, a lot of us voted for the support act. I mean, it's.
Speaker 3
You voted a lot of you voted for the fall halt fentanyl act that helped rural communities, the support act that helped people that are suffering from matter of fact, your colleague from Colorado was the cosponsor of the legislation. And so it's not just listing what the Republicans did. It's listing what Congress did.
Speaker 9
My humble request would be, because 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?
Speaker 3
I worked on the support act literally with congresswoman Patterson from your area. So there are things that we've done by far.
Speaker 9
I don't think I mean, I take you to be a very serious legislator, mister chairman. I wanna you all work on a
Speaker 3
lot of dismissing this. This is not being serious, but I'm not the sponsor of.
Speaker 9
And I'm not, I'm just suggesting to you, and maybe I'm making a humble request. Mhmm. 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 don't really understand this obsession that the Republican majority has developed in the last few weeks with passing resolutions recognizing the House. Like, we get it. We understand that you are proud of the work you did.
And so let's move on.
Speaker 3
Let's do it. And I wanna clarify for you. Not everything in here is bipartisan. I'm not saying it was passed, but there were some things in here that I wanna, I didn't wanna use someone's name and say they endorse.
Speaker 9
were bipartisan. Just suggesting to you. And, of course, I mean, we could test out some of these whereas clauses, which are 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 H.R. 4690, Mister Langworthy's bill, 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 1976. Is that?
Speaker 9
1976. Right? The original law is signed by a Republican, right, by Gerald Ford.
Speaker 9
Yeah. And then in 2007, this bill passes, signed by President George W. Bush.
Speaker 9
Republican. Right? Mhmm. Right? Right.
Okay. I went back and looked. Do you know how many House Republicans voted for this mandate that you're now trying to eliminate?
Speaker 9
95 Republicans. 95 Republicans. A lot of them are still here. In fact, some of them are on your committee. Mister Bill Cray, I don't wanna pronounce this right.
Bill Crayus? Is that?
Speaker 3
Burakis. Burakis. Burakis. 2000. I was here in 2000. He was. His father was here too.
Speaker 9
His dad. Regardless, there are 95 Republicans who voted for that bill. I will say to her, you know, the madam chairwoman did not vote for it. I went back and looked, and she was against these, you know, this mandate in 2007, and I take it as against them now.
Speaker 9
That's okay, in any event. We can go through his family legacy later. The point is this. 95 Republicans supported this, thought this was a good idea, thought it was a prudent thing to do. George W. Bush agreed.
Mhmm. This Republican party that you're a member 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. That we ought to well, I, you know, the I hope we'll see the 95 Republicans or at least those who are still here, who voted, in a way that was very different than the chairwoman's.
But I don't have the same feelings as you could probably imagine that the chairwoman does. I think that we all should have deep regret at the fact that what used to be a bipartisan consensus is now no longer the case. And, Requiemara Polon, I don't know if you care to expound on this. I don't know if you were here when we when this. Obviously. You were here.
Of course, you were here. You remember this well. But I just 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 was something that was valued and revered. And now that's no longer the case. And you're under unwinding mandates, not democratic mandates.
These are Republican mandates, Republican requirements. Don't lay it at the feet of the democrats. This was a bill that 95 Republicans backed.
Speaker 1
Well, you just said George W. Bush. But this was a bill brought forward by the Democrats.
Speaker 9
Okay. So just to be clear, the record is crystal clear. I wanna make sure your chairwoman is right, and I'm, of course, wanna make sure that we're very exacting in our language. The original legislation signed by Republican president Gerald Ford amended 35 later with the support of 95 house Republicans in 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 his colleagues find to be repugnant and odious and over...
Overwhelming in scope and scale. Your thoughts?
Speaker 4
Well, I'm just repeating. I mean, I know that the reason it passed and the reason it was signed by president Bush is 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 efficiency, of, you know, looking at new ways of doing things that would be more reliable. 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 the price of oil and gas is at an all time high or 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 make things more efficient and not rely so much on oil and gas in the future because they knew we had to diversify.
And, I the understanding that was there on a bipartisan basis were true today than ever.
Speaker 9
Yeah. I couldn't agree. 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, who were so effusive in support of this 20 years ago, who apparently have changed their tune. One question, one final question for the chairman.
I know the chairwoman will indulge me here, given our colloquy previously. So I just wanna go back to HRES 1182. This is the celebratory resolution extolling the virtues of the work that's been done by the Republicans in the hundred 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. Right?
Last fall, last winter, last spring. Is that?
Speaker 9
Kinda 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 14 months. I suppose that's not from personal knowledge. Maybe that it's from reading the press releases from the House Republican Caucus perhaps. Anyway, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Passingly interesting that, for something that you all think doesn't do anything, you're spending so much time discussing it. Mister Roy, you're recognized.
Speaker 11
I mean, time I don't tend to use my entire five minutes or whatever our allotment is. But, I do just wanna ask the chairman. We've had a whole lot of time in here talking about a resolution, which is striking. Is it not the case at the end of the day that the point remains, like many things, that the house 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, the legislation we're talking about here in terms of ways in which we can have energy that is available, that is affordable, that is reliable, that drives down prices for the American people, etcetera, that at virtually every turn, that legislation hits a, what I call fake filibuster threshold in the United States Senate of 60 votes. And that, therefore, part of this is, of course, a messaging operation, and that's part of what we do. And there's 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, 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 bad fact they were racking up federal debt and costing people more money on the back end, and driving interest rates up and making housing more unaffordable, etcetera, etcetera. Is that roughly correct?
Speaker 11
And I think then I just think that merits observations that, like, resolutions, not resolutions. I don't love them. I don't like post office naming. I don't like about 90% of the crap that we do in Congress generally. Like, everybody knows that.
And that's a bipartisan statement. That is not a nonpartisan statement. 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 13 judges, add four left-leaning judges, make DC a state, and other things. Right?
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 off, 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 DC into a state, I boundly 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, four weeks on the floor.
The Civil Rights Act of 1960, I think it was upwards of ninety days, eighty days or something like that, being on the floor of the Senate. 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 60 votes in both directions. You usually just continue the status quo. Merit people wanna know why we're $39,000,000,000,000 in debt? That's it. That's why we're 39,000,000,000,000 in debt.
We never actually have to enforce a vote. We never actually have to have a serious debate and enforce the issue. Instead, we end up in exactly the situation where it's leveraged against each other in order to force some compromised bill that everybody can get on the same page. And watch it happen on FISA. Right?
That's what's gonna happen. The powers that be in the freaking intelligent 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 and the powers that be in the House and 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 warrants, he chose not to decide with Biden. 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 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. I think that's the reality.
The bill, though, that you guys are here talking about, the design of that legislation, right, is to say, look, we're going to repeal those mandates because we're looking at trying to get it back to saying, well, you can't have these federal buildings have 90% requirements with respect to green energy because, frankly, it's a fraud anyway because it's all being subsidized. And then you're having to rely on reliable power in order to have power in those buildings in the first place. And nobody talks about all the green negative impacts of the freaking windmill parts getting buried all over, you know, the country. The extent to which we're now having to have inefficient energy because they're not up when solar and wind, 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 go back.
Speaker 3
Well, I'm just saying so we the dates that, mister Nagus brought up. So 1976, I was 12 years old, guess it was. I remember waiting in gas lines. Was fine. I remember waiting in gas lines with my father.
2007, if you're it's stuff that you do. Some people do here. It's the frustrating thing here. In 25 years, so it's '26. I get the math.
But twenty-five years from now, 2030, that was a convenient day to pick. All federal billers are gonna be 100% clean energy. And in 2007, that was before the Permian Basin Board of the Shell Revolution for all the other things. So just to say that Republicans have changed their tune since 2007. The whole energy nature of the Americas changed since 2007.
We're energy independent. I will tell you when I in 1976, if what was if the Strait of Hormuz was closed down.
Speaker 3
We wouldn't be paying $4 for gas. We wouldn't have it. Now it is a problem, and it is something we need to get, hopefully, we get addressed soon. Now not having a nuclear rand's worth it to me. But what my point is, is that energy and it has changed over 25 years.
If you'd have said back in 2007, looked at the way Europe's going, America and Europe had the same size economy in 2008. We're almost twice the size of con, could you imagine if America had half the economy now? Half the economy because we made decisions like Europe to overregulate, overtax, and go green? Like, the level that they went? I'm all for clean.
I'm all for clean energy. But, at the level do you imagine if our economy was half the size that it was? And so think about what decisions Europe made in 02/1978. We luckily, I don't know what happened. I wasn't here in 2007.
I know that speaker Pelosi was just freshly minted speaker, and I know the environment was a big agenda item for her. And so in the end, probably from cap and trade to, alright. Let's just do the federal buildings. But imagine if we'd have gone the whole economy towards the federal, like they did federal buildings in 2007, like Europe did. They had half the economy that we have.
Could you imagine America had half the economy?
Speaker 11
I appreciate it, 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.
Speaker 1
I agree with you. And I will say, I'm sorry mister Naguse is not here. But I remember very well meeting with President Bush and his saying at about the time that this bill was passed, probably that within 10 years, everything in this country would be being run by batteries. And we're not anywhere near that. Miss Leisure Fernandez, you're recognized.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, madam chair. And I think that our colleague, Chip Roy, asked a very interesting question as Americans wanna know why we have the debt. Now, mister chairman, can you tell me your big beautiful bill, what it did to the national debt? How much?
Speaker 3
Well, I know that we did have entitlement reform unless, well, it depends on the number you pick for the growth. So what CBO said for, well, I don't have the actual number off the top of my head, but I think they did, like, 1.6% economic growth.
Speaker 3
But if you go with the real growth they'll have, you're not gonna see that same issue.
Speaker 10
Right. So CBO said $4,700,000,000,000. So $4,700,000,000,000 is a lot. And when you add that to the other tax cuts of the Trump administration, Trump won. So $4,700,000,000,000.
That's what they said, and that's what we are starting to see, because not only are we not getting 4 point
Speaker 10
Because of the tariffs, because of the war. America is not seeing the growth that we're going to. And the other thing that we're not seeing is that wind and solar, and I'm gonna say this over and over again because 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 Ranking Map. Or isn't it true that wind and solar, even without the subsidies, are the cheapest and fastest energy we can bring on board?
Speaker 4
Absolutely. 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 oil and gas forever.
Speaker 10
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 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 and the American government up to higher standards.
But the other piece about it, guess who benefits from wind and solar? It is rural America. Rural America benefits from wind and solar. I'm very upset, Mr. Chairman. You said the Permian Basin, and you talked about Texas.
Guess who represents the Permian Basin?
Speaker 3
Right. You should be upset. New Mexico. I've been to the nuclear plant where the.
Speaker 3
Well, I know, but it's right north of the Permian Bay. I've been there. So you're right. You're right. Permian Basin also straddles New Mexico.
Speaker 10
Not only that, we are the second largest oil producers in the country, but guess what else we are? We have the second. At one point, we had the largest wind farm in the country. Now the great thing is it's no longer because other people are doing it. And you know who that wind farm may have benefited? Not just the people in the Permian Basin, but ranchers and rural counties who are getting the tax revenue.
And I've gone to the schools that train the students who are gonna work on those wind farms. And Mister Fuller, did you say Mister Fuller brought this bill?
Speaker 10
Now did you know that in Georgia, with the IRA, they had 19 large projects, $10,000,000,000 in wages. And these are the wages being paid. These are funds. These are payables in, say, Ruth, America. And so if you're gonna celebrate, 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 for the world America because that's what you're doing here.
Speaker 3
Well, we're just saying let people choose the energy. We're not saying you can't do wind and solar. Oh, we're just saying to choose the most efficient energy.
Speaker 10
When this administration makes it harder and sues and stops and freezes renewable energy projects, which is about 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 unrenewable energies. And you are misstating the facts about what you
Speaker 4
Yeah. The none. And, you know, they on the Energy and Congress Committee, the Republicans keep saying, oh, we're for all of the above energy, but that's, but they don't do that.
Speaker 4
Absolutely. But beyond that, it also would say that, as I said before, that if you eliminate the legislation that was passed in 2007 that mandates that you move towards renewables, they're not going to consider renewables at all because that's the legacy of the Trump administration. They just wanna get out of this so that they can then say that every federal building has to be powered with oil and gas. That's what they're up to.
Speaker 10
I mean, do you remember how much when the oil and gas companies went and met with candidate Trump, how much he asked them for as campaign computers?
Speaker 10
He asked him for a billion dollars, and then he said he'd really do well by them. They didn't quite make the billion, but they have done pretty good by him, and he has been well by them.
Speaker 3
I will tell you. I've heard from oil people that they didn't like $60 barrel of oil, which our policies brought about, and that because it's made it cheaper for American people.
Speaker 10
Well, you know, now he's really doing a good job of raising those gas, 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?
Speaker 3
Well, it'd be good for the world, for Iran not to have a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 3
It's absolutely because they have to drive further. I'm not dismissing that whatsoever.
Speaker 10
Rural America. It takes 11 hours to go from one corner of my district to another. Eleven hours.
Speaker 3
It's a beautiful state. A big, beautiful state. Big, beautiful state. Is a beautiful state.
Speaker 10
You know what they don't like? They don't like the fact that their tractors, 100 gallon tractor diesel, it's much more than having to pay.
Speaker 3
It is more expensive today than but I've hopefully, not having a nuclear ram will
Speaker 10
Because it was a treaty, I think, that we were involved in that New Mexico. I represent Los Alamos National Lab, and, you know, we have the nuclear nonproliferation 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 rural America, how about arguing and standing firm against this warf, which is hurting world farmers. You heard that the poll was done by the Farm Bureau Association. 70% of farmers don't think they can make it now because of the cost of war.
And then let's talk about the tariffs. You haven't sort of said everything you've done on the tariffs, but because you've done nothing on the tariffs. What has happened to the soybean farmers? Do you have an idea of what's happened with the soybean farmers?
Speaker 3
Well, China hasn't just recently made a commitment to buy more soybeans, so hopefully that will come to pass.
Speaker 10
Right. And they, because they destroyed their export market thanks to Trump's tariffs. You have to acknowledge that.
Speaker 3
Well, we do trade a lot. One third of every Kentucky soybean does go overseas. Not always in China, but 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 agriculture moving again.
Speaker 10
Oh, it's I mean, that's the thing is that we keep hearing congresspeople, Republicans, talk about how they're doing good by World America, and they passed a bill that is look at all these pages. Oh my god. How many, do you know how many querasses you have in here?
Speaker 10
Any of these warehouses lower the cost of gas, of diesel for that tractor, a ranking member?
Speaker 4
Yeah. The no. I mean, it has no, it's just commemorative, as you said from the beginning. It doesn't actually do anything.
Speaker 10
Yeah. And I think that the other issue that is really hurting rural America is the fact that there are two kinds of cuts that our hospitals are gonna hurt from. And it's that there are Medicaid cuts. One in four individuals living in rural America relies on Medicaid. And then the Affordable Care Act cuts are really going to 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 world hospitals, is that enough, ranking member, to make up for the cuts in Medicaid, to make up for the cuts, to make up for the elimination of the ACA tax credit premiums.
Speaker 4
Absolutely not. And I'm glad you brought that up because, chairman Guthrie, talked about that rural fund, rural health fund, and it's a pittance compared to the losses from Medicaid, the losses to hospitals, what they're doing with the provider tax. And that's why you're seeing all these comments about the number of hospitals that may close. I think he dismissed what the governor of Kentucky said, that there might be 30 some hospitals in Kentucky. A list just came out the other day in New Jersey, 15 possible hospitals.
And we actually had, percentage-wise, the best amount of money that came from that rural fund. And when I talk to the hospital ministry, it's a drop in the bucket. I mean, I don't even think it's, like, even 20 per, not even 5% of the losses at the hospitals are right.
Speaker 10
It's not enough. And I have visited every, you know, almost I think almost every single one of the hospitals in my district that's at risk, and they're very honest. And they tell you why those numbers don't work. And, the big beautiful bill, I understand why the Republicans wouldn't have wanted to try to rename it and rebrand it, but you can't rebrand the kind of hurt that our rural hospitals are gonna suffer because of Republicans' bills that actually do something. But what they're doing is hurting rural America.
And with that, madam chair, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez. Seeing no further persons to ask you any questions, I thank our panel for coming today, and tell you that you are excused. I now welcome our second panel, Representative Hagemann and Representative Stansbury from the Committee on Natural Resources. Your full statement will be submitted for the record, and we ask you to summarize your statement in five minutes. We ask you to address all legislation under your committee's jurisdiction in your five minutes.
We Hegeman, I welcome your testimony, Representative Stanbury.
Speaker 12
Of the ESA. Grizzlies were listed as threatened in 1975. The recovery goal was 500 bears. The population is now over 1,100 bears. And they have expanded well beyond their critical habitat interior 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 $50,000,000 in grizzly bear recovery. But serial litigants and activist judges have rejected the scientific consensus, and my constituents are the ones who 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 $300,000,000 in 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 are 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 3% 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. HR 89, 1897 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 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. HR1897 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 1988. In the nearly four decades that have passed, the 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. 5,587, the HEATS Act sponsored by Representative Kim, which would reduce duplicative permitting requirements for geothermal projects operating on state and private lands. Currently, geothermal operators on non-Federal land are required to undergo full Federal permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, 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.
5,587 would address this issue by relieving the Bureau of Land Management of the obligation to permit geothermal wells on state and private lands where the federal government holds less than 50% 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 reforms will streamline the permitting process for geothermal energy 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 and provide abundant, clean, baseload geothermal power for decades to come. I urge the committee to report an appropriate rule so these bills can be considered by the House.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 13
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 Species 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 fragility 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 the 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 1973 by Richard Nixon, of course, a Republican, and passed unanimously in the Senate and 400 to 12 to 4 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 to ever step 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 pass 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. HR 1897 would gut core provisions of the ESA and threaten countless endangered species. It would lead to premature 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 prioritizing corporate profits over our people and our environment.
HR 5587 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 industry have sought for years. And all of this represents years of influence by special interests, big money, and politics. In fact, the coordination between those special interests, lobbyists, and conservative think tanks culminating in project 2025, which these bills are seeking to deliver on. In fact, project 2025 specifically calls for the changes that are in these bills.
So if you have any questions 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. 75 to 90% 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, protecting our wildlife, lowering costs, stopping these illegal wars, and representing our communities, and stop the corporate giveaways on the backs of the American people and the places that we care so deeply about, including our planet, which we are reminded of this week of all weeks on Earth Day.
It is our fundamental moral imperative to protect. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, representative Stan Ferry. I'm going to defer my questions again and allow Congresswoman Fishbock to begin. I have some questions, I'll come back to them a little bit later.
Speaker 5
Thank you, madam chair. And I just wanna say, wow. There was so much that was going on in that testimony that you gave, Miss Dansbury. And I will tell you, you say nobody's asked. My cattlemen in my district whose cattle are being killed by gray wolf, they asked.
They asked us to do something. They've been asking years, and I have an incredible frustration. 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 the politics of it is to make sure that that recovery is not public, is not something they acknowledge scientifically. But they have recovered, and they are killing animals.
I mean, there's I don't know how many photos I've seen. They can take down a huge animal, a cat, steer. They take dogs. They've killed dogs. They killed the family dogs tied up in the front yard in these.
So when you say that nobody asked, my folks have been asking us to do something about this in particular. And so I know there was a lot going on in your testimony, but I, you really, we have to help these folks. And these animals, the gray roof vault has recovered. And I just wanted to give you, congresswoman Hageman, the opportunity to respond to some of that because there was so much going on, so many accusations.
Speaker 12
Well, I think that you were 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 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 of land and water resources. And are there endangered and threatened species in the United States?
There absolutely are. And 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 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 and the greater Yellowstone ecosystem, we are no longer able to spend those funds where they are needed, such as on whooping crane recovery.
One of the things that strikes me as so odd in Washington, DC, 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 shop for the jurisdiction. The venue shop. They run to him every time. And as soon as the agency, 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 grey wolf.
I filed my first lawsuit in 2002 over the recovery of the gray wolf in the state of Wyoming. We met the recovery goals by 2002. Within seven years, we met the recovery goals after they were introduced in 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, our outfitters, and guides. Within seven years, Wyoming's efforts, we had fully recovered the species.
It took me 15 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 2017, 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 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 1972. What this modernization does, what these policies do, is actually make sure that there is much more of a partnership between the federal agency, our state agencies, and the landowners who are the ones that are responsible for protecting these species, not the people sitting in Washington, DC. 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 reasonable management of these species.
I've been to Minnesota. They called it 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.
Speaker 5
Absolutely. And I appreciate that input because it really is, it's very frustrating. And I want to see that partnership. I want to see it addressed. 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 eat dogs, they do. Their family pet. And, those are not, they are not tame animals. These are dangerous animals that are in people's yards. And so 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 fact that we were able to grow them, and 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.
Speaker 7
Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, all year, House Republicans have been prioritizing bills that attack our nation's protected lands and 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 want to block Americans from challenging those decisions in court. In practice, the Trump administration's pro-polluter Department of Interior is already aggressively delisting 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 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 Stansbury, is there anything you want to add in response to what we've been hearing?
Speaker 13
Thank you, congresswoman's cannon. You know, I actually do wanna just respond briefly about Minnesota because 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. 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 species recovery.
And it's because they have one of both the most successful wildlife management programs in the country. And so, actually, 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 arguments today for folks who've been impacted by reintroduction, predators, this 66-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 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 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.
Speaker 6
Thank you, madam chair. And I won't speak for everybody on my side. I can tell you from my standpoint, the problem I have when the ESA is that it's no longer about the species. It's become a way for 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, the perfect example of that. And so, there are approximately three prop strikes a year 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 granted, you could fish offshore, but only if you agreed not to travel above 10 knots, which is about 12 miles per hour. So it it's not if it were about the species, you wouldn't exempt 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 their kid fishing. And so, you know, there are a lot of emotional arguments 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 Americans' way of life, like simply taking their kids fishing? So I mean, I like the bill.
If you have anything else you'd like to add to it, Miss Hageman, I mean, 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. It's just proved to me that the, you know, the Endangered Species Act is no longer about endangered species. And if you wanna talk about the bald eagle who I love, there are a few in my area now, and I'm very glad to see them. Mhmm. The fact of the matter is, you know, there are people that obtain permits to kill bald eagles, and I wish we would do away with that.
So, I'll turn it over to you, Miss Hagman. If you got anything else to say other than that, I'll yield my time.
Speaker 12
Well, first of all, just to address the final issue that you stated about the bald eagles, there are other reasons as to why the bald eagle has recovered. And that is one of the things when the left talks about the science and the best available science, they then ignore it when it does not fit 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. Absolutely devastating.
Yet that is really those most sacred cow to the democrats that I think that there is wind farms. Trying to convince us, I was listening with great interest to the previous panel, trying to convince us that wind and solar provide more affordable energy. Tell that to the people in Europe. Tell that to the people in Australia who are trying to get to net zero. Their energy bills are astronomically higher than ours because of the absurd energy policies that they are pursuing.
And, again, I'll go back to what I stated earlier about opportunity costs. When you increase the cost of the very basics as being able to heat or cool your home, then it is going to have a dramatic impact on everyone. The wind farms, they actually, they're getting a buy, if you will, for killing the bald eagles. Going back to the absurdity of the Endangered Species Act and what the Biden administration did, 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 stranglehold.
This was a textbook example of executive overreach and an over-reliance on worst-case scenario fabrications that would have harmed public safety and decimated coastal 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. I would also say what this bill really does is it focuses back on the experts in species management. I'm not aware of states that don't have the game and fish departments. I've looked at some of the work that the game and fish department in Minnesota has done on the gray wolves, and I think it is just absolutely malpractice the way that the game and fish department in Minnesota has managed gray wolves and addressed them.
But 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 is absolutely second to none when it comes to species management, no matter what it is in terms of protecting wildlife corridors and using and relying on the science that has been developed. There are nine people in the game and fish department that are dedicated to grizzly recovery and protection. As I indicated, we've invested $50,000,000. 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 agencies, the federal agencies, but most importantly, the landowners 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 created a situation where they view the landowner as the enemy rather than 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 that was possible, and talk about fragmentation of beautiful ranches, because the devastation wrought by that apex predator on their cattle herds and their sheep herds incentivized them to sell out to developers because of the impact. So, when you ignore the landowner and ignore the impact on the landowner and ignore the fact that you are destroying their economy and their economic wherewithal to survive, what you've done is push 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.
With that, I yield back.
Speaker 2
Well, there's so much I wanna say, but I won't. 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 with this legislation. I will associate myself with the remarks of Ms. Scanlon.
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.
Speaker 1
I'm still going to defer my questions. Ms. Leisure Fernandez, you're recognized.
Speaker 10
Thank you. Thank you very much, Chairman. And thank you to both of you for coming before us, so that we could have this fair debate. I did note that there was something that representative Haggerman said that I wanted to speak to, and that was what we should be spending our money on. And I think that that's really important because representative talked about prioritizing what we spend our money on.
And these are choices that we make as the federal government. I love Speaker Emerita Pelosi, what I always say, a budget, your values. Right? 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.
I'd like to enter into the record, madam chair, an article from the Saint Louis Public Radio, dated 04/20/2026, titled Trump's nearly 5,000,000,000 proposed cuts to USDA could hurt world America.
Speaker 10
You know, it's a 20 budget cut that he is proposing for the USDA. And these are cuts to the communities we are talking about. US... And then the other thing they do is US farmers face a new era of trade deficits as global markets shift. This administration has done more to hurt rural America than any other that I can think of.
And, you know, I don't know whether representative Hagelman's district is larger than mine. But you're a whole state. Right? And you travel the way I do, 11 hours, 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 conservationist, representative Heckman, when we refer to MBIWAS, sort of, I always think that the ranchers and farmers in my district are some of the original environmentalists, because they have concerned themselves with conservation like no other, because their life depends on it. Their life depends on an ecosystem that honors everybody. And there is this saying that, Ralphie Hill, who passed away unfortunately recently, 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 Enviroes that I know are trying to honor that prayer. Once again, I think I am the last Democrat. So if there is anything else you'd like to add to this, representative Stansbury?
Speaker 13
Well, I think as the ranking member said, and thank you Congresswoman Ledger Fernandez, a lot could be said, and certainly lots of different species have been named. But what I'll 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 that created a landscape-level view. It's why we passed climate resilience legislation.
It's why we made historic investments in public lands, private lands, private and public waters, and it's why all of us support state coordination and 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 66 pages of a bill that guts the fundamental definitions that have protected 99% 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 an economic imperative.
This is really a moral imperative. What do we want to 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 that our grandchildren will have sea turtles? Do we want to know that our grandchildren will experience the joy of seeing a manatee in Florida?
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.
Speaker 10
Un poquito para las criaturas de Dios, a little bit for the creatures of God. And with that, madam chair, I will oppose this bill because I think we do need the laws that protect the creatures of God. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Miss Leisure Fernandez. Miss Houchin, do you have any questions?
Speaker 14
Yes. Thank you, madam chair. Before I go into my commentary on the bill, I'd just like to ask, or on a particular bill, I'd like to ask, Representative Hegeman if there's any response to anything that you'd like to make remarks on before I go into my comments and questions.
Speaker 12
So I grew up in an ag family. Most of my family are still ranchers in Wyoming, and they are the original environmentalists. They're the ones that actually protect the resources. And that is why the endangered species act has been so damaging because it has been very destructive to our ag industry, to our cattle producers, our sheep producers, to others in terms of just you can go across the board. That's what you see in Wyoming.
But it that's why 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. Well, I want.
Speaker 14
To thank my friend, Chairman Westerman, for his work on these bills, especially the ones that allow geothermal energy production to flourish and to streamline the permitting process. I want to use my time to focus on the Harnessing Energy at Thermal Sources Act. Geothermal represents a critical source of reliable, around-the-clock baseload power that can strengthen our domestic energy supply while lowering costs and improving grid stability for communities and manufacturers alike. I've seen the effective use of geothermal systems firsthand in my district. Margaret Mary Hospital in Batesville, Indiana, installed a geothermal energy system that will save the hospital $220,000 in utility savings within five years.
In fact, I was amazed at the technology and how it can be so cost-effective for heating and cooling in particular, and very impressed with Margaret Mary leading the way on this project. Under current law, developers can be forced to navigate duplicative permitting processes simply because of a small federal minimal interest. Mineral interest. That means navigating multiple layers of environmental review, sometimes up to 6 separate reviews, which drives up cost, increases uncertainty, and delays projects that could otherwise deliver reliable domestic energy. Congresswoman Hageman, for districts like mine, where it's heavy in manufacturing for the local economy, affordable and reliable energy isn't an option.
It's essential. How would this bill help manufacturers and business owners and hospitals and school systems in my district access reliable and affordable energy under this geothermal bill?
Speaker 12
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.
Speaker 14
I would encourage anyone who has not visited a geothermal project to do so. Really incredible technology that I'm grateful to have in Indiana's 9th District. Thank you, congresswoman, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. I'm going to yield myself some time. First, I want to say that I believe that Congresswoman Hegeman, Congressman Leisure Fernandez, and I all agree that those who live on the land are the best stewards of the land. Having grown up farming and farmed as an adult and with my husband, I know that. And I've always resented the fact that the government thought that it could run my land better than I could run my land.
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, Congresswoman Leisure Fernandez. Representative Hageman, does the HEATS Act eliminate environmental reviews and opportunities for the public to provide input?
Speaker 12
No. It does not. The HEAT Act eliminates duplicative reviews in cases where states are already completing permitting processes for geothermal projects. And states have a rigorous review process for these kinds of projects, sometimes more 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 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 50% federally owned resource, then we would go through the state permitting process, but we take care of all the historical preservation issues in Wyoming. It's a very robust office.
Speaker 1
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 is happening there. I see, is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting, and I thank you. The witnesses are excused.
Speaker 1
The chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy.
Speaker 11
Madam chair, I move the committee grant H.R. 4690, the Reliable Federal Infrastructure Act, rule. Rule is all points of order against the consideration of the bill. The rule provides 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, the bills amended shall be considered as read. The rule is 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 HRAS 1182 expressing support for rural communities across the United States, stewards of the environment, major suppliers of 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. Rule provides that upon adoption of resolution, it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider HRAS 1182. Rule provides that the resolution shall be considered red.
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 or the respective designees. Rule further provides for consideration of HR 1897, the ESA amendments act of 2025, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against the 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 the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of a text of rules committee print 119-23 shall be considered as adopted, and the bills 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 with their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of HR 5587, the Harnessing Energy at Thermal Sources Act of 2026, under a closed rule. The rule waives all points of order against the consideration of the bill. Rule provides that the amendment, the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted.
The bills 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 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.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. You've heard the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule?
Speaker 2
Well, Miss Madam Chair, there's not a lot to say. I mean, again, four more completely closed rules. And I know amendments were offered, but these are all closed. I guess that's the new Republican mantra. Everything is no debate, no amendment.
Just shut everything down. But I do have an amendment to the rule. I move the committee at a section to the rule to provide for the immediate consideration of the Senate's amendment to HR 7147, funding lawful Department of Homeland Security agencies, debatable for one hour, equally divided, and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees. Madam chair, madam chair, 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 and this Republican DHS shutdown. I urge a yes vote on my motion, and I yield back my time.
Speaker 1
Is there further discussion on the amendment from Mr. McGovern? Miss Scanlon, you're recognized.
Speaker 7
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. The entire Senate agreed to it. The house would have an overwhelming majority. It's being hijacked by an extremist minority.
Speakers should put the bill on the floor. Thank you. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Miss Scannellin. Further discussion, Miss Leisure Fernandez, you're recognized.
Speaker 10
Yes. I think it is much more important to fund the Department of Homeland Security in the way that the Senate has unanimously agreed to fund it, rather than passing resolutions that congratulate Republicans and do nothing for World America. So thank you for bringing the motion. Representative McGovern.
Speaker 11
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 are 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, we should not be isolating those great Americans who are serving the people of this country, and to try to stop people from being harmed by people who are not supposed to be here.
And we should be figuring out how to fund all the Department of Homeland Security. Yield back.
Speaker 2
Just say, Madam Chair, this my way or the highway attitude, especially when there's a unanimous Senate that is recommended we do this and take the time to work out the other remaining issues. Again, is why people hate Congress because you get nothing done around here. Nothing ever nothing ever happens that's good, for this country because of that attitude. And, again, we have, 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 the 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 and CPP to an exorbitant amount. If you want to fund more, let's bring that to the floor separately, or is it a better idea? Maybe sit down and negotiate in good faith, and try to get a bipartisan product. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 6
On early Friday morning, the House used the tool of unanimous consent to adopt a piece of legislation. 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 the unanimous consent. Each.
Speaker 6
Every time the Senate has agreed to it, there have been fewer than a handful of members on the floor of the United States Senate. So I would tell you that if the senate wants to do a UC as a lawmaking exercise, then they should do it when they have a significant percentage of the United States Senate on the floor of the senate, just like we did 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 when we agreed to the U.C. The other thing I wanna point out is that Customs and Border Protection, they do a tremendous amount of good work to protect us. The Atlanta Airport is one of the largest ports of entry in the world, and the work they do there to make sure that harmful ag products don't come into the United States of America and contaminate our seed supply and other things and our food supply in this country is extremely important.
So I'm not comfortable funding parts of DHS and leaving out Customs and Border Protection. 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.
Speaker 2
Madam Chair. Mister McGovern. Yeah. I can't believe I'm gonna defend Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, and John Kennedy. But the notion that they had no clue that this was coming up not once, but twice.
Speaker 2
On the floor. And, by the way, they all admitted that they knew about it in advance. They all knew about it in advance. 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. You bet.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Mister McGovern, I really take offense that you're saying that we should have funded the law-abiding agencies. The agencies that are not being funded are law abiding agencies. They're there to do a job. And 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 just wanna say, and I think mister Scott is correct in what he's saying.
Speaker 2
You're offended. But the bottom line is a compromise was reached in the Senate. We should take it, and then we should try to vote the differences, with regard to the two agencies, by the way, that are funded through the big ugly bill.
Speaker 1
Well, we're not a unicameral legislature. We're a bicameral legislature.
Speaker 1
Is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none, the question is on the amendment. All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
Speaker 1
Those opposed, say no. No. The opinions here of the notice have it the amendment's not agreed to.
Speaker 4
Miss Fishbach? No. Miss Fishbach? No, Mr. Norman. Mr Roy?
No. Mister Roy? No, Missus Houchin. Missus Houchin. No, Mr. Langworthy.
Mister Scott? No. Mister Scott? No, Mr. Griffith? Mr Jack?
No. Mr Jack? No, Mr. McGovern. Aye. Mister McGovern, I am Scanlan.
Aye. Miss Scanlan, I am Mr. Ngoose. Miss Ledger Fernandez. I Miss Ledger Fernandez, I am madam chair. No.
Madam chair, no.
Speaker 1
The amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion on the motion from the gentleman from Texas? Hearing no further discussion, the question is on the motion from the gentleman from Texas. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye.
Those opposed, say no. No. In the opinion, Chair, the ayes have it. The motion is agreed to.
Speaker 1
Mister McGovern asked for a roll-call vote. A recorded vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 4
Miss Fishbach. Yes. Missus Fishbach, aye. Mr. Norman? Mister Roy?
Aye. Mister Roy, aye. Missus Houchin? Missus Houchin, aye. Mr. Langworthy?
Mister Scott? Aye. Mister Scott, aye. Mister Griffith? Mister Jack?
Aye. Mister Jack, aye. Mister McGovern? No. Mister McGovern, no.
Miss Gandlin? Miss Gandlin, no. Mister Ngoose. Miss Lecher Fernandez? No.
Miss Lecher Fernandez, no. Madam chair? Aye. Madam chair, aye.
Speaker 1
The eyes have it. The motion to report is agreed to. Representative Roy will be managing this rule for the majority.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.