Fiscal Year 2027 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Bill and Fiscal Year 2027 Legislative Branch Bill
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 Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
Mister chairman, this is a fiscally responsible bill that will strengthen our national security, advance our energy independence, and deliver reliable, affordable energy for the American people. I respectfully urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. I would now like to recognize the ranking member, Captor, for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 4
Thank you, mister chairman, for your gracious chairmanship and constructive demeanor of this committee. Chairman Fleischman, I truly appreciate working with you and all of our colleagues. I'm sure they know that we work hard at being friends, and collegiality matters. This committee has the ability to develop and pass bipartisan bills, and we hold an imperative to build a new energy age on a livable Mother Earth. So I'm disappointed the bill before us has tilted to a partisan framing.
And my hope going forward is we can course-correct. Let me thank our diligent staff on both sides, including Scott McKee, Ipo Delatolus, Adam Wilson, and from the minority staff, Jed Bullock and Margaret McGinnis on our personal staff. US energy independence in perpetuity is an imperative. Respect for Mother Earth must be our North Star. US national security requires US energy security, and we meet today in a historical moment where energy and war are again hyperlinked.
Due to president Trump's war of choice on Iran, gas prices have risen to above $4 a gallon. A major facility in my congressional district informed me yesterday their energy bills have tripled. History instructs us that as gas exceeds $4 per gallon in our nation, deep recession follows. We are headed in this descent now. Our citizenry suffers from rising costs for transportation, fuel, heating, electricity, and so much more.
Energy is woven deeply into all of these. Moreover, new AI and data facilities are causing energy and water prices to skyrocket. The American people are feeling the pinch. They want a fair energy cost structure to help local ratepayers deal with doubling and tripling of rates. This congress has an obligation to defend our people, not stick our heads in the sand, or pretend it's 1946.
The imperative of US energy independence is clear. I cannot compliment enough those citizens who get little public credit for advancing our nation's energy future. In advanced fission, new fusion, thermal recovery, non-polluting energy systems, including advanced biofuels, solar, geothermal, and thermal recovery, advanced building materials, and energy conservation technologies. Our nation has been amassing trillions in debt on oil wars that disrupt global supplies. Of our nation's $40,000,000,000,000 of debt, at least 10,000,000,000,000 or 25 percent has been added by Middle East Oil Wars.
The American people are asking, when is enough enough? America cannot remain energy vulnerable. We need broad innovation, and we need competition and investment across the broad range of the energy sector, not fidelity to any one source. To reach bipartisan agreement, funding levels and provisions require adjustments. First, we must revise balances of top-line funding for defense and nondefense spending.
The bill increases defense programs by $774,000,000 or 2%, while non-defense programs are cut by 1,800,000,000 or 6%, and that's where innovation lies. We cannot cede our future to the past. This imbalance needs correction so that domestic energy and water programs can be enhanced. Our citizenry wants a secure energy future, not captivity. We must address the most harmful cuts in the bill.
These include, and I'll tick off five, a $1,300,000,000 cut or 40% cut to critical minerals and energy innovation. That's driving the car backwards. We seek no less than $3,100,000,000 to meet the global competition for a cleaner energy future. We must address the irresponsible accumulation of atmospheric pollutants that are powerful indications we must not ignore. Number two, a $50,000,000 cut or 14% to Advanced Research Projects Agency, ARPA Energy, for a livable future with our global population going to head to 10,000,000,000 over the next fifty years, we seek no less than $350,000,000 for transformative clean energy technologies.
Third, with energy prices rising, a $25,000,000 cut to electricity and grid deployment programs is a nonstarter. We seek no less than $260,000,000 to modernize our aging grid to drive down electricity prices. Fourth, a $282,000,000 cutter, 12% for nuclear nonproliferation activities, is unwise in a dangerous world made more risky by the current war in the Middle East. We seek no less than $2,367,000,000 to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. We cannot retreat as nuclear threats increase.
And fifth, total elimination of the army corps formally utilized sites remedial action program. In other words, cleaning up the mess from the nuclear industry is unacceptable to the health of our citizenry. We seek no less than $200,000,000 to continue cleaning up nuclear contamination across this country. And, critically, this bill should only repurpose infrastructure investment in Jobs Act funds through bipartisan agreement, embracing an all of the above energy strategy. That means supporting a diverse portfolio of dawning technologies like geothermal, electric grid upgrades, fusion, and advanced nuclear.
The bill must be free of riders, provisions that allow firearms on the Corps of Engineers' public lands. Secondly, prohibit clean energy solutions for new and renovated federal buildings. And third, prohibit funds for private consolidated interim storage of commercial spent nuclear fuel. Glaringly, the bill is missing a key provision necessary to protect Congress's power of the purse. Any bipartisan bill must prevent and reverse the Department of Energy's project terminations of over $9,000,000,000 nationwide.
Funding for these projects was duly passed and signed into law. The bill should require transparency and accountability for federal spending, and it needs to follow the law. The Trump administration must follow the law. Until these changes are made, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill in its current form. Let us work together to improve it as it moves forward.
Together, I know we can meet the new frontiers of energy and water, and I yield back. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank the general lady for her comments, and I now recognize myself for remarks on the bill. Thank you, Chairman Fleishman, and thank you Ranking Member CAPTOR and Ranking Member DeLauro, my good friend. And thanks to all the members here on both sides of the aisle today. Today's measure is a cornerstone of US energy dominance. Affordable, reliable, and secure energy is the backbone of American strength, and the bill before us delivers on that priority.
Under President Trump's leadership, we have seen a dramatic resurgence in domestic energy production, innovation, and long-term resilience. The future belongs to the nation that can outbuild and outpower its competitors, and this legislation ensures America remains second to none in that regard. It unleashes US production of baseload energy sources and critical minerals. It makes historic investments to secure our systems and reduce reliance on foreign supplies, and it unlocks the technological capabilities to drive next-generation advancement. This includes the White House's focus on propelling the US to lead in artificial intelligence and new frontiers that keep us not only competitive but unrivaled.
Chairman Fleischman also implemented robust funding for high-priority inland and coastal navigation, flood control, and drought resilience projects. Importantly, security and defense remain central to this legislation, with a focus on advancing nuclear capabilities and keeping our navy's propulsion programs top class. We reinforce our deterrence, and America's strategic advantages by enacting such measures. We also prioritize cybersecurity efforts that enable a resilient electric grid, and ensure we can counter various threats from our adversaries. In sum, this measure recognizes that by harnessing America's abundant domestic resources, we will continue leading the world in producing the cleanest, most reliable, and most secure energy on the planet.
Chairman Fleishman has crafted a bill that advances US energy dominance, secures our strategic edge, and powers the next generation of American strength, and he does so in a fiscally responsible manner. I thank the chairman, the ranking member, and the majority and minority staff for their hard work on this measure, and I look forward to advancing today's bill. With that, I yield back, and I now recognize my good friend, the ranking member of the full committee, Miss DeLauro, for her opening remarks on the bill.
Speaker 5
I want to say thank you to my friend, Chairman Cole, Chairman Fleischmann, and Ranking Member Captor. Thank you for your work. I also wanna say a thank you to the committee staff, Scott McKee, Ipo Delatolus, and Adam Wilson for the minority side. Laura Silke, Perry Yates, Cory Kuipers, and Rainer Buckley on the majority. Thank you all very much for your hard work on this effort.
I oppose the bill that we are considering today. It will make energy more expensive, from gasoline to electricity for homes and businesses. While families struggle to keep up with the rising cost of living, it will set us back, even as our adversaries invest in the technology of the future. It will jeopardize national security by weakening our efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and it will leave our communities vulnerable to radioactive waste left over from our nation's atomic weapons program. Recently, President Trump said, and I quote, I don't think about America's financial situation, end quote.
Let me tell you, it shows. It reveals just how out of touch this administration is, and how out of touch the president is. His war in Iran has pushed gas prices up by 40%. Since he took office, household electric bills have risen by as much as 13% nationally, while prices for residential natural gas have gone up 12%. In April, prices rose faster than wages for the first time since 2020.
The bill before us today does not address these problems. In fact, it will make many of them worse. To bring prices down, we need to produce more energy. That is simple supply and demand. But this bill cuts back on investments that support the production of new energy.
For example, it guts funding for the Department of Energy's critical minerals and energy innovation program by $1,300,000,000. That is a 40% cut. This slows us down while our adversaries race ahead in the contest for energy independence. It looks backwards, as our competitors are pressing forward. And by limiting the amount of new energy we can produce, it ensures costs will not come down anytime soon.
To meet the challenges of the future, we need to be creative. We need to innovate, conduct research, find solutions to problems before they erupt into crises. That is exactly what the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy does. That's RPE. But this bill proposes cutting their funding by $50,000,000.
That's a 14% cut. There is no better way to ensure that we are unprepared for the future than by choosing to stumble into it blindly. This bill threatens our national security by cutting funding for the Nuclear National Security Administration's account for defense nuclear nonproliferation by $282,000,000, or 12%. This hampers our efforts to track down, secure, and dispose of material that can be used to develop a nuclear weapon. It makes it harder for us to stop the most dangerous weapons humanity has ever known from falling into the wrong hands.
It is shocking that this cut is being proposed, as the president proposes his costly war with Iran under the pretense of preventing nuclear proliferation. We had an agreement with Iran that prevented them from acquiring the bomb. It was slowing down Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. It was called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the JCPOA. It made nuclear breakout harder, more visible, and more costly.
And there, to date, there has been no replacement for that framework. The president has also told us that in this war, Iran's nuclear capability has been obliterated. The American people should not be fooled by the continued assertion of the president that this war is about preventing nuclear proliferation. But I guess if you say the same thing over and over again, that you hope that people will come to believe it. But in fact, they will not come to believe it.
And in fact, the JCPOA was formulated over 20 months with overwhelming support from our allies. President Trump tore up that agreement. The American people should not be fooled by his rhetoric. This is a crisis that the president has created. If we are serious about stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and material, why are we cutting funding to the program that does just that?
Additionally, this bill would put our communities at risk by impeding the cleanup of radioactive waste left over from America's atomic weapons development. The Army Corps of Engineers has made progress managing the cleanup and control of these areas, but this bill eliminates all funding for their program, even as they still preside over 20 active sites. Lastly, the bill cuts the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management by $863,000,000, or 10%. This slows down cleanup at some of the most complicated radioactive sites across the country. At Hanford in Washington State, Savannah River in South Carolina, Oak Ridge in Tennessee, and the Idaho National Laboratory.
At a time when Americans are struggling to navigate rapidly rising costs, when our adversaries are increasing their investments in the future, and when our communities remain burdened by the hazardous remnants of atomic weapons. This bill fails to meet the moment. I encourage my colleagues to vote no on this measure, to work together on a bipartisan basis, to craft an agreement that supports our communities, protects our national security, and invests in the future. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for her remarks. The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Alfred, is recognized for general remarks on the bill.
Speaker 6
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you ranking member Delaro, as well as subcommittee chairman, mister Fleishman, and ranking member Captur, for holding this markup today. Wanna take just a few minutes to highlight a provision in this bill that supports one of the most important national security sites, not only in Missouri, but also the entire United States of America. The Kansas City National Security Campus is a private-public partnership under the National Nuclear Security Administration that is managed and operated by a name you probably all know. You probably have the name on your air conditioning thermostat at home, Honeywell.
KCNCS or NSC is integral to the burgeoning defense corridor stretching from Saint Louis to Wichita, and Kansas City, Missouri, a slap dab in the middle of that corridor. Back in 1948, the campus produced its very first component, the ordinary machine bushing. And today, 7,000 workers right there in Kansas City craft 80% of the non-nuclear parts of our entire nuclear arsenal. These are quiet heroes that are keeping us safe each and every day. Right now, the campus is undergoing a massive expansion.
Dirt is being turned. Foundations are being laid. The Kansas City nonnuclear expansion transformation project, or as we call it, Casey Next project. This is a multiphase expansion that will add 2,000,002 square feet of cutting-edge office and manufacturing space, substantially growing capacity to meet the rising demand for components made here in the United States of America. The Casey Next project is utilizing an innovative private developer-led real estate acquisition, bespoke construction, and site improvement process, with ownership of the facility then, and only then, transferred to the federal government strategy upon completion.
This allows each phase to become fully operational even while work continues on the subsequent phases, making sure that forward progress continues every step of the way. It also provides additional flexibility to allow the campus to effectively adapt to evolving national security threats and mission requirements, as we have seen just in the last year. Yesterday, I was honored to join the NSSA NNSA administrator Brandon Williams, our former colleague here in Congress, at the campus to celebrate the completion of phase one. And I'm proud that this very bill, mister subchairman, includes language supporting the NC Next project and the National Security Campus as a whole. These forward-looking investments will strengthen Americans' nuclear deterrence while maintaining the safety, security, and the effectiveness of our great nation's nuclear weapons enterprise.
This project also fits squarely within the Trump administration's goal of rebuilding our defense industrial base. And to top it off, KC Next will provide a massive boost to the Kansas City region's workforce, adding some 7,000 good-paying jobs to the Kansas City region through the creation of high-quality jobs, workforce development, and continued partnership in surrounding communities. KC Next is more than an expansion. It is.
Speaker 6
Foundational investment in the future of our national security. So I thank chairman Cole, ranking member Delaro, chairman Fleischmann, and ranking member Captor for the inclusion of this in this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the underlying bill. Thank you, sir, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Ward, recognized for remarks in the
Speaker 3
Bill. Thank you very much, mister. I wanna thank miss Captor for her work on this bill, and her knowledge of the subject. I also wanna thank Mr. Fleishman. I wanna thank Mister Fleishman in particular because I know going forward you are prepared to work with us so that we can have a bill supported by both sides of the aisle, which is good for the country, and I think good for the bill. The gentle lady from Ohio, Miss Captor, has spoken extensively about America's energy independence.
She is absolutely right. This bill is about our energy independence. However, if we were to adopt this bill as currently drafted, it would deepen, not relieve, our dependence on foreign energy. Because it not only fails to make the investments we need in diversifying our energy sources, but it also makes cuts to programs that support an all-of-the-above energy strategy, including a more resilient energy grid, which, as we all know, is failing. Because of President Trump's war of choice against Iran, Americans are paying more for energy even as they were already struggling with higher prices on many goods resulting from the tariffs.
As a matter of fact, I'm urging the construction of signs at every gas station in America. Pay Trump's war tax here. They're doing it big time. This bill matters because Americans deserve to have their government and their representatives work to bring energy costs down, not up. Not ignore the problem and tell them, and you've heard me say this before, to the American consumer, the American people, American families, you're on your own.
As the ranking member of this committee has pointed out, there's a 40% cut. Bill cuts $1,300,000,000 from the Department of Energy's critical minerals and energy innovation program. It cuts efforts to secure rare earths and other minerals essential to our manufacturing competitiveness. In the 117th Congress, when I was majority leader, we enacted the Chips and Science Act. I'm very proud of that achievement, and we all be proud of that achievement.
It was led by Democrats, but it was a bipartisan effort. That bill made a generational investment in America's advanced manufacturing sector, critically important to our competitiveness and national security. But building microchips, semiconductors, advanced batteries, and other high demand products domestically, as we all know, requires secure supply chains for critical materials. We shouldn't be slashing funding for that effort by over $1,000,000,000, period. I hope that in the final analysis, that will not happen, because this bill would do just that.
In addition, it cuts RPA E by 14%, at a time when, given competition from China and other nations, we ought to be putting more resources into advanced research initiatives. We need to invest more, not less. We need to be more ready, not less ready. The majority's bill would also endanger our national security by cutting funding for nuclear non-proliferation efforts. The ranking member of the full committee and the chair, the ranking member of this subcommittee, have both mentioned that very critical issue.
President Trump said he was attacking Iran in order to stop its regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That's an important goal, but it is hypocritical for Republicans to support President Trump's 30,000,000,000, give or take, effort in war while simultaneously cutting funding that helps prevent regimes like Iran's from attaining nuclear weapons. What don't I get here about this relationship? There are other problems with this bill, of course, which I'm certain will be discussed during today's markup, not limited to its cuts to environmental cleanup. I hope we can address these shortcomings through the very thoughtful amendments being put forward on the democratic side.
There is no reason why we cannot work together to get this bill right, and I yield back eleven seconds.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. We'll both value that 11 seconds later today. Gentleman from Texas, Mister Cloud is recognized for opening remarks on the bill.
Speaker 7
Thank you, chairman. And I wanna thank chairman Fleischman for the honor of working with him as vice chair on this project, this wonderful bill that we are debating today. I wanna thank you for your great work on it, and for the team and all the work you've done to prioritize an America First energy platform here. Most of us understand that the competition with China on energy, on AI, on the foundational science underneath all of it, is one of the defining challenges of our time. This bill is a serious attempt to position the US to win that race.
American energy production is in a strong place, thanks in large part to a lot of the work the Trump administration has done. That's certainly worth acknowledging, but strength like that does not maintain itself. It takes continued investment and smart policy to build on it, and that's what's in this bill. I'm fortunate enough to represent the Gulf Coast of South Texas, a region that's central to America's energy production. Number one energy export port in our nation is there, and all that we do to support our allies with the energy that we produce in this country and ship out is so important.
This bill makes sure our ports stay strong as well, and I wanna thank you for coming to see the coast of Texas. It was wonderful to have you in Texas with us. The Trump administration set clear priorities, and this bill does a great job to make sure we fund those things. This fully funds the Army Corps of Engineers funding at 9,775,000,000 and invests more in the Office of Science. It ties it directly to defense.
This bill puts 8,525,000,000 into the Office of Science. That includes boost to high performance computing, quantum, and AI, including the Trump administration's Genesis mission. The science we fund today is what keeps our military ahead tomorrow. This takes nuclear seriously. We're funding the full nuclear fuel cycle, pushing HALEU production to break our dependence on Russian and Chinese fuel sources, and repurposing funds to accelerate small modular reactor demonstrations, with the goal to quadruple nuclear energy capacity by 2050.
This bill moves us in the right direction, and we understand how important nuclear is if we're gonna win the AI race, which is also an energy race. This locks in real energy independence, refocuses us on critical minerals, and energy innovation. It funds the Bureau of Reclamation with a focus on water supply, drought response, and storage, and it cuts much of the waste that has been happening. We've seen many projects under the Biden administration, under the auspices of energy projects that not only didn't produce any energy, they actually cost the grid a lot of energy and billions of dollars. There were other projects that invested in the most expensive energy production that we could have.
This refocuses us on affordable energy, on high output, on core baseload energy that's gonna be so vital for us continuing to win the race for energy production in AI that we're working on. This bill gets it right. Thank you for your work on it, and it was an honor to work with you, sir. Thank you, gentlemen. Adoption.
Speaker 1
Oh, sorry. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 8
Thank you, chairman Cole, ranking member Toomey, chair of Fleishman, and ranking member Capito. Thank you to the staff for your incredible work on this bill. Nevertheless, I have to rise in opposition to the FY '27 Energy and Water Development-related agencies appropriations bill in its current form. This bill is responsible for funding some of the most essential responsibilities of the federal government, maintaining our waterways, strengthening our energy security, supporting scientific discovery, advancing nuclear security, and helping communities prepare for the future. These are not partisan priorities.
They are national priorities, and they affect every region, every state, every congressional district, including my district and the 2nd Congressional District of Georgia. I appreciate that the bill includes important investments in the honor corps of engineers. In rural and agricultural communities like those I represent, core projects are not abstract line items. They support navigation, flood control, water management, environmental stewardship, and economic development. I also appreciate the continued support for regional commissions, including the Delta Regional Authority and the Southeast Crescent Regional Commission, which help distressed communities compete, grow, and attract opportunity.
But, unfortunately, those positive elements do not overcome the serious deficiencies in the bill. At a time when families are facing higher costs, when communities are working to modernize aging infrastructure, when our nation is competing globally in energy innovation, this bill cuts in nondefense programs by more than $1,800,000,000 below last year's level is unacceptable. It also rescinds billions in bipartisan infrastructure law resources that were intended to help build a stronger, cleaner, more resilient, and more competitive America. These cuts will be felt most deeply in communities that can least afford them. Rural communities need reliable and affordable energy.
They need modern infrastructure. They need protection from floods, storms, and extreme weather. They need a federal partnership, not retreat. I'm particularly concerned by the deep reduction in the Department of Energy's critical minerals and energy innovation programs. Cutting these programs by 40% weakens our ability to compete with China and other global competitors in the technologies that will define the next generation of economic growth.
Energy independence does not come from walking away from innovation. It comes from investing in American workers, American research, American manufacturing, and American communities. I'm also concerned by the cut to the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy. ARPA-E supports the kind of high-risk, high-reward research that can unlock major breakthroughs in energy affordability, grid reliability, and national competitiveness. If we want America to lead, we cannot undercut the very tools that help us lead.
Our national security, I'm deeply troubled by the reduction to the defense of nuclear nonproliferation. At a time of rising global instability, we should be doing more and not less to secure nuclear materials, to prevent nuclear terrorism, and to maintain the capabilities needed to detect and respond to nuclear threats. National security is not only about weapons. It's about preventing the spread and misuse of the world's most dangerous materials. The bill fell short on environmental cleanup.
Eliminating funding for the formerly utilized sites remedial action program and cutting environmental management undermines commitments made to communities that have lived with the legacy of our nation's earlier nuclear defense activities. Those committee communities deserve follow-through. Finally, I'm concerned that this bill includes unnecessary policy riders that distract from the core responsibility before writing a responsible appropriations bill that meets all the Eastern American people. We can do better. We must do better.
We should be producing a bipartisan bill that strengthens energy affordability, protects national security, supports rural communities, invests in innovation, and honors our commitments to environmental cleanup and infrastructure resilience. For those reasons, I cannot support the bill in its current form. I urge my colleagues to join us and work together to improve it. Thank you, and I yield back five seconds.
Speaker 1
Oh, that's 16. That's really great. We'll just keep building that up. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentlemen from Washington, Mister Newhouse is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate the recognition to be able to speak on this bill. Ranking member Del Oro, ranking member Captor, and certainly chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Fleishman. And most importantly, I wanna thank the staff of the subcommittee for their hard work on this bill. You know, from investments in hydropower and nuclear power generation to funding our national grid security, this bill truly does provide essential resources to communities across the country.
In particular, I want to point out a couple of things that I'm pleased to see in this bill. The Bureau of Reclamation, which, if you are in the West, is a tremendously important agency. This bill increases funding for the bureau by over $200,000,000. And when many of the bureau's assets are now either nearing or are over a century old, this is a very vital, vital resource. It also provides $33,000,000 in community project funds for something that the Rosa Irrigation District in the Yakima River Basin is working on to enhance the water projects in our area.
As we are in our fourth year in a row of drought, we must continue to address the need for increased water storage and face these water shortages as we do every year. This bill provides over $1,600,000,000 in additional funds for the National Nuclear Security Administration, and will enable meaningful deterrence against foreign adversaries such as Iran, Russia, and China. Includes a 1,800,000,000 for the nuclear energy program. These funds will accelerate advanced reactor and small modular reactor development, very important in my area. Thank you.
While increasing programs across the entire nuclear fuel cycle, including the production of high assay, low enriched uranium. It increases funding for the Office of Science by $125,000,000. This funding will bolster our national labs, whose scientific and technical breakthroughs certainly underlie our country's energy resilience and national security. But let me talk a little bit about the Hanford site, which was brought up earlier. This is the largest environmental cleanup project on the planet.
The federal government has remained committed to providing the resources necessary to continue this important work. But it has not been without a lot of effort. Over the past 12 years, Hanford's budget has increased by 46%. I just wanna take a second to thank this committee and Congress for their continued commitment to getting this work done. We all know that in order to get our fiscal house in order, difficult decisions have to be made.
Cutting spending is not an easy thing, which is why we find ourselves with more than $36,000,000,000 in debt. This bill returns Hanford funding to just below fiscal year 23 levels, which at the time was a record investment in cleanup. But it also prioritizes the continued retrieval and immobilization of tank waste, and supports the important milestones to prepare for permanent treatment and tank closure. Just last week, I met with energy assistant secretary Tim Walsh and asked him directly if the House mark would delay cleanup timelines, which I repeated to him several times cannot happen. And he assured me DOE is committed to meeting all timelines outlined in the tri party agreement, and that this bill would not result in missed timelines.
The goal for Hanford should be to clean up as quickly as possible in order to convert the land to productive means for the Tri-Cities and the entire region as a whole. That requires a dual capability approach of primary vitrification, turning waste into glass, as well as supplemental grouting, and mobilizing waste in concrete. Unfortunately, the state department of ecology does not want to grant a permit to DOE for additional supplemental grout treatment to work in tandem with vitrification, which would expedite the cleanup process. Their opposition to this bill, of lack of funding, is ironic given their disinterest in approving additional permits. The fact remains that this bill spends taxpayer dollars in an efficient manner on immediate cleanup activities to continue the momentum of the Vit plant, which, by the way, just hit a very important milestone of 100,000 gallons of waste being solidified into glass.
Let me talk a little bit about the national laboratory that we have called the Pacific Northwest National Lab. It is advancing innovative technologies, dealing with grid security, the nuclear fuel lifecycle, and artificial intelligence. This bill fully funds the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement User Facility, the Environmental Molecular Science Lab, and the Microbial Molecular Phenotyping Capability programs, which the lab utilizes. Our mark also slightly reduces funding for P and L's critical work within defense nuclear non-proliferation, which has been mentioned already today. To this point, I'd like to note that it is imperative for funding to continue for DNN to stop adversary state and nonstate actors from developing nuclear weapons.
Mister chairman, just to close up quickly, appropriations is a negotiation. This house bill moves its bills. The senate moves theirs. We conference. We send final products to the president that best serve the American people.
We should judge appropriations on how effective and efficient money is spent, not on how much money is spent. So, quality over quantity. I wanna continue working with all of my colleagues in this committee and get a product that we can all be proud of and spend taxpayer dollars in a responsible manner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your indulgence.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman for his remarks. Gentle lady from Minnesota, Mr. Cullum, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 10
Thank you for yielding. Today, I rise, unfortunately, in opposition to the fiscal year 2027 energy and water appropriations bill. As we consider this bill today, the Washington DC area is expecting record high heat with temperatures in the mid-high nineties. It's 91 degrees right now, and it's going to get hotter. That's far above the typical average of May, of 65 degrees.
It's 30 degrees warmer, almost. In Minnesota, we're also experiencing high temperatures in the summer and more extreme subzero temperatures in the winter. Last summer, for example, Minnesota had 13 days over 90 degrees. Extreme weather drives up the cost of our constituents' energy bills, keeping themselves and their families and their homes safe from these extreme weather events we have. The bill before us today cuts energy efficiency and renewable energy programs by 40%.
Now a 40% cut will eliminate resources that are designed to help Americans consume less energy and lower their energy bills. And yes, these programs also address climate change. I've said it before. Climate change is a national security issue. It affects our military readiness here at home.
Sea level rise and more extreme storms are flooding our bases. Permafrost is making runways unusable, and the increasing number of radar stations are becoming at risk of falling into the sea. Climate change is also making farming less predictable in my state and for other farmers. From shifting seasons to droughts, floods, pest pressures, farmers are on the front lines of climate change, adapting with fewer resources and greater risk. The inadequate funding levels in this bill will harm our country's ability to react to climate change with innovative solutions, and to help with our national security and our economic security here at home.
This bill also delivers a devastating $50,000,000 cut to ARPA-E. Cutting innovative science advancement that ARPA-E does will impact our ability to compete with China technology as they work to advance. So when we slash funding for clean energy, innovation, and research and development, it does put us at a severe global disadvantage. China's not cutting clean energy or innovative technologies. They're leading the world in manufacturing solar products and other ways to produce energy.
The cuts in this bill will harm our national security and our ability to compete with China on a global market. So at this time, I cannot support the bill because, as I said, the bill before us fails to support American jobs and innovation with the cuts.
Speaker 10
RPE. It fails to confront the climate crisis and its impact on national and people's personal economic security. So I urge my colleagues to keep working on this bill if it passes out a committee today, so we can have a bill on the floor we can all support. With that, I yield back. I won't say how much, mister Chair, more than everybody else.
Speaker 1
Well, I want to continue this virtuous cycle. I thank the general lady very much for her remarks, and the general lady from Florida, Miss Wassa Mitchell, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna start by thanking the subcommittee chairman and ranking member for their work, and to my colleague and forever partner, Mister Diaz Ballard from the great state of Florida, who is chatting and not paying attention to what I'm saying. But I love him anyway as my often partner in crime and fellow cochair of the Everglades caucus relevant to the energy and water appropriations bill. I appreciate that we held hearings on the pressing issues that this bill faces. But because of this timeline we talked about, we rushed and missed opportunities to get the answers that our communities need.
That has to start with the unacceptable Army Corps of Engineers situation. Since our hearing with the assistant secretary, South Florida members are still waiting for the answers he was unable to provide at that time. Yet now we're having to vote on army corps funding. Adding insult to injury, this bill has the shameful distinction of being the first ever cut to the annual Everglades restoration appropriation. And no matter how many ways I ask the question, no one from the Army Corps can answer what the impact on the work plan will be at this funding level.
The assistant secretary and Army Corps also delivered a late, unhelpful budget request, which for the first time ever included separate funding lines for project work along with salaries and expenses for the project, with no explanation or justification, which we are still waiting for. You'd think for a change of that scale, Congress would get a briefing on what it accomplishes or how it could work, perhaps detailed breakdowns on what these funds will be spent on. Instead, we got nothing. Ironically, when I asked the assistant secretary, he said this change was to help improve, quote, transparency. Yet when pressed, he said he didn't know how they got to those numbers, and that they came from the Jacksonville office.
And here's the kicker. If you reach out to one of the offices on these questions under the new DOD communication rules, you'll be lucky to get a response this fiscal year. That is the opposite of transparency. I appreciate that this bill does not, thankfully, actually separate funding, and instead, the chairman's mark sticks to unified project funding. That's the right thing to do until we get clarity and a plan for a better path forward from the core.
Mister chairman, I know none of this is your fault, and you're dealing with a bad budget request and a worse topline. But I cannot support a bill that I believe will harm the progress that we're making in the Everglades at the hands of an army corps leadership that is being obtuse and opaque, refusing to provide clarity to Congress. Elsewhere in this bill, we see cuts to everything and anything that would lower the costs for American families. That is incomprehensible to me. Weatherization assistance for low income and rural Americans slashed by $100,000,000.
Solar energy technologies eliminated, even though Floridians can see savings upwards of $1,900 a year thanks to investments and developments in solar. Millions in bipartisan infrastructure law funding for clean energy demonstrations that help American businesses stay competitive and fight climate change, terminated, eliminated. Nearly 300,000,000 is slashed from the Industrial Technologies Office, which threatens the advances needed to reduce carbon emissions and pulls back on industry investments to keep more Americans employed. It's clear where my Republican colleagues are getting their marching orders. Just yesterday, President Trump called the sky-high gas prices Americans are facing peanuts.
Peanuts. That's a quote. You know what's really nuts, Mr. Chairman? This bill does absolutely nothing to lower the rising energy costs American families face and abandons our commitment to cleanup of nuclear waste sites. As it stands, this bill contains too many funding cuts that will hurt South Floridians directly.
Every single decision this administration and the energy secretary have taken so far has put Americans in a worse position than before. Because of the big ugly law alone, electricity rates are projected to jump between 9 to 18% in the next ten years. The Department of Energy canceled over 12,000,000,000 in congressionally appropriated and lawfully obligated energy projects, which could have increased the reliability and efficiency of our eroding grid. Anyone read headlines about our eroding grid? Department of Energy yanked $30,000,000 in Florida Power and Light grants, and let those costs get dumped directly onto Floridians.
And still, the department illegally withholds $173,000,000 in home efficiency funding and $172,000,000 in high efficiency electric home dollars to fulfill rebates that have already been approved to Floridians. I asked Secretary Wright when these funds would be released to the Florida constituents that I, Congressman Diaz Ballard, Rutherford, Franklin, and Congresswoman Frankel all represent. When would they see this relief? He told me on the record that he wasn't sure, but he presumed the funds were being withheld because of DEI. He really had no idea what I was asking him about, and then he just tossed in the code word DEI first for good measure.
That is a ridiculous and insulting answer on so many levels. Americans can't afford their electric bill or to fill up their tank, but have no fear, because under the budget request in this bill, the secretary's office and the Department of Energy headquarters get a plus up to fight their ridiculous wasteful cult culture wars. I cannot support legislation that both starves the Everglades of much-needed environmental restoration funding and at the same time completely ignores the energy cost crisis that President Trump has created. For those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cuellar, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank you and thank your member, for all the work that your staff have done. To the subcommittee chairman, Mister Fleishman, thank you so much for everything that you've done, and appreciate your staff. And to ranking member, CAPTR also, thank you. Look.
We know this bill is a work in process, and knowing both the temperament and the judgment that y'all have, we're gonna have a bipartisan bill, sometime soon. But I do wanna thank you for one particular provision, that y'all added, and that is the Southwest Border Regional Commission. As you know, the US has different commissions. Some are older. The Southwest Border Commission, Regional Commission is the newest.
It's only, and I wanna thank you for the $5,500,000, but still, I think it's something that later on, we ought to look at cleaning up. But the Southwest Border Commission targets federal investment toward communities where economic opportunity has historically been hard to come by. A lot of those areas, whether it's California, Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas, have colonials, as you know, colonials are third world conditions. No water, no sewage, sometimes no electricity. They were promised by the investors or the land developers, hey.
Buy a piece of the American dream, and we'll put the water. We'll put the sewage later. We'll put the land, the paving, the streets later. Pay us now. They paid.
Those developers took off, and we can't find them. So now we got third world conditions along the South, Southwest border. This is why this commission is very important. It's doing exactly what it's supposed to do, addressing those economic situations that we have. In South Texas, for example, I have a lot of colonias.
In fact, the Rio Grande Valley has the most colonias population of any other state in the Southwest. So I wanna thank you for the work that you're all doing. This commission does help move the needle, whether it's supporting local infrastructure, creating jobs, or building the economic base that keeps families together. So that, funding is very important. $5,500,000 is a lot of money.
But if you look at other commissions out there, they have a couple $100,000,000. They've been around for a long time. I understand we're the new kid on the block, but I on the block. But I do want to say thank you. So, chairman, fleshman, and to the ranked member captor, thank you so much, and thank you for your staff for doing this.
Again, it's a work in progress. We'll get there. And with that, I'll yield back 2 minutes and 14 seconds, mister chairman. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentlemen for his remarks. We'll see if Mr. Morelli from New York will be equally generous. The gentleman's recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 13
Spring hope spring is eternal, mister chair. I do wanna thank you for the recognition, and I wanna thank chairman Fleishman and ranking member Captor as well as you, chairman Cole and ranking member DeLauro for your work on this legislation and throughout this process, which we know is difficult and time consuming. You know, moving our country forward depends on affordable and reliable energy, on innovation, on scientific leadership, and it depends on making smart investments today, so we're not vulnerable tomorrow. This bill moves us, sadly, in the wrong direction. This proposal increases energy costs, jeopardizes our energy independence, and weakens America's competitiveness by slashing critical minerals and energy innovation programs by 40%, rescinding billions in bipartisan infrastructure law investments, and cutting ARPA-E, which is mentioned by a number of my colleagues, one of the most important drivers of next-generation energy technologies.
Alarmingly, this bill cuts defense nuclear nonproliferation accounts by 12%, limiting our ability to detect, track, stop the black market spread of nuclear material and nuclear weapons. These decisions will have an impact on communities across the country, including mine. The NNSA's Initial Confinement Fusion Program, ICF, funds our nation's only laboratories capable of reproducing the high-energy conditions within a nuclear weapon to safely ensure the reliability of our nation's nuclear stockpile. One of these facilities, the University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics, LLE, is in my district. Unfortunately, this bill accepts the president's funding level for the program, which imposes a $23,000,000, 21% cut to the LLE.
This cut, if enacted, would result in staff reductions of dozens of scientists and have a chilling effect on LLE's ability to produce scientific advances and train students, at a time when threats to our national security are increasing and demand for ICF facilities is growing. I believe we can work in conference to ensure each site is properly funded, and I will work with this committee to include individual site splits in the final bill. Mister chairman, budgets reflect priorities. We say that all the time. And this energy funding bill makes House Republicans' priorities clear.
They're not focused on what families are dealing with right now. Instead of working to lower costs, my colleagues are slashing heating assistance, zeroing out home weatherization programs, and gutting research that helps keep energy reliable and affordable. Families in my community and across the country will pay the price. Higher heating bills, higher energy costs, and more pressure on households already struggling to keep up. These cuts are counterproductive, unnecessary, and I urge a no vote on the bill.
With that, I thank the chair and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, very much for the remarks. A gentleman from California, Mr. Levin, is recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 14
Mister chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to my friend Chairman Fleishman, to my friend ranking member CAPTOR. Before I say anything else, I want to just express my genuine appreciation for both of you. The work that goes into a bill like this is really enormous, and the partnership that you've built is really one of the bright spots in this institution.
And, miss chairman, in particular, thank you for your thoughtful partnership on issues that matter deeply to my district, to your district, and to the country, especially on the nuclear fuel cycle. It's really something that I value. We have to keep at it. And while I associate myself with a lot of my colleagues' comments about some of the cuts in the bill, I also want to acknowledge there's real good in the bill. There's a $10,000,000 increase for the Department of Energy to advance the nuclear lifecycle innovation campuses program.
That reflects a shared understanding that America's nuclear future, both civilian and on the back end, requires investment, focus, and serious policy attention. I'd like to see even more dedicated to this effort. I wanna be candid with everybody. I was hoping to get to yes on this bill. And while I cannot support it in its current form, I want to be clear that my disagreements are not with the chairman.
They're not with the ranking member. They're not with the spirit in which the subcommittee operates. My sincere hope is that as the bill moves forward, we continue to improve it together. And by the time it comes back and ultimately, we have the final disposition of the bill that members on both sides of the aisle can enthusiastically support it because the stakes here could not be higher. We're in the middle of the most consequential global energy competition since the Industrial Revolution.
The nations that can produce more energy, more reliably, more affordably, and across more sources are the nations that will dominate the next century of economic growth, advanced manufacturing, and national security. And right now, our principal competitor in that race is China. China is building generation capacity at a pace the world has never seen. They're investing in nuclear, in transmission, in grid infrastructure, in critical minerals, and in advanced manufacturing of every energy technology you can name. They're doing it deliberately, strategically, and at an unprecedented scale.
If we're serious about competing with China, and I hope we all are, then our energy and water bills have to reflect that seriousness. That means investing across the full portfolio. It means a strong commitment to advance nuclear, including a real path forward on spent nuclear fuel, and means a modern resilient grid that can carry power where it needs to go. It means continued American leadership in the national laboratories, which remain the crown jewels of American science. It means water infrastructure that supports communities in agriculture all across the country.
And it means an office of science that keeps us at the frontier of physics, computing, fusion, and the discoveries that will define the next generation. These aren't partisan priorities. They're American priorities. The national labs employ people all across the country and all across the political spectrum. The scientists working on fusion at Livermore and Oak Ridge, they're not red or blue.
The grid operators are trying to keep the lights on across the country. They all face the same physics. And the families who are paying their electric bills in every one of our districts feel the same pressure when prices go up. So my ask is very simple. Today, let's keep working.
Let's find the common ground that we need. Let's look where the bill can be strengthened to better position the United States to win the energy race, to support our scientific enterprise, and to bring costs down for the people we represent. I thank the chairman and the ranking member again for their leadership and their collaboration. Miss Chairman, I'll yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for his remarks. General lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Dean's recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Chairman Cole, Chairman Fleishman, Ranking Member Del Oro, and Ranking Member Captor. Thank you and your staff for the good work that you all have done on this bill. Still, I rise in opposition. The bill, unfortunately, fails to invest in the technologies we need to ensure affordable, resilient energy systems. Like many of you, my constituents are confronting rising energy costs.
In Pennsylvania, electricity and other utilities have risen more than 12% in the last year. Gas prices up over 40%. Now is the time to invest in solutions that lower costs and increase energy independence. Unfortunately, this bill does the opposite. The bill cuts the office of critical minerals and energy innovation by $1,300,000,000, or 40%.
It should be no surprise that the deepest cuts are to the programs in the former Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. These programs support research, development, and demonstration activities in renewable energy, clean transportation, and energy efficiency. As climate change and its impacts are accelerating and energy prices are through the roof, this bill cuts the building technologies office by nearly $200,000,000, two thirds of its FY 26 budget. While I'm grateful that the bill restores the funding for their weatherization assistance program, meaningful in my district, and the state energy programs, both of which were eliminated in the president's budget request. I wish the bill offered more to families who are struggling to afford out-of-control energy bills, fueled in part by the president's war of choice in Iran.
Finally, I am dismayed by the lack of support for the advanced research projects energy and agency, energy or ARPA E. The DOE's launch pad for new and disruptive technologies to enhance US economic and energy security. In this bill, ARPA E receives $50,000,000 less than it did in FY '26, and $160,000,000 less than FY '25. ARPA eFunds, we all know, are transformative. High risk projects across sectors, from grid infrastructure and power generation to industrial efficiency and vehicle technologies.
These bets pay off. ARPA-e funding has a nearly four times return on investment as ideas mature into companies and then receive private capital to commercialize their discoveries. Finally, I'm disappointed by what's missing from the bill. It does not address the chaos and uncertainty that comes from canceled grants or OMB interference, where money is still not flowing. Equally important, it does not address the understaffing and loss of expertise due to the department of so-called government efficiency cuts last year.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill and work to make it better for all Americans. And I yield back one minute fifty-two seconds.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentlelady. I'm gonna add all this up sometime. And announce how many minutes we say, but I thank all of you for doing so and staying within the clock. Gentleman from Indiana, mister Mavanz, recognized for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 16
Chairman. Cole and ranking member Delaro, chairman Fleishman, and ranking member CAPTOR, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the fiscal year 27 energy and water appropriations. Over the last year, I have had countless conversations with constituents who are shocked and angry when they open up their utility bills. On average, families in Northwest Indiana have seen their utility rates jump more than 26%, and these costly increases are making it difficult for seniors, families, and hardworking Americans to keep the lights on. The work we do in this committee has a direct impact on these families who are feeling the effects of this financial strain.
It is critical that we support federal policies that expand energy supplies, support good paying jobs, and bring real relief. Unfortunately, this bill falls short of these goals. Instead, the partisan cuts include, and this bill will slash American jobs, raise energy costs, and make us all less safe. The bill doubles down on cuts to energy, innovation, and large-scale energy projects that would strengthen our energy security, generate thousands of good-paying jobs, and enhance our global competitiveness. This includes a $50,000,000 cut to Advanced Research Projects Agency.
The ARPA-E provides support for research projects that drive innovation to keep our advanced manufacturing industry globally competitive. At Purdue Northwest, for example, researchers work hand in hand with the domestic steel industry to improve efficiency, drive workforce development, and improve workplace safety. These dollars are critical for transformative research that supports and continued dominance of the American steel, which in turn means good paying American jobs for generations to come. The bill also continues to revoke investments provided under the bipartisan infrastructure law that would lower energy costs, strengthen our energy security, and improve air quality in our communities. I will underscore that the canceled hydrogen hub in Northwest Indiana was slated to create 12,000 direct jobs.
The continued cuts to energy innovation projects are irresponsible and come at a direct cost to jobs across the country. On the defense side, I am also concerned about the 12% cut to the defense nuclear nonproliferation account. Underfunding essential nonproliferation programs makes it more difficult to combat the threat of nuclear terrorism at a time when our adversaries are strengthening and investing in their nuclear arsenals. Finally, I'm grateful to the committee for including the funding to the army corps, for the maintenance of our commercial and recreational harbors, and for the improving of clean water infrastructure for the residents of Northwest Indiana. However, I remain concerned about the lack of transparency throughout this budgetary process, largely driven by the congressional communications directive that limits the corps' ability to work closely with members of this committee to identify funding needs.
This bill makes more than a 50% cut to the harbors in my district. Indiana Harbor and Burns Waterway Harbors serve as a major industrial manufacturing hub, the largest oil refinery in the Midwest, and the nation's largest concentration of steel production. It is critical these harbors receive the funding they need. The energy and water appropriations bill is intended to promote economic and environmental health in our communities, lower costs to hardworking families, and address the threat to nuclear proliferation. These objectives should not be partisan.
However, this bill neglects the investment of long-term effects to strengthen our energy security, grow our economy, and make our nation safer. I urge my colleagues to reject the partisan legislation instead of working a bipartisan manner to promote the health and safety of our communities. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Are there other members wishing to make remarks on the bill? General Lady from Washington was recognized for general remarks on the bill.
Speaker 1
Oh, okay. You'll have your chance shortly. Are there, again, other members wishing to make remarks? Seeing none, I'm going to turn quickly to Chairman Fleischman. Just for informational purposes for the committee, we will finish up the manager's amendment.
At that point, we'll recess, so members can go and vote. We'd ask you to come back. I think about the time you get back, probably lunch will also be arriving. So I think Chick-fil-A is the order of the day. So, anyway, with that, mister chairman, I recognize you for the purpose of manager's amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cole, I have a manager's amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent to waive the reading of the amendment.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized to explain his amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendment includes noncontroversial additions and edits to the report that have been reviewed and agreed to by the majority and minority. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Ohio, Miss Captur, is recognized to address the manager's amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mister Chairman and Chairman Fleishman. I rise in support of this amendment, and I've worked with Chair Fleishman to agree on noncontroversial changes and have no objection to the amendment and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen, from Texas, Mister Cuellar is recognized to address the manager's amendment.
Speaker 12
Chairman. I wanna thank the chairman, Miss Fleishman, and the ranking member. Two provisions I would like to outline here. First of all, the amendment we've been adding in every appropriation bill, the outcome-based program reviews. This language, as you know, directs, for outcome-based reviews, operational reviews across the agencies that are funded by this particular bill, consistent with the law that we passed back in 2010.
It basically calls for the review of existing regulations, get rid of any regulations that are outdated, internal policies, and other requirements to make sure we get rid of any duplicate, unnecessary, burdensome rules and regulations that we have. In other words, making sure that we understand for every dollar that we spend, that we get the best bang. The other one I have to also highlight has to do with my area, Chacon Creek. This provision deals with the Chacon Creek flood control project in my hometown of Laredo. Since 2004, since I've started here for 22 years, I've been dealing with the bureaucracies, the bureaucracy at the Army Corp.
But I think now we got the right language, and I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member. This is the language that would direct the Corp to produce the final work, so we can get started. This language strongly encourages the corp to prioritize this project, allow it to proceed to preengineering design, as per the original section 203 study recommended, and making sure that we move forward. The people who live along the Chacon Creek have been very patient. Twenty-two years dealing with the army corps bureaucracy, and I think it's time that we move forward.
I think we got the right language, and I think the army corps will now move after 22 years. So, chairman, muchas gracias. Thank you very much. That's French. And, also, I wanna thank CAPTOR also.
So thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1
And I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Hoy, is recognized for remarks in the manager's amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, Miss Sharon. I also wanna thank chairman Fleischman. But I feel somewhat, you know, premature because my folks have only been waiting 9 years, but they have sustained substantial economic cost as a result of a jetty not being repaired. That has been for nine years, and it's costing the adjoining properties and a marina very substantial damage economically. And so I thank the gentleman for including a report in language.
It's report language only. But, hopefully, we can follow up on that perhaps as this process moves along.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Gentle lady from New York. Miss Ming is recognized to address the manager's amendment.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment, which includes my provision directing the Department of Energy to report on how existing financial and technical assistance programs are being optimized to reduce energy costs for consumers. Across the country, families and small businesses are facing rising utility costs and increasing financial pressure. For many households, energy bills are becoming more expensive, and small businesses are facing similar challenges as they work to manage operating costs and keep their doors open. In my district in Queens, New York, small businesses are central to our local economy and our communities.
Rising energy costs can place additional strain on already narrow margins, and make it harder for these businesses to grow and succeed. This language directs the department to submit a report detailing how existing programs are being evaluated and what performance metrics the department plans to implement across applied energy programs to assess realized and sustained cost savings for customers. That focus matters. What ultimately matters is whether Americans cannot wait any longer for their monthly energy costs to go down. This report will help Congress better understand how the department is measuring success and encourage a stronger focus on affordability, consumer savings, and real-world outcomes for the American people.
I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remarks. Gentlemen from West Virginia, Mister Moore is recognized for remarks in the manager's amendment.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. IRISE also in support today of the manager's amendment. Wanna thank the chairman very much for working with me and your staff, working with my staff to address a crisis that we're having in the state of West Virginia, specifically in the southern coal fields. West Virginia currently faces one of the worst water crises in America. 29% of the state's public water systems have health-based Safe Drinking Water Act violations, three times the national average, and nearly 80% of the entire state have some form of violation.
Between 2016 and 2024, nearly 1,000,000 West Virginians, about half of the state's population, were served by systems violating federal standards. The three counties with the highest water violation rates in the country, all three of them are in West Virginia. In one 6 month period in late 2024 and early 2025, the state issued more than 10 boil water advisories per day. A quarter of a million residents rely on untreated springs on private wells because they have no alternative at all. And I'd been under one of those boil advisories several times when I lived in Southern West Virginia.
The crisis is most severe in the Southern Coalfield Counties. In McDowell County, families spend more than $100 a month on bottled water because they do not have access to water in any other way. Addressing this crisis will require years of sustained effort across federal, state, and local agencies. And the Army Corps of Engineers, they do play a role in this. Utilities in McDowell and Wyoming County often lack the engineering staff and resources to submit an Army Corps project application, let alone complete one.
My amendment is simple. It directs the corps to reach out to the qualifying utilities, offer technical assistance on applications, and finished projects that are already underway. Mister chairman and the committee, it is very hard to believe, I'm sure, for many of you that people are living like this in America. We have people that subsist on cisterns, don't even have running water, don't have access to water whatsoever in West Virginia, and are living off of bottled water now. This isn't for weeks.
This isn't for months. This has been going on for years, and very much appreciate you including this in the manager's amendment. Now yield back. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Appreciate the gentleman's remarks. General Lee from New Jersey, Miss Watson Coleman is recognized for remarks on the manager's amendment.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the chairman of Fleischmann. Thank you to ranking member Captor. I rise in support of the manager's amendment, and I want to thank the committee for working with me and my staff in a bipartisan manner on the inclusion of two pieces of language in this amendment that are important to me on the impact of the AI centers data centers. The first piece builds on my AI data center study language to account for environmental and economic impacts of data center development and operations on energy, water grid reliability, transmission, distribution system constraints, rate payers, as well as taking into consideration impacts on low income communities.
It also requires coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Commerce to ensure that this work reflects the local land and water use concerns and community-level economic impacts. The second piece of language ensures that the public is made aware of electricity consumption and the potential impacts on electricity costs and grid reliability that's collected through the Energy Information Administration. We have a lot of work to do to ensure that AI data center creation and operations does not occur at the expense of our community's health, our environment, or our local economies, and that's just the start. A recent Gallup poll has found that 71% Americans across the political spectrum oppose constructing them, so there's a lot of work that needs to be done. While Americans are facing rising utility costs, pollution, and a strain on water supplies magnified by the current affordability crisis, the gap in health care access, slash environmental protections and rollbacks, this is critical funding.
In my state of New Jersey, electricity rates have jumped 20%. Families are being asked to conserve water while enormous facilities consume millions of gallons for cooling operations. Nationwide, the pace of construction is far faster than our current oversight of these structures is possible. So I am glad that we've had this mandatory language included in the manager's amendment. I think it's a good start, and while there's more to be done to address the future air quality, noise pollution, and health concerns surrounding these data centers, I do appreciate the work from my colleagues, and I stand in support of it.
I yield back. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady, for her remarks. Gentlelady from Washington, Miss Perez, is recognized for remarks in the manager's amendment.
Speaker 17
He's in support of the amendment and the inclusion of a provision about the rising costs of dredging. I represent a region with a lot of ports. In the Columbia River, I have the most ports actually of any member west of the Mississippi. And some of these are larger ports on navigable waters with a core dredge, but many are also smaller ports that have to handle their own dredging for some portion of the waterway. Speaking with some of my port managers, I learned that the cost of dredging these ports is approximately 40% of the cost.
Do you know what that does to an economy that runs on crab fishing when 40% of the cost of dredging is permitting. Where is our money going? It is going to lawyers and people with clipboards, and it is crippling our fishermen and our oystermen and our crabbers. This is a serious problem, and I'm asking for your help here. And I'm so relieved that a portion of this was achieved and included in the amendment.
But I'm really looking for stronger language. There has to be a more reasonable standard about how we're gonna spend our federal resources. And let me be clear about the cost of not dredging. Like, it kills people. It kills people.
We are losing fishermen because they're not able to service the buoys that we rely on for navigation because of these dredging issues. And then we lose our buoys, we lose our navigation. And, you know, I know some young kids who have lost their father over this. We have got to find a more reasonable way to execute these dredging projects, and I look forward to working with the committee to achieve this in future iterations. With that, I'll yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady, for her remarks. Are there any other members seeking recognition to speak on the manager's amendment? Seeing none, I recognize Chairman Fleischman for one minute to close.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I respect and thank my colleagues for their strong language and support of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 1
Questions now on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
The votes have now been called. The committee will stand in recess. Please return promptly at the conclusion of the last vote, so we can continue consideration of the bill. The committee will reconvene. General lady from Connecticut, Mister Lawrence, recognized for purposes of an amendment.
Speaker 5
Mister chair, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you. I rise to offer this amendment to withhold the secretary of energy's funding until the Department of Energy unfreezes funds for the Renew America's Schools program and the home energy research, rebates programs. This amendment targets two frozen programs at the Department of Energy to unlock the resources that are aimed directly at helping communities and families address rising utility bills during a cost-of-living crisis. First, through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Democrats in Congress appropriated $500,000,000 to the Department of Energy for the Renew America Schools program. And that was to promote the implementation of energy improvements at K through 12 public schools across the country.
I repeat, this money was appropriated, $500,000,000. The investment aimed to help school communities make energy upgrades that will decrease energy use and costs, improve indoor air quality, and foster healthier learning environments. The program invested hundreds of millions of dollars in public school districts across America, funding improvement projects at more than 400 facilities across 36 states, directly benefiting almost 200,000 students and 14,000 teachers. This administration halted that program. In July of last year, the Government Accountability Office issued a decision finding that the Department of Energy violated the Impoundment Control Act after investigating delayed awards for the Renew America Schools program.
GAO confirmed what we already knew, that President Trump and the Office of Management and Budget director Russ Vought's theft of appropriated funds violates the Impoundment Control Act. What has been the department's response since that July finding? Nothing. The funds are still frozen. They refuse to obligate the remaining balances.
They remain in violation of the law. Since through the Inflation Reduction Act, Democrats in Congress provided over $8,000,000,000 to the Department of Energy for the Home Energy Rebates Program. That program puts money directly back in the hands of American households. The rebates can help consumers save money on home improvement projects that can lower energy bills by providing up to $14,000 in rebates per household. It is estimated that these programs will save households up to $1,000,000,000 per year on energy bills, and support over 50,000 US jobs.
However, the Department of Energy has stalled on implementing these programs for well over a year. The department could be saving households money on their utility bills. But instead, the Department of Energy has been sitting on its hands. This has prevented households from making home upgrades that would be currently saving them money. When Secretary Wright testified before this committee last month, he stated the funds would be released in, and I quote, a few weeks.
That was 5 weeks ago. Families are still waiting. My amendment is simple. It withholds funds from the office of the secretary of energy until the department obligates more than 90% of the funds for the Renew America Schools program and approves 90% of the state implementation plans for the Home Energy Rebates program. We must unfreeze these programs.
These are being held up illegally, in violation of the law, so that we can reduce our energy consumption and lower Americans' energy bills. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for the amendment. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mister Fleisman, is recognized to respond.
Speaker 2
Thank you, mister chairman, and I thank the distinguished ranking member for her amendment. However, I must rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This administration is delivering on its promise to ensure taxpayer resources are being utilized efficiently, effectively, and wisely. The administration has undertaken a review process to determine whether programs are meeting these requirements. I recognize this process has been slow at times, but I will point out that the programs my colleagues mention are available for obligation until the year 2031.
There's no requirement to spend the money right away, and we shouldn't punish the office of the secretary for trying to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Those reasons, I oppose the amendment, urge my colleagues to do the same, and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. A gentlelady from Ohio, Miss Captor, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Mister chairman, I rise in support of ranking member Del Oro's amendment. I wanna speak directly to what’s at stake here. This administration has chosen to break the law, and working families are paying the price. The government accounting office has already ruled.
They have already ruled. Department of Energy violated the law. The Impoundment Control Act by freezing funds for the Renew America's Schools Program. This is not a democratic talking point. This is a legal determination, legal, by a nonpartisan watchdog.
And the Department of Energy's response has been to keep the money frozen, anyway. This is an appalling betrayal of working families. In my district and across this country, families are struggling with rising energy bills right now. Bills that have more than doubled. The home energy rebates program could be putting up to $14,000 back in the hands of households making energy upgrades today.
Instead, the Department of Energy is sitting on those funds, while families pay more every month. These programs would save households up to $1,000,000,000 a year on energy bills, and support more than 50,000 American jobs. This is not ideology. This is economic relief, and this administration is blocking it. The Department of Energy's pattern of freezing appropriated energy funds hurts US households, and it cedes our clean energy leadership to places like China, forcing Americans to pay higher bills here at home.
That is not putting America first. That is putting partisanship first, and Americans last. I serve on this committee because I believe the federal government must work to make life better for the American people, not against them. At a bare minimum, we demand that the Department of Energy follow the law as intended, and I urge my colleague to support this Del Oro amendment. Vote yes, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the general lady for her remark. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There's no fraud, waste in the abuse here, and we appropriated $500,000,000. Where is the sense of the strength of this committee and of what we do here? If we just could come out and vote and whatever the program is, we say that we're gonna provide so much money for it. And then Russ Vote can make a decision not to implement the program, not to get it done.
What would be the point of sitting here, sitting on our hands and doing nothing about people who are prepared to take away the power of the purse from where it resides, and that is in the Congress. And it's a violation of law and a violation of the constitution. I just wanna remind everyone the American people are asking and are demanding to help with the cost of living. That's the issue we hear about over again. And the last thing that the administration should be doing is freezing programs that we know would save families money.
But maybe this plays into the president not believing that affordability is real. He continues to call it a hoax, and that's because he doesn't worry about any of this. This amendment reaffirms Congress's power of the purse. Look on the dice and see what it says about where that power of the purse resides, and it resides in this committee right here. This puts the department of energy back on mission, carrying out the programs that drive down energy costs for Americans.
The American people need help with the cost of living. This amendment gives it to them. I urge your support of the amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. May I thank the gentlelady for her remarks? The questions now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Connecticut. All those in favor, say aye. Aye.
All those opposed, say no. No. The opinion of the chair of the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated.
The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 21
Mister Aderholt, Mister Aguilar, Mister Alford. Mister Alford. Mister Alford, no. Mister Amaney. Missus Bice.
Missus Bice, no. Mr. Bishop. Aye. Mister Bishop, aye. Mr Calvert.
Mister Calvert, no. Mr. Carter? No. Mister Carter, no. Mr. Case?
Aye. Mister Case, aye. Mister Siscamani? No. Mister Cline?
Mr. Cloud? Mr. Clyburn. Mister Clyburn, aye. Mr. Clyde. Mr. Clyde.
No. Mr. Cole. No. Mr. Cole. No.
Mister Cuéar. Mister Cuéar, aye. Miss Dean? Mister Lauro. Ay.
Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz Bellart? Mister Diaz Bellart? No. Mister Edwards?
Mr Edwards? No. Mister Elzy? Mister Elzy? No.
Miss Escobar? Mister Espéat? Mister Fleishman? No. Mister Fleishman?
No. Miss Frankel? Yes. Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin?
Mister Franklin, no. Mister Guest? No. Mr Guest? No.
No. Mr. Harter? Aye. Mister Harter, I. Doctor Harris?
Missus Henson? Missus Henson? No. Mister Hoyer?
Speaker 21
Mr. Hoyer? Mister Ivy? I. Mister Ivy? I.
Mister Joyce? Mister Joyce? No. Miss Captor? I.
Miss Captor? I. Mister Lolota? Mister Lolota? No.
Miss Lee? I. Miss Lee? I. Miss Letlow?
Mister Levin? Mister Levin? I. Miss Malloy? Miss Malloy, no.
Miss McCullum? Aye. Miss McCullum, aye. Miss Ming? Aye.
Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar? No. Mr. Moore?
No. Mr. Moore? No. Mister Morelli?
Speaker 21
Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Mervann? Mister Newhouse? Mister Newhouse?
No. Miss Perez? Yes. Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingree?
Mister Pocan? Mister Pocan? Aye. Mister Quigley? Aye.
Mister Rashenthaler? Mister Rashenthaler? No. Mister Rogers? Mister Rogers?
No. Mister Rutherford? No. Mr. Rutherford? No.
Mister Schrieve? Mister Shreev, no. Mr Simpson? Mr. Simpson? No.
Mister Strong? Mister Strong? No. Missus Torres? Aye.
Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valladeo.
Mister Valladeo, no. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Missus walked in. Oh, Miss Wasserman Schultz. Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye.
Miss Watson Coleman? Aye. Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack? Mister Womack?
No. Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke?
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentleman from Texas.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to vote or to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerical tally. This vote, the ayes are 25, the noes are 31. The amendment is not adopted. Gentlemen from Georgia, Mr. Clyde is recognized for the purposes of amendment.
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the clerk dispense with the reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 22
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of my amendment to reduce the Department of Energy's Office of Science by $1,386,000,000 consistent with President Trump's fiscal year 2027 budget request to bring the Energy and Water Appropriations Act to slightly below fiscal year 2026 levels. Mister chairman, as our national debt approaches $40,000,000,000,000, Washington's addiction to spending is no longer merely irresponsible. It is a threat to our national security and our future generations. The addiction must end.
Considering where we stand, the federal government expects $5,600,000,000,000 in revenue this year but plans to spend 7.4. That is a $1,800,000,000,000 deficit. More than 1,000,000,000,000 will go solely to interest payments. That means funding no programs, building no roads, defending no soldiers. No household, no business, no institution could survive this math indefinitely.
And yet the bill before us today would make it worse, increasing spending above fiscal year 2026 enacted levels by $416,000,000. President Trump's fiscal year 2027 budget charts a different course, eliminating duplicative programs, cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, and refocusing federal dollars on what actually serves American taxpayers. It protects our national security and keeps American businesses competitive. President the president proposes a reduction of more than $1,000,000,000 from 26 enacted levels in the office of science. The budget maintains US competitiveness in high-performing computing, in artificial intelligence, in quantum information science, fusion energy, and critical mineral research.
What it eliminates is the climate change advocacy and the Green New Deal research that has no business being funded by the Department of Energy in the first place. Energy Secretary Chris Wright put it very plainly at a Senate budget hearing earlier this year. The national labs, he said, have drifted into things that are not fundamental, basic science. They are in political science. And he's right.
The office of sciences, biological, and environmental research division had spent millions, excuse me, hundreds of millions of dollars on climate change research, deeply connected to a political agenda. The president proposes to end that political research and redirect those resources toward research that actually serves American energy dominance. Additionally, the president's budget eliminates funding for the reaching a new energy sciences workforce initiative, which is a DEI program explicitly designed, in its own words, to diversify American leadership in the physical sciences. You know, merit-based science funding should be exactly that, merit-based. Yet this program directs taxpayer dollars based on the race and identity of researchers rather than the quantity, excuse me, rather than the quality of their science.
The Office of Science's own grant process had become similarly corrupted. In the Biden administration, every researcher seeking Office of Science funding was required to submit a Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research or a peer plan describing how their work would advance diversity, equity, and inclusion. These plans were evaluated alongside scientific merit, and used to influence funding decisions. My amendment would bring the office of science in line with the president's budget request, returning it to approximately fiscal year 2021 funding levels while preserving the core research programs that matter for American energy security and global competitiveness. As our country barrels toward a $40,000,000,000,000 debt, our committee needs to be leading the way with fiscal restraint.
Unfortunately, I believe there's still work to be done to get this bill there, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. As for his amendment, the gentleman from Tennessee, mister Fosterman, recognized to respond.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mister Chairman, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his amendment. I must respectfully rise in strong opposition to the amendment. The Office of Science is our nation's largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences. That constitutes research where the private sector does not routinely get involved because it's too early-stage. The office of science performs a vital role for the nation.
Discoveries at the Office of Science have laid the groundwork for semiconductor manufacturing, pharmaceutical drug development efforts, and energy technology improvements. As the primary sponsor for 10 of the department's national labs, the Office of Science is a true national resource for delivering on the promise that scientific discoveries can enable. This is a fiscally responsible bill. Our nondefense allocation is even below the fiscal year 26 house level. Within the non-defense portion of our bill, we had to make some tough choices to balance our priorities.
And as one of my highest priorities was to strengthen the office of science, which is a wise investment in my view for America's future. For all these reasons, I must respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment. I urge my colleague to do the same, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Ohio is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment, my friend, Mr. Clyde. And why?
Speaker 4
Do that? Well, this amendment would decrease funding for the Office of Science by $1,400,000,000. And that might sound like a good thing to do with the horrendous debt that we hold. But what the Office of Science does is it invents the future. So, for example, though I don't think that you support thin film solar research, I sure do, because I see what it can do to help people be energy independent in their businesses and their homes.
Perovskite research that we're doing with the Air Force is gonna revolutionize energy in this country. We just have to move it forward. Thin films, layered thin films are powerful and they're complicated, but they can lead America not to be dependent on any more oil wars in the Middle East. And also, manufacturing and advanced manufacturing layered, that wouldn't be available to us without what the Office of Science has done over the years. And we're making progress.
Too slow for me, but nonetheless progress as a country. The Office of Science leads critical work in energy research and innovation. And if you look at the US debt, I said it earlier, I'll say it again, 25% of it is due to Middle East oil wars that weren't paid for over at least four presidencies. It's a tragedy for the country, and we're now in another one. And I don't know how we're gonna get out of recession, because that's where we're gonna do a deep dive into recession now.
Get ready. Buckle your seatbelt. So the energy research and innovation that comes from physics and infusion, and basic energy sciences can lead America to a different future, and boy, I want it. And our national labs are at the basis of so much of it. The bill already has cut non-defense spending by more than 6%, stifling our ability to innovate and to compete in the energy sector where the Chinese are right at our ankles.
And in fact, for the firms that I represent, they're hacking them thousands of times a month. This amendment proposes further cuts to science, which is and has been the foundation of US competitiveness. Ensuring an energy-independent future for this country is a top national security issue. Slashing the very programs that allow us to reach that goal is simply unacceptable to this member. I firmly oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. The gentle lady from New Jersey, Miss Watson Coleman, is recognized for remarks on the amendment.
Speaker 20
I oppose this amendment, and I support what, Chairman Fleshman has said with regard to this amendment. But beyond that, I need to say something, and I hope you accept it with the respect that is intended. I'm tired of hearing that what we are proposing or what you are proposing is consistent with this president's desire to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption. When he is the most corrupt president we've had in our history, and my colleagues are the most weakened allowable entities I've ever experienced in Congress, even from what I read in my high school history classes. Don't talk to me about waste, fraud, and abuse.
Don't talk to me about balancing a budget. When you talk to me about eliminating things like science, when you talk to me about eliminating health care, when you talk to me about the legitimacy of not funding our schools and education, don't talk to me about that stuff when you have a president that you're getting ready to allow to do $1,800,000,000 worth of slush funds because he wants to, and then to exempt himself from any kind of oversight, him, his family, and his companies. Don't use that language in association with corruption. Don't hold your heads down. Stand up for this country.
Find your spine and say no to Donald Trump, to this amendment, and to moving forward in this environment. Our children need your strength. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close. Thank.
Speaker 22
You, mister chairman. You know, no one says the Office of Science doesn't do good work. I think they do. You know, their budget, according to the president's budget request, is $7,138,500,000. That's, you know, $7,100,000,000.
That's a heck of a lot of money as opposed to what it was funded at, which was 8.25, or this year, 8.5. So a $275,000,000 increase from last year. All I'm asking is that the budget request that the president has asked for be honored here, and that we reduce spending as such. And with that, I encourage a yes vote, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. The opinion, chair, the noes have it. No. And the amendment is not adopted. A gentlelady from Ohio, Miss Captur, is recognized for the purposes of an amendment.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, captor number one, and I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to abide by the laws Congress has passed and to prohibit the arbitrary and capricious termination of federal awards, and to reinstate those already terminated under the Department of Energy's highly political review process. This should not be a political matter. It's a matter of real substance and consequence for American families, including communities across the nation. Awards advance our nation's global competitiveness. Countries that deploy innovation in clean energy will win the race.
And guess what? Right now, China is winning this race. Americans, our constituents, are paying the price. US electricity prices have been soaring. The grid's old.
Gasoline prices have skyrocketed. Heating bills have tripled for industrial installations. Meanwhile, last year, the billionaire CEOs of tech firms saw their compensation rise. And my neighbors are struggling to afford health insurance, to pay for oil changes and tires for their cars. Each one of the terminated projects I'm referencing was aimed at ensuring an abundant and affordable energy supply for our people, the people who elect us.
The awards were authorized by congress, and the funds were appropriated legally. Then the Department of Energy approved them, announced them, and signed contracts with the recipients. But astoundingly and illegally, under this administration, they have now been revoked. The Department of Energy has terminated more than 300 projects worth over $9,000,000,000 legally approved. One year ago this month, the Department of Energy announced the termination of over $3,000,000,000 in projects.
Then last October, Russell voted and the Department of Energy announced the termination of $8,000,000,000 of Department of Energy projects targeted at blue states. While OMB and the Department of Energy may have triggered, have targeted blue states, their malfeasance impacted Republican House districts too. Each of you has a list in front of you of terminated projects. You can find your state, and you can take a look if it's you or one of your colleagues that's had projects erased. These cancellations hit home in districts across the country.
Three of these energy modernization projects were actually in Ohio. Well, they've never been very good to Ohio. $45,000,000 for Libby Glass to modernize essential furnaces. Furnaces that were modern furnaces in the glass industry. You gotta have a lot of heat.
And they were old furnaces, and they're competing with Mexico, with France, with China. Well, that rug just got pulled from under them. $57,000,000 for Owens-Illinois glass. Energy advancements in one of the premier corporations of our country, rug jerked out from underneath them. A $170,000,000 for Kraft Heinz, few of you know that company, across 10 locations, including one in Ohio.
In a county that I've been privileged to represent, now they're gonna take it away because Ohio, you know, gerrymanders every two weeks. So the Trump administration's terminations jeopardize more than 240000 American manufacturing jobs. I hope somebody lets President Trump know that he wants to help industrial America, and the erasures of these harm industrial America a great deal. Pulls the rug right out from under him. Every terminated project is in a community that loses investment and the jobs that go with it, loses tax revenue, and loses the energy infrastructure that would have lowered costs for local customers and ratepayers.
It stifles progress. This amendment simply says that agencies cannot erase project awards at will, based on political wins. The federal government must honor its legal commitments and the legal contracts signed in good faith. Finally, this is a common-sense stewardship of taxpayer dollars. The government cannot be in the habit of reneging on its commitments willy-nilly.
If the president wakes up one day and decides that it's no longer our nation, and awards these, takes away these awards, it harms our global competitiveness. So, I think that this amendment simply says that agencies cannot erase project awards. It's a common-sense stewardship of taxpayer dollars. The government cannot be in the habit of reneging on its commitment. So I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to preserve jobs, invest in US production, lower energy bills, and ensure that contracts signed by the United States are legally binding, not whimsical.
Please vote yes, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for amendment. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mister Fleishman, is recognized to respond.
Speaker 2
Thank you, mister chairman, and I thank the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee for offering this amendment. However, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. The amendment would handcuff the Department of Energy from reviewing federal funding decisions made during the Biden administration. The Trump administration is working to ensure that there are good stewards of the taxpayer dollars and funds and acting in the public interest. We can all support a process which ensures our government agencies are operating efficiently and looking to cut waste wherever it can be found.
We should be careful not to take away tools which allow the department to do just that. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment, urge my colleagues to do the same, and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your comments. A gentlelady from Connecticut. Mister Lawrence, recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment. It's just very simple. It requires the Department of Energy to honor the contracts it has signed and follow through with the awards it has made. Signed contracts.
On October 1, during a government shutdown, the Department of Energy announced the termination of 7.5 billion dollars in energy awards across more than 200 projects. Those project terminations openly targeted states that voted for Vice President Harris in the 2024 presidential election. The terminated projects were targeted at 16 democratic-led states, but they impacted 136 congressional districts, 108 of which are represented by Democrats and 28 by Republicans, including a number of people in this room. These are projects that you support. They have not awarded the money.
These are your people. The very next day, the secretary of energy went on CNN, and he told the American people that this was just a, quote, partial list, and that more terminations were coming. He said, and I quote, as this fall goes on, you'll see cancellations in red and blue states, end quote. That was 7 months ago. Instead, last month, the department announced they completed their review with no additional terminations.
As we have known all along, this was not an effort to reduce waste. This was a political, one more political revenge tour. Since January 2024, the Department of Energy has terminated over 300 projects worth over $9,400,000,000. Of those terminated, 87% were announced for termination in October, as part of the administration's political reprisal. Looking at the data another way, 95% of the blue state awards were terminated on October 1.
They were not restored. So, effectively, the only projects that have been fully terminated were targeted at blue states, including two with direct ties to my district in Connecticut. And when this was challenged in court, the Department of Energy did not even try to deny it. Department of Energy, OMB, stipulated, admitted in a legal filing that, and let me quote it to you, a primary reason for the selection of the Department of Energy grant termination decisions was included in the October 2025 notice tranche was whether the grantee was located in a blue state, end quote. I'm not gonna read it again.
You're all smart people here. You understand what is going on. The district court this January filed that this violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law. We pride ourselves on being a nation of laws, and these laws are being violated, flagrantly violated every single day. The administration claims the project reviews were not conducted on political grounds.
Anyone can see that this is a lie. The courts have ruled that targeting blue states is unconstitutional. The government's own lawyers conceded the point, and these project terminations have real consequences. All of the jobs and economic investments these projects would have created are now gone. American families, yes, will pay the price in the form of higher utility bills, fewer jobs, and a less reliable energy grid in the future.
Disrupting projects like this means more expensive energy, more emissions, more pollution, and surrendering to China in the race for clean energy dominance. And if we do not act, the future of not just these projects, but all future investments made by the United States Congress or us are threatened. If the president can simply defund projects at a whim, what is the purpose of the appropriations process? What exactly are we all doing here if we are not writing laws that are to be implemented? The American people have asked us to bring down the cost of living.
The Trump administration has responded by stealing funds from projects that invest reliable, affordable energy nationwide. They are reveling in petty partisanship at the cost of the American people's energy bills, and yes, it must end. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, general lady, for the remarks. General lady from Minnesota, Miss McCollum's recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, ranking member Delora, for reading the quote from the administration targeting blue states. I'm from Minnesota. I'm from the United States of America. And we're only as strong as we work together. We're only as strong as we're unified.
And this is not just happening in this bill. We've got examples in all the other bills of what happened and deciding to target things. But the states are embraced as part of the incubators, the inventors, the spark that keeps this country going. And so a lot of these projects in this bill are just to do that. It's to create the next invention.
It's to take the next step. It's to be the competitor. It's to work with the university. It's to work with the state. It's to work with the business.
How can we be better. And when we pass and we work on things, and some of these things are things that we advocated for ourselves or we did on behalf of our colleagues. Heck, I advocate on things on behalf of my Republican colleagues from Minnesota because we're all from Minnesota when it's in the appropriations bill. So this amendment is needed because we need to have a serious wake-up call here amongst ourselves. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of the appropriations made by law.
So we can pick and choose which laws we want to put into our bills, but once they're signed into law, we should be united. We should be the United Congress telling the administrations, do your budget, put your budget forward. We'll discuss it. Oh, and by the way, if a former congress or a former president signs something into law, that's the law. What I hear from my constituents, what I hear from my businesses, is this back and forth.
They want our economy needs, and our researchers need sustainability. Vote for this amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The gentleman from California, Mr. Levin, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 14
Mister chairman, I rise in support of a ranking member captors amendment, not just because my district is the worst hit on the ranking member's handout, but for many reasons. Over the past year, I think we all know that costs have risen across the board for families. They see it at a grocery store. They see it when they fill up their tanks at the gas station. And increasingly, they see it when they open their monthly utility bills.
Since January of last year, electricity prices have risen by as much as 13% nationally, and residential gas prices are up 12%. One in six households is now behind on their electric or gas bills. Families are paying more to heat and cool their homes, more to keep the lights on, and more to just get through the month. For millions of Americans already stretched thin, this is yet another bill they can't afford. Let's be honest about what's happening.
Families are paying more because the administration is choking off the supply of clean, low-cost electricity while forcing ratepayers to subsidize aging expensive fossil fuel plants. As we grapple with skyrocketing energy demand largely attributed to data centers, we should be adding as much power to the grid as possible to keep costs down and to keep the lights on. Instead, the administration has decided to terminate billions of dollars of energy grants targeting states that historically have not supported the president. Let me state some facts. On October 1, the OMB director announced that the Department of Energy would terminate $8,000,000,000 of energy projects targeting 16 of the blue states.
The president had said the day before, and I am quoting, that the shutdown was an opportunity to do things that are, quote, bad for Democrats and, quote, irreversible. The administration then proceeded to cancel more than 300 awards targeting blue states that had been set to lower energy prices, create new jobs, and make the grid more reliable. All things again that we need in an era of skyrocketing energy demand. California lost billions of dollars in these terminations, including canceled projects in the district of every single California appropriator, including my friends on the other side and their districts too. This includes projects that our delegation even worked in a bipartisan fashion to support and defend.
DOE admitted in court that, quote, the selection of which DOE grant termination decisions were included in the October 2025 notice tranche was influenced by whether a grantee's address was located in a state that tends to elect and or has recently elected Democratic candidates, end quote. That's what they said in court. That's not political opponents talking. That is the DOE's own lawyers in federal court. The lawyers then went further.
They didn't deny the politics. They argued that, quote, consideration of partisan politics is constitutionally permissible, end quote. They didn't only lean into it. They tried to justify it, and a federal judge disagreed. Look.
If we want America to lead the future, that starts with a strong domestic energy policy that doesn't pick winners and losers based on the politics of the state the project is located in. A strong energy policy means letting the best technologies win in the marketplace, not setting up new roadblocks to that technology's success. Clean energy is now. I will be happy to send anybody in this room whatever data you would like to see. It is now the lowest cost new electricity in the United States, even on an unsubsidized basis.
Don't take it from me. Take it from Lazard and their calculations of the levelized cost of energy. Again, happy to send it to anybody in this room. Please don't take it from me. It's not ideology.
It's basic math. The administration is restricting the cheapest sources of new electricity and canceling major transmission projects at a time when demand is rising and will continue to rise. Basic supply and demand economics informs us prices will continue to go up. But regardless of which energy sources you believe are best for powering our leadership, and I know we have disagreements about that in this room, we should all agree that no administration should have the power to cancel awards that have been carefully vetted, carefully approved, simply because the president didn't get the votes in a particular state. That's crazy.
Ranking member Captors amendment will ensure that we can build up projects to meet growing demand, maintain a stable energy policy, and lower costs for all of our constituents in the red states and the blue states. I urge all my colleagues to support it, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Gentlemen from Maryland, Mister Hoyer is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 3
I thank the chairman. Miss McCullum referenced the sign at the front of the dais. That was designed to assure that the people would decide what laws should be enacted, and what laws should be followed. They were not different. If you enact it, the executive has the responsibility to follow it.
Does the executive have an alternative? It does. It can come back to us and say, we think these 303 projects are not justified. And, therefore, we think you, the appropriators, should rescind them. Mister chairman, not to arbitrarily and capriciously or for partisan reasons or for substantive reasons say, we do not agree, and therefore, we will eliminate that which you have enacted.
And the president has signed. Now you've heard me use the phrase that we are the authors of our own impotence. Why should any administration, Republican or Democrat, worry about what we do if we simply stand by silently when they say no after the fact. What's the point? What's the point of us spending time here or considering amendments?
Why don't we just call up Russell Boat and say, "Whatever you wanna do, sir," and salute? Now, obviously, what we could do when we next have the presidency, and by the way, history tells us at some point in time, we're gonna have the presidency. For the last 75 years, we've gone back and forth almost every other time, and every other time being an eight year as well. And we did the same thing. Let's say for sake of argument, Shalonda Young has returned to the OMB and decides we're not gonna have any red projects in America.
I will tell you if, in fact, I was in charge, to the extent it happened, we should have stood up and said no. You can't do that. And very frankly, I would hope that Miss Del Oro, when she's chair, would say to a democratic administration, if you wanna change that, you come back here. Because the constitution says we make the law, not you. Now the president believes he is the law.
That is a dangerous phenomenon, ladies and gentlemen. And if you are not cognizant of that and concerned about that, then you're not concerned about our democracy. These times when we come here and we give our imprimatur to the arbitrary action of the executive department, every time we do that. It erodes the authority of this committee. Bob Livingston is on the wall.
He was a wonderful chairman of this committee, a Republican from Louisiana. He wouldn't have stood for this. Nor would David Obey on the Democratic side, they wouldn't have tried it with David Obey. And I believe Mister Rogers would have quietly told somebody, you cannot do that, because they stood strong, not for the Democrats or the Republicans, but for the Constitution and the role of this committee in the Congress and in this country. I regret that we do not seem to be paying attention to those important principles. Our founders are disappointed.
I vote for this amendment.
Speaker 1
Sir. Thank the gentleman for his comments. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? If there's no further debate, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all those who have spoken. The companies, not-for-profits, and state and local governments that enter into legal agreements with the federal government have always vested full faith in our government to keep its promises, its word, and to abide by the law. If a federal department awarded grants or contracts, these decisions were respected until this administration. Applicants knew that they could count on a legal and fair review process.
So then they would make hires, they would make capital expenditures, and attract other investments with the knowledge that these federal dollars were rock solid, until now. The Department of Energy has terminated more than 300 projects worth over $9,000,000,000 across this country. If our people can't trust the federal government to uphold its word and contracts, everything the federal government tries to accomplish will become more complicated and costly. It simply undermines us as a society and a nation. In this case, these projects will keep American manufacturing on the cutting edge, and believe me, she needs to be.
We're catching up, and we haven't caught up yet. Lower energy prices are a must. Protecting our jobs, what could be more important? So I urge my colleagues, support this amendment to keep regular order, to follow the law, and to achieve America's full promise. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Ohio. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
Speaker 1
And the chair of the noes has it. Roll call is requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 21
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. No. Mr. Aguilar. Aye.
Mister Aguilar? I. Mister Alford? Mister Alford? No.
Mister Amaday? No. Mister Amaday? No. Mr. Spice?
No. Mr. Bishop? Mr. Bishop? Mister Calvert? Calvert, no.
Mr. Carter? Mr. Carter? No. Mister Case? Mister Case?
I. Mister Siscamani? Mister Siscamani? No. Mister Klein?
Mister Klein? No. Mister Cloud? Mr. Clyburn. Mister Clyburn.
Mister Clyde? Negative. Mister Clyde, no. Mister Cole? No.
Mister Cole, no. Mister Cuéar? Mister Cuéar, I. Miss Dean? Mister Lauro.
Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz-Bollart. Mister Diaz-Bollart, no. Mr Edwards. Mister Edwards, no.
Mister Elzey. Miss Escobar. Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Esbat, aye. Mister Fleishman?
No. Fleishman? No. Miss Frankel? Aye.
Miss Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin? Mister Franklin? No. Mister Guest?
Mister Guest, no. Mr. Harter. Mister Harter, I. Doctor Harris. Doctor Harris, no.
Missus Henson. Mr. Hoyer. Hi. Mister Hoyer, I. Mr Ivy.
Aye. Mister Ivy, aye. Mr. Joyce. Captor. Aye.
Mister Lolota. Mister Lolota. No. Miss Lee. Aye.
Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy.
Miss Malloy, no. Miss McCollum. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming. Miss Ming, aye.
Mr Molinar. Mister Molinar, no. Mister Moore? No. Mr. Moore?
No. Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Morelli, aye. Mr. Mervan?
Aye. Mister Mervan, aye. Mr. Newhouse? Mr. Newhouse? No.
Miss Perez? Aye. Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingree? Aye.
Pocan? Mr. Pocan? Aye. Mister Quigley? Aye.
Mister Rashenthaler? Mister Rashenthaler? No. Mister Rogers? Mister Rogers?
No. Mister Rutherford? Mister Rutherford? No. Mister Shree?
Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson? Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong? Mister Strong?
No. Mrs. Torres? Aye. Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood?
Aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valladeo? Mister Valladeo? No.
Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, I. Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, I. Mr. Womack.
Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to record or change their vote? Gentle lady from Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to record or change their vote? Gentlemen from Ohio?
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to record or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 28. The nodes are 33. The amendment is not adopted.
Gentle lady from Ohio, Miss Captors, recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, chapter two, and I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to address rising AI-related electricity costs. This amendment adds funding for clean energy generation and grid infrastructure programs. Our citizenry is enduring a growing cost-of-living crisis. Yesterday, I learned a vital industrial ratepayer in my Northern Ohio region had its energy costs triple. I bet you're experiencing the same.
Energy costs are a primary driver of the inflationary crisis that our people are bearing. New AI installations in many communities across the region I represent, as well, are causing energy and water prices to skyrocket for local ratepayers as AI companies build data facilities that require large amounts of energy and water. Communities are deeply concerned, and public opposition to these operations has risen. A fair energy cost structure must attend to these facilities and benefit local ratepayers. Congress must address these rising costs.
I propose a competition for new energy technologies to lower electricity prices. Energy bills are rising in the region I represent by over 50%. And for some in our region, they have more than doubled. We need more energy. We need a modern grid.
According to a study released last week, power prices in the nation's largest grid market, which is called PJM, which has a footprint across 13 Mid-Atlantic and Midwest states, including Ohio, jumped almost 76% in the first quarter of this year. Buckle your seatbelt. Electric utilities have proposed or implemented rate hikes affecting more than 111,000,000 customers. That's a whole lot of people. More than 80,000,000 Americans are struggling to pay their utility bills.
This is basic economics. Demand for electricity is skyrocketing, heavily driven by AI and data centers. We do not have enough baseload supply of electricity generation to accommodate this enormous, increasing demand. In addition, old grid systems cannot accommodate the large power demands of these installations. I don't know if any of you have ever seen sagging power lines.
Our region has. It's not a pleasant experience to endure. What do President Trump and congressional Republicans do in response? They eliminate help for electricity generation, for modernization. Since President Trump's election, more than 28 gigawatts of planned energy generation had been lost due to energy projects that were canceled or delayed.
For sure, those that were behind the grid so that we could feed a new energy system. That is enough generation to power over 14.5 million homes in the United States in your district. We have an old grid all over the country. The backbone of our electric grid was built in the 1960s and 1970s, while families in your town and mine all across our country are paying more for electricity than ever before. Washington has been really slow to replace infrastructure that is decades old.
A great jobs program if we could have it. Unfortunately, this energy and water bill takes us further backward by cutting programs focused on energy generation, grid technologies, and energy efficiency. The Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, formerly called Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, invests in clean energy generation and energy efficiency. Yet the current bill, are you ready for this? Cuts the office by 1,250,000,000 or 40%.
That is really backwards. For clean energy generation, this includes a 52% cut to solar energy. Do you really want to give it all to the Chinese? A 45% cut to wind energy, a 32% cut to hydropower, and hydrokinetic energy. For energy efficiency, this includes a 66% cut to building technologies, a 43% cut to industrial uses, and a 43% cut to manufacturing technologies.
And representing manufacturing America or what's left of it, I can say this doesn't sound like make America great again. And it sure doesn't sound like make industrial America great again. The office of electricity, including the grid deployment program, invests in grid infrastructure technologies, but the current bill proposes to cut total grid funding by $25,000,000. That's 10%, including a 12% cut to its energy storage programs. This amendment would restore funding to the Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation, and the Office of Electricity.
Our citizenry are suffering from rising costs for everything, for transportation, for fuel, for heating, for electricity, and we as a country are mired in the past. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment to restore the programs that invest in clean energy generation and grid technologies of the future, so we can lower costs for our people and our communities. Congress has an obligation to defend the people of this country. I urge my colleagues to vote yes.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady for the amendment. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Fleishman, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And while I thank the distinguished ranking member for this amendment. I rise in opposition to the same. I fully appreciate my colleagues' passion for the critical minerals and energy innovation and Office of Electricity accounts. I too support their efforts on critical minerals, advanced manufacturing, and grid resiliency.
The bill frankly had to make tough choices in order to balance our priorities. The cuts to the office of critical minerals and energy innovation and the office of electricity reflect an approach to support the highest priority research and development efforts. Again, I appreciate my colleagues highlighting the important work of both these offices. But because my colleague's amendment does not have an offset, it would bring us over the allocation, and upset the balance of this and other bills. For these reasons, I must oppose the amendment, urge my colleagues to do the same, and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. The gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 8
Is in the underlying bill. The deep cut to the Department of Energy's critical minerals and energy innovation account, and the reduction to the electricity account. Specifically, the amendment would increase critical minerals and energy innovation from 1,850,000,000 to 3,100,000,000, and it will restore the electricity account from 235,000,000 to 260,000,000. That matters because energy policy is not just about one region, one industry, or one political party. Energy policy is about whether American families can afford to keep the lights on.
Speaker 8
It's about whether farmers can operate their equipment, irrigate their crops, and move goods to the market. It's about whether small businesses can grow. It's about whether rural hospitals, schools, military installations, and local governments have the reliable power they need to serve their communities. A district like mine in rural Southwest Georgia, energy affordability and reliability are not abstract policy debates. They are kitchen-table issues.
When energy costs rise, families feel it. When the grid is strained, communities feel it. When federal investments bypass rural areas, our constituents feel it too. The underlying bill cuts too deeply into the very programs that help America build a stronger, more affordable, and more resilient energy future. Critical minerals and energy innovation are essential to American competitiveness.
We should not be relying on foreign adversaries for the materials and the technologies that power our economy, our defense industrial base, our vehicles, our communication systems, and our electric grid. If we're serious about energy independence, then we must be serious about domestic innovation, domestic supply chains, and domestic manufacturing. This amendment also restores funding for the electricity account, which is critical as demand on our grid continues to grow. Across the country, communities are seeing increased power needs from advanced manufacturing, data centers, agriculture, military readiness, and new technologies. We cannot meet that demand with an outdated or under-resourced grid.
We need a grid that is reliable, resilient, secure, and affordable for the ratepayers. I also wanna emphasize that this amendment is not about choosing one energy source over another. It's about making sure America has the tools to lead. It supports innovation. It supports reliability.
It supports affordability, and it supports the long-term economic security of communities that too often are asked to wait their turn. In Georgia's 2nd Congressional District, we know what it means to depend on strong infrastructure. We know what it means when rural communities need federal partnerships to compete. We know that investments in energy innovation and grid reliability are investments in jobs, economic development, and national security. This amendment improves the bill.
It moves us closer to a responsible energy and water bill that strengthens America, instead of retreating from the future. I urge my colleagues to support the CAPTA amendment. It's a good amendment. It helps the bill, and it will help America. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Families in Toledo and across this country are drowning in bills they can't pay. Washington's answer is to cut the very programs that could throw them a lifeline. AI is remaking our economy. Our grid is decades old, and this bill makes both problems worse.
My amendment would make life better for the American people. We can do better. We must do better. Support this amendment. Vote yes.
Thank you. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Ohio. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 1
All those opposed, say no. No. Any chair of the nose have it. Low call is requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated.
Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 21
Mister Aderholt. Mr. Aderholt. Mister Aguilar. Mr. Alford? Mister Alford?
No. Mister Amade? Mister Amade? No. Missus Bice?
Missus Bice? No. Mr. Bishop?
Speaker 21
Mister Bishop, I. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter? No. Mister Case? Mister Case, aye. Mister Siscamani.
Mister Siscamani, no. Mister Klein. Mr. Cloud. Mister Cloud, no. Mr. Clyburn.
Mister Clyburn, Mister Clyde. Mr. Clyde? No. Mister Cole? No.
Mr. Cole? No. Mister Cuellar? Same. Mistine?
Aye. Mistine, aye. Mister Lauro? Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz-Bollart?
No. Mister Diaz-Bollart? No. Mister Edwards? Mr Edwards?
No. Mister Elze? Mister Elze? No. Miss Escobar?
Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Espéat? Mister Harter, I. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris?
No. Missus Henson? Mr. Hoyer? Mister Hoyer, I. Mister Ivy?
Mister Ivy? I. Mister Joyce? Mister Joyce? No.
Miss Captor? Aye. Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota? Mister Lolota?
No. Miss Lee. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow? Mister Levin?
Miss Malloy? Miss Malloy, no. Miss McCollum? Aye. Miss McCollum, aye.
Miss Ming. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar? No. Mr. Moore?
No. Mr. Moore? No. Mister Morelli? Aye.
Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Mervan? Aye. Mister Mervan, aye. Mister Newhouse?
No. Mr. Newhouse? Miss Perez? Miss Pingree? Miss Pingree?
Aye. Mister Pocan? Mister Pocan, aye. Mister Quigley? Aye.
Mister Quigley, aye. Mister Rashenthaler? Mister Rashenthaler? No. Mister Rogers?
Mister Rogers? No. Mister Rutherford? Mister Shreev? Mister Shreev.
No. Mr. Simpson. No. Mr. Simpson. No.
Mister Strong. No. Strong. Mr. Torres. Aye.
Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo?
Mister Valladeo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz? Aye. Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye.
Miss Watson Coleman? Aye. Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack? Mister Womack?
No. Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke? No.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from California? Aye.
Speaker 1
Yet another gentleman from Gulf Warrior. Are there others wishing to vote or change their vote? Saying none, the corpus will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 28. The nodes are 32.
The amendment is not adopted. Gentle lady from Florida, Miss Wasserman Schultz, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that it be considered read. It's Wasserman Schultz one.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general ladies recognize for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleagues, you've heard me talk about this issue already today, so I'll keep this brief, as I intend to offer and withdraw after any of my colleagues have had a chance to speak on this amendment. I rise in support of my amendment that would restore South Florida ecosystem restoration or Everglades restoration project totals to the fiscal year 2026 levels. I know that I am not alone in my deep frustrations with the Army Corps of Engineers this year or in recent history, but this budget cycle has reached new levels of frustration for me and my Florida colleagues. Simply put, their utter disregard by members of Congress and this committee is unacceptable.
In Weston, a project authorized and included in the larger Everglades restoration work was reported in the local news as being canceled at the beginning of this year. Yet instead of hearing about it from the Army Corps, I heard about it from a city manager and a local reporter. When my office reached out to the army corps to find out more, crickets. So we reached out to headquarters, more crickets. Finally, we got a few answers from a local government staffer who was able to talk to someone at the army corps, but that same staffer was not able to speak to me or my office.
Can't really make this up. The project was delayed but not canceled, apparently, as parts of it needed to be reworked and secured and additional funding secured. What was so hard about giving us a heads-up about that? We're the ones that appropriate the funds. Mister chairman, it would've been nice to know for the folks who live in Weston.
The road was already torn up. The land was already cleared, but now it will just sit empty until the court decides to prioritize it. This is the story up and down Florida. If it is not one of the big flashy parts of the Everglades restoration plan, then their funding is in jeopardy of being gutted in favor of something else. I wanna be clear.
I'm incredibly proud of the hardworking men and women at the army corps who work on the Everglades restoration project across the state. I'm also incredibly proud of all the work that we've accomplished so far, because this is history-making stuff from the record investments championed by presidents Obama, Biden, and the first Trump administration. But now under Trump too, the Everglades is headed for its first funding decrease. As a member from South Florida, I cannot support a step back from our commitment. That's why I, along with several of my Florida colleagues, including Congressman Mast, submitted a CPF for a funding increase for the Everglades, the same that was awarded last fiscal year.
But this year, the corps has turned down the additional funds. Why? And the answer seems to be entirely dependent on who you ask. Based on conversations I've had, the army corps can absolutely execute the additional funds just like they did last year, but headquarters decided to reject it flat-out since it wasn't in their original request. But they've been telling us that they couldn't execute it.
Only we know that they can, because the army corps folks told us that they could. Based on conversations that I've had, the army corps can absolutely execute the additional funds, and it's inexplicable to me that they're just flat rejecting it. Mister chairman, the situation on the ground hasn't changed all that much from last year. We're making progress, but there is still a lot of work left to do. Work could be done faster or put back on track in the case of the C-11 impoundment if these Everglades funds were restored.
I understand because of the army corps' position that these funds are not executable, and thus the committee can't support the plus up at this time. But mister chairman and madam ranking member, I ask that you work with us, members of the Florida delegation, to get answers from the Army Corps so we can ensure that this never happens to our River of Grass again or to any of you when you are going through your major waterworks project. Before I withdraw the amendment, mister chairman, I will yield back to see if there are any other members who wish to speak on the amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to speak to the amendment? Our general lady from Florida, Miss Frankel, is recognized to address the amendment. That, you know, I'll call you if you want to talk to him. She's gonna withdraw it.
So if you're along.
Speaker 24
Right? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in strong support in this effort to strengthen funding for the Everglades restoration. The Everglades is the crown jewel of Florida. It's an ecosystem found nowhere else on Earth.
And in South Florida, it propels our economy. It attracts visitors from around the world. It supports jobs and tourism, and provides clean drinking water to millions of residents and visitors. And the Everglades is also home to endangered wildlife, sacred tribal lands, and the way of life deeply woven into our state's identity. And for decades, people said restoring the Everglades was impossible.
Yet through bipartisan efforts, yes, bipartisan efforts, and sustained commitment by federal and state, tribal, and local levels, we have made remarkable progress. Projects are moving forward. Water quality is improving. Wetlands are being restored. And we are proving that when government works together, we can protect one of America's greatest natural treasures for future generations.
And as mentioned, the rest of the restoration, though, is far from being finished, and we cannot afford to lose momentum. And every dollar invested in the Everglades is an investment in Florida's environment, our economy, our drinking water, our resilience, and our future. And I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady. The gentleman from Florida is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 25
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief. I just wanna thank the sponsor and the gentleman also, my ranking member of the subcommittee, for her words. I also would be remiss if I didn't thank the chairman of the subcommittee, and also mister Simpson and mister Calavert and others who over the years have been instrumental in this very large, very important project and very expensive project moving forward. And so, you know, the gentlewoman has asked if we can have the chairman work with us.
The chairman has always worked with us, and I appreciate that. And the past chairman. And this is something that unifies not only the Florida delegation, which it does, but also those of us on the appropriations committee. While we have our differences, this is an issue where we work very closely together. I wanna thank the gentlewoman from Southern Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for bringing this up.
And, as always, look forward to continuing working with you and also Lois Frankel and others. But in particular, you know, we've been kind of the lead on the Everglades restoration. But, mister chairman, and the subcommittee in particular, thank you for your support, for your leadership. We look forward to working with you. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. Are there others wishing to participate in this Florida love fest? If not, the gentle ladies recognize the close.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, I'll just issue a blanket appreciation to all of the members who have supported Everglades restoration funding over the years. We need to just make sure that we are not, you know, putting the brakes on, and we have to make sure that the comprehensive approach to the comprehensive equalized restoration plan continues to move forward. And I do appreciate the chairman and the ranking members, you know, joint and bipartisan work with us over the years, and look forward to that. And perhaps we can maybe give a little zest, as they say, in my tradition to the army corps, so that we can straighten some of this out.
And with that, I withdraw the amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank the general lady, and the general lady is recognized for the purpose of another amendment.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that it be considered as is where it is Wasserman Schultz number two.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So this amendment is simple. It says that the Department of Energy should either release approved rebate funds to the American families that were approved for them, or they need to return to the committee and explain the status of these funds and what, if anything, is left in their review. Now this affects districts and states all over the country. The home efficiency program and the high efficiency electric home rebates program are grants to states, territories, and tribes who ensure that low to moderate income households can make energy-saving retrofits or buy efficient HVACs, insulation, water heaters, and high efficiency appliances, and cost-saving electric upgrades.
In Florida, as you might imagine, if you visited, these are things that are not optional. They're how we can live, grow, and survive in Florida. When the secretary of energy came before the subcommittee, I'm a member of the subcommittee, by the way, this year, I asked him point blank why his department had not released these funds to hardworking Americans. My home state of Florida is waiting on over $350,000,000 in funds that are supposed to go directly to Floridians. Yet the secretary had no answer.
He actually had no idea what I was talking about. He didn't even have a serious answer, unless you count that he tried to blame DEI initiatives as a serious answer. I mean, it was very clear that he had no idea what rebate program I was asking him about and never got back to us. I have families literally sweating it out, waiting for these funds. And why does it matter if a rebate recipient is white, black, or Hispanic?
If you're hot, you're hot. If you've got sweat pouring down your face because you don't have a working air conditioning unit, then, you know, the color of your skin, the content of your character, none of it matters. Maybe the secretary is trying to say that home appliances now need to identify as a straight, white male in order to be considered an eligible purchase for a rebate. Regardless, it wasn't a serious answer, like what I just said wasn't serious to a very serious question. Keep in mind that that's just two programs among a whole host of them that the Department of Energy has withheld, that the secretary is still freezing even after telling this committee that their reviews were wrapping up and the money was going out the door.
In Florida alone, hundreds of millions of dollars have been pulled out from under us, has led to increased electricity costs, and a more unreliable grid. But I guess Floridians shouldn't worry because the energy department's culture warriors are on the case, and increasing costs from coast to coast. My constituents have had enough of this administration's make America unaffordable agenda, release these funds. The home efficiency rebates and high efficiency electric home rebates are good bipartisan programs that all of our constituents use to make the increased costs that they are facing just a little bit more affordable. We all talk about wanting to make life more affordable.
These funds have been approved already, and the Department of Energy is sitting on them and not telling us why. And it's preposterous, and we need to push to make sure that they release them. Or they explain to us why they haven't released them, and when they will. As far as this committee has been told, there's no legitimate reason that these funds should be continue to be withheld, and I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Let's help get some financial relief to our constituents, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Back to the gentlelady. The for our amendment, gentleman from Tennessee. Mister Fleischmann's recognized and responded to.
Speaker 2
The amendment. Thank you, mister chairman, and thank you, gentlelady, for offering this amendment and for her comments earlier about the Everglades. A rise in opposition to this amendment. As we discussed during the debate for ranking member Delaro's amendment, I'd like to again note that this administration has undertaken a review process to determine whether programs are ensuring taxpayer resources are wisely spent. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment, urge my colleagues to do the same, and yield back.
Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Gentle lady from Ohio, Miss Scaptor, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the Wasserman Schultz amendment. Congress appropriated funds for the home energy rebates program to deliver real relief to American families. Instead, the Department of Energy is sitting on the money. States are ready.
Families are ready. The only thing missing is the Department of Energy doing its job. These rebates put up to $14,000 back in the pockets of households making energy upgrades, upgrades that can cut utility bills month after month. Working families are seeking relief across this country, and they're watching their energy bills climb. They cannot afford to wait while bureaucrats in Washington hold back funds.
Congress already passed and approved. This amendment is simple. Release the funds within 30 days. If you cannot, come before the committee and explain why. This is not too much to ask.
I urge you, yes, vote, and compliment congressman Wasserman Schultz for this amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for your remark. Are there others with gentlelady from Maine recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the general lady from Florida for proposing this amendment. It's just so simple and so logical, and should be something that we could all find a very bipartisan agreement on. We are the appropriations committee. We appropriated these funds, and then the administration decided to just sit on them.
And we don't know why. And it's so simple. The gentle lady from Florida is just saying, please release these funds to our state or come and tell us why. If this is some part of your dumb ideology that we're not gonna have all of the above energy, just at least tell us that. And for all of us as the appropriators, remember this is what we used to stand for.
There were members of Congress, and then there were appropriators. And appropriators fought back and said the administration is not gonna make these unilateral decisions and take back the money that we appropriated. It impacts all of our states, and I just want to talk briefly about how this impacts the state of Maine. As we all know, we have an affordability crisis going on. We also have a housing crisis in most of our states, and I think all of you are experiencing this.
It's uniquely difficult in Maine. Electricity prices have gone up. But even worse than that, we are the most oil dependent state in the nation. We have some of the oldest housing stock in the nation, and we have the oldest people in the nation. So think about it.
A lot of people are very dependent on oil, maybe 70% of our houses. We don't have much natural gas, and electricity is expensive. But this program has been tremendously beneficial. We are one of the states that has made some of the best progress in installing heat pumps, so converting from oil-fired furnaces to heat pumps. And Maina costs about $2,800 a year to run a heat pump compared to about $4,500 a year for propane, and oil is even more expensive.
We've led the country, as I said, in heat pump adoption. We surpassed our first goal of installing 100,000 heat pumps by 2025, and our new goal is to install 175,000 by 2027. Through this program, Efficiency Maine, one of the programs that operates in our state, awarded $10,000,000 to install 675 heat pumps to mobile and manufactured homes in our state. We're highly dependent on manufactured housing because we don't have enough housing stock. It's low income.
It's a good way for people to acquire a home. But most of them don't have any source of cooling, as our summers have gotten hotter and hotter, and it's also expensive and difficult to keep them heated. This reduces their heating and cooling costs by about 40%. So it supports this kind of affordable housing. It gives people the bonus of having air conditioning because heat pumps are both heating and cooling, and it has been incredibly successful.
And I've talked to people who have been able to benefit from this program, and it has been life changing for them. So there is no good reason, and I'm sure this story could be repeated in your state as well. But because of these bureaucratic decisions made at the federal level and by this administration, we are not getting those funds released for any future programs. That means people will continue to have higher energy bills. It means that the small businesses that are doing this kind of installation don't have the work that they were having, and we are not doing our job as the appropriations committee.
So I wholeheartedly support this amendment, and I encourage you all to do the same and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanna thank the ranking member of the subcommittee, Miss Captor, and the ranking member of the full committee for their support of this program and for helping to get relief to Americans. This amendment is simple, and the choice that we have before us is clear. A vote for this amendment says use the money for the programs we authorized, or come back to Congress and brief us on what the issue is. This really should not be difficult for us or for the secretary.
This vote that you're going to take right now is where you have an opportunity to put your money where your mouth is. Are you really for making life more affordable for Americans, or are you a culture warrior? Or do you not have any idea why it is that this money is being withheld, even though these individual Americans have been approved for these rebates? That's likely the case, and you're withholding the average rebate that could head to our constituents right now in these programs, which is between 8,000 and $14,000. You know what?
To most people, that is real money. And the money is just sitting here in Washington and not heading to our states to get into the bank accounts of hardworking Americans. So don't make struggling Americans sweat it out any longer. Stop the madness. Release the funds.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Active gentlelady, the questions now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Florida. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No.
Any of the chair of the noes have it. A roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 21
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt. Aguilar. I. Mr. Alford.
Mr. Alford. No. Mister Amade. Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday?
No. Missus Price? Mr Bishop? Aye. Mister Bishop, aye.
Mister Calvert? No. Mister Calvert? Mr. Carter? No.
Carter? Mr. Case? Mister Case, I mister Siskemani. Mister Siskemani, no. Mister Klein?
Mister Klein? No. Mister Cloud? Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn, I mister Clyburn.
Mister Clyde? No. Mr. Cole?
Speaker 21
Mr. Cole? No. Mister Cuellar? Aye. Mister Cuellar?
Aye. Mister Aye. Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz Bellar? Mister Diaz Bellar?
No. Mister Edwards? Mister Edwards, no. Mister Elzy, no. Miss Escobar.
Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Escobar, Espeyat, Mister Fleishman? No. Mister Fleishman, no. Miss Frankel?
Hi. Miss Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin? No. Mister Franklin, no.
Mister Guest? No. Mister Guest? No. Mr. Harter?
Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson?
Mr. Hoyer? Mister Hoyer, aye. Mr Ivy. Mister Ivy, aye. Mr. Joyce.
Mister Joyce, no. Miss Captor. Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota. Mister Lolota, no.
Miss Lee, Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Miss Malloy. Miss Malloy. No.
Miss McCollum. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming. Miss Ming? Aye.
Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar? No. Mr Moore? No.
Mister Morelli? Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Mervann? Mister Mervann?
Aye. Mr. Newhouse? Mr Newhouse? No. Miss Perez?
Miss Perez, I'm Miss Pingree. Miss Pingree, I'm Mr. Pokan. Mister Pokan, I'm Mr. Quigley. Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rashenthaler, no.
Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev.
Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong. Mister Strong, no.
Mrs. Torres. Missus Torres, I'm Miss Underwood. Miss Underwood, I'm Mr. Valadao. Mister Valadao, no. Miss Wasserman Schultz.
Miss Wasserman Schultz, I'm Mrs. Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, I'm Mr. Womack. Mister Womack? No. Mister Zinke?
No. Mister Zinke? No.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentlemen from California. Mister.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to change or record their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. Did Calvin get in? On this vote, the ayes 28, the noes are 32. The amendment is not adopted.
A gentleman from New York, mister Espiano, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you. Good afternoon. I have an amendment at the desk and ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of it.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mister Chairman, ranking member. And thank you for allowing me to present this amendment. My amendment directs the secretary of energy to establish a publicly accessible and searchable database of data centers in the United States. They have recently completed construction, are currently being manufactured, or are under consideration by local authorities. It also directs the department to continually analyze each data center's impact on local residents' utility rates.
As you know, mister chairman, data centers are being built across the country. Whether you support them or not, I think communities should have the ability to know when they're being built, where they're being built, and the impact they will have in their community. In this committee and across the country, there is a spectrum of views on the swift construction of data centers. This amendment does not express an opinion on support or against, but rather, it says that the public, the general public, should have knowledge of where they're being built and the impact that they will have on those communities. Simplift delivers basic information to the American people on the location, scale, and energy usage, corporate affiliates, and impacts on local utility bills associated with recent or new data centers that are built.
This is a good governance bill amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his amendment. Gentlemen from Tennessee, Mister Fleishman, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I respectfully rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. The amendment would require the Department of Energy to establish and maintain a comprehensive public database of data centers across the United States. The amendment would also require the department to provide project-specific details and conduct a detailed analysis for each completed project. To put it simply, it's unclear whether this information is publicly available, and how the department would collect it.
Much of this information is proprietary, commercially sensitive, constantly changing, or maintained by state and local permitting authorities or private entities. I fully recognize the desire to better understand these projects, but the amendment goes too far in asking the department to report on information they would be literally unable to obtain. Further, establishing and maintaining a database would be administratively burdensome and likely require significant resources. For these reasons, I must oppose the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The general agent of Ohio, Miss Kapter, is recognized for a response to the amendment. Okay. Is there any further members wishing to address the amendment? The gentleman from Maryland, Mister Ivy.
Speaker 28
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment for a variety of reasons. My colleagues need to understand the first part of this, which is that the electricity system is not regulated by the market. And so the sharing of information is critical across state lines, because if it's not shared, you run into situations like double counting. So the way this would work and is working is that companies say we wanna build a data center, and that can amount to billions of dollars.
That ends up getting spread out to residential customers across the entire region. The region for me is PJM, covers 13 states. That creates multiple problems. Number one is that these individual states are supposed to be making the decisions about how the pricing is done for electricity in their state. And then even further local, the localities make the zoning decisions about whether they should be there or not.
So for example, in Virginia, you have, I don't even know, dozens of data centers there. How many? Lots. Lots. Okay.
We got the expert testimony from my colleague from Virginia here. I'm right across the river. I don't know how many they have there, but we're all on the same electricity grid. And what that means is that my state and the other 11 states in this grid could end up having to pay for the amount of the cost of a new data center. And so the point of this amendment is at least to count them correctly.
Let's at least have a list. If you don't do it at the federal level, we don't necessarily have them at the state level because I don't know what's being built in Virginia or New Jersey. But if you double count it, FERC comes up with an estimate for what the cost is gonna be that could raise the cost for what we're paying for electricity, our residential customers, even if it shouldn't go up. And the challenge then becomes at the state level, because they don't control the federal piece, that they can't correct it. So one of the issues we really need to consider at this level, because they can't do it at the state and local level, are we making sure that it's not a market system, so the market's not driving and setting the prices for electricity?
It's a group of individuals in different rooms in different states that are making guesstimates based on the information they've got. We need to at least make sure they have accurate information that they're getting. The second piece is if you don't estimate this correctly, which is the problem that's going on right now, you could be looking at rolling blackouts, which is the case for PJM for this summer. Think about what that means. So you got electricity prices going up.
Of course, people are gonna be angry about that. And at the same time, you've got the quality of service going down, because you've got blackouts happening. I don't care what state you're in, blue, red, purple, something in the middle, they're gonna be mad. I've got mad folks in my state right now, and we haven't even hit the rolling blackout stage yet. If that comes this summer, your phone will be ringing off the hook.
My phone will be ringing off the hook, and we won't even be able to answer basic questions like how much more power is gonna come up when the next one of these data centers goes up? Because some of these, there's one, for example, they're talking about putting up in the South that has enough electricity to power New Orleans. We don't have that information. We don't know about that. And if we don't know that basic information, how can we be setting prices as close to accurate as possible?
Again, remember, this is not a market system. You get one shot to do it. Sometimes it takes multiple years to build these data centers, five or ten years. So you're locking in prices and rates potentially for 5 to 10 years out, and you don't know what the numbers are? That's where we are right now.
And, layer on top of that, we've got an aging grid system that we know is struggling to keep up with the rise of AI and the increases in the need for electricity. You all really need to think about what we're gonna do as a Congress to make sure we stay ahead of this curve. Because I guarantee you, I was the local regulator in the state of Maryland, and one time we had an outage in the state during the summer. Super hot day, electricity over demand. Trust me.
You don't want to be there. And you definitely don't wanna be there in a multiyear scenario, because the entire grid isn't built to carry the amount of demand that it's got. So I urge my colleagues, at a minimum, let's at least make sure we know how much power is there now, how much is gonna be demanded in the future, and whether we can meet that going forward or not. I'd urge you to, at a minimum, support this amendment.
Speaker 1
Back to the gentleman. The gentlelady from Texas, Miss Escobar, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 29
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I rise to support this amendment. I don't know how many of you have had data centers pop up in your communities. In my region, we already have 3 with a fourth that is slated to be built. There are significant questions from the community about water usage, electricity usage, impact to our air quality.
And one of these big tech companies that is building the hyperscale data center in my community, just one of them, has refused to engage with the community, literally refused to answer any questions. And these are not, it's not like a big box retail store. These hyperscale data centers are massive, and their demands on our natural resources are pretty significant. I was meeting yesterday, for example, with the Texas Farm Bureau, and a group of farmers from my community. I asked them, what is your number one concern right now?
And they said, water. And we began talking about data centers, and the mystery surrounding their use of natural resources and their impact on the grid is of great concern. If we can't get answers from big tech as they build these massive, hyperscale data centers, then Congress really needs to make sure that we are stepping in to ensure that there's transparency, to ensure that we know as much as possible so that we can share information with our utility companies, with our constituents, and with the folks who will inherit the impact and the consequences of these data centers for decades to come. This is, I think, probably the most useful amendment right now in front of us around data centers. And I think it would give many of us the tools that we need in order to better understand what's coming down the pike, and how to best help our counties, our local governments, our utility companies, and most especially our constituents.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I wanna thank both the gentle lady from Texas and the gentleman from Maryland for highlighting in detail the bipartisan nature of this amendment and how important it is for all of us to have access to new information, really, because data centers are a new phenomenon. And we're still wondering what kind of impact they're gonna have on communities. But the general public and our constituencies are very concerned about the high cost of energy. When you talk about inflation, when you talk about affordability, when you talk about high prices for food and rent and all these things, the next thing to follow is the high cost of energy.
And then you have potential rolling brownouts and blackouts during very hot summer months. This is a new dynamic. And as was said, these are massive centers, data centers that we must understand. The best way to understand them is to have information about them and for us to be able to make educated decisions on whether they should or should not be in different places across the country. So I urge all my colleagues to support this common sense amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlemen. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say no. No.
Any insured does have it. Roll call is requested. Sufficiency forward is demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 21
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt, no. Mister Aguilar? Mister Aguilar? I.
Mr Alford? Mr Alford? No. Mister Amaday? No.
Mister Amaday? No. Mr. Spice? Mister Bishop? Aye.
Mister Bishop, aye. Mr Calvert. Mister Calvert, no. Mr. Carter. Mister Carter, no.
Mister Case, aye. Mister Siscamani. Mister Siscamani, no. Mister Klein, Mister Cloud? Mr. Cloud?
No. Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn, aye. Mister Clyde? Mr. Clyde?
No. Mr. Cole? No. Mister Cole? No.
Mister Cuellar? Mistine. Mistine, aye. Mister Lauro? Aye.
Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz-Bollart? No. Diaz-Bollart? No.
Mister Edwards? Mister Edwards? No. Mister Elze? Mister Elze?
No. Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Esbayat? Aye.
Mister Esbayat, aye. Mister Fleishman? No. Mister Fleishman, no. Miss Frankel?
Mister Franklin? Mister Franklin? No. Mister Guest? No.
Mister Guest? No. Mr. Harder? Mister Harter, I. Doctor Harris?
Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson? Mister Hoyer? I.
Mister Hoyer? I. Mister Ivy? I. Ivy?
I. Mr. Joyce? Mister Joyce, no. Miss Captor? Mister Lolota.
Mister Lolota. No. Miss Lee. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow.
Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy? No. Miss Malloy?
No. Miss McCullum? Aye. Miss McCullum, aye. Miss Ming?
Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar? No. Mister Moore?
No. Mister Moore? No. Mister Morelli? Aye.
Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Mervann? Aye. Mister Mervann, aye. Mr. Newhouse?
Mr. Newhouse? No. Miss Perez? Aye. Miss Pingree?
Miss Pingry, aye. Mr. Pocan. Mister Pocan, aye. Mister Quigley. Mister Quigley, aye.
Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rashenthaler, no. Mister Rogers? No. Mister Rogers, no.
Mister Rutherford? Mister Rutherford? No. Mister Schriever? Mister Shreev, no.
Mr. Simpson? No. Mister Simpson, no. Mr Strong? Mister Strong?
No. Missus Torres? Hi. Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood?
Aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valladeo? Mister Valladeo, no. Miss Wasserman Schultz.
Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, no.
Mister Zinke. Mister Zinke, no. Are there?
Speaker 1
Other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Yeah. Gentle lady from Florida.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to change or record their vote saying, has the gentle lady from Washington voted? Okay. Seeing none, the clerk for Cali. I'm sorry? Oh, chairman, gentle lady from Oklahoma.
Speaker 1
On this vote, the ayes are 27, the noes are 32. The amendment is not adopted. Before we proceed, I probably should have said this in a debate to my friend from New York. I'm just reflecting on this. I'm not sure that wouldn't be a really good matter for an authorizing committee to look at.
I'm just wondering here, in an amendment process, when we haven't asked what's the cost, what are the regulatory implications, whether we were the right body. But I think the question is a very good question. I just on reflection, I get thinking, is that something we should do here now in this relatively short time? I'm not sure. But, regardless, commend the member for raising the issue.
I think it's an important issue. With that, the gentlelady from Nevada, Miss Lee, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk and request unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 30
Thank you. At a time when energy costs are increasing across the nation, and as we just heard, demands for energy are growing exponentially due to the proliferation of data centers, this nation needs to embrace an all of the above approach to meet our nation's growing energy demand and to bring down costs. We're literally in a race against time. The good news is that one of the most promising sources of energy for our future is fusion energy. Fusion energy promises to be a safe, clean, and sustainable energy source that can provide a nearly limitless supply of energy.
It can operate year-round, twenty-four hours a day, at a high capacity and does not produce carbon emissions. And fusion energy does not produce the kind of radioactive waste that has stalled the development of fission energy for decades. Congress has started to come around to the value of this promising energy source. In fact, the bill we are considering today includes $800,000,000 for the Department of Energy Office of Fusion Energy Sciences, which has led the federal government's research and work on fusion energy. And I am a proud member of the Congressional Fusion Energy Caucus alongside our chair, our subcommittee chair, Mr.
Fleishman and several other members of this committee. My amendment seeks to build on the growing congressional support for fusion energy. Supporters of Fusion Energy requested $100,000,000 in new funding to stand up the Department of Energy's newly created office of Hugent. The purpose is to commercialize it and bring it to the grid. The Trump administration requested $10,000,000 for the same office.
Unfortunately, this bill does not provide any funding to stand up a new office. And in fact, the report includes language that says commercialization efforts to bring Fusion Energy to the electric grid would be better conducted by the existing Office of Technology Commercialization rather than a new Office of Fusion. While I disagree with that decision, I understand why some may believe it is a better approach. But what I don't understand is why we would task the office of technology commercialization with this new responsibility, but not provide the funding necessary to carry it out. My amendment simply specifies that of the $233,000,000 in funding currently allocated for general management and program support functions of the Department of Energy, $10,000,000 of this funding should be specifically designated for fusion activities.
This amendment would ensure that the Office of Technology Commercialization can effectively collaborate with fusion industry stakeholders and the Office of Science to lead efforts to coordinate research, development, and deployment activities in support of fusion commercialization. I urge my colleagues to vote yes and support this amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady for her amendment. Gentlemen from Tennessee, Mister Fleishman, is recognized to address the.
Speaker 2
amendment. Thank you, mister chairman, and I thank the gentlelady who is a member of the Fusion Caucus. I am actually the chair of the Fusion Caucus, and I also thank the gentlelady for working with me on environmental issues. She's my co-chair of the Nuclear Cleanup Caucus. Mister Levin is my co-chair of the Spent Nuclear Fuels Caucus.
So we have tremendous bipartisan cooperation and support from our great appropriators in our caucus. I chair eight of them. I also appreciate my colleague's passion for fusion commercialization efforts. As a fellow member of this caucus, I share not only research and development, which I think is key, but we've seen commercialization boom. And while I'm supportive of the intent of this amendment, I believe a different approach would better serve our mutual goal.
The current report currently includes language within the Office of Science and the Office of Technological Commercialization directing the department to work with the fusion industry stakeholders to support and coordinate research, research development, and deployment activities to advance commercialization. The office of technology commercialization was established in 2015 to advance technology transfer efforts and ensure the vital research performed by our national laboratories can have the biggest commercial impact possible. And I would say rather, right now, we talked earlier about the Office of Science and why it is so near and dear to me. They're actually funding a lot of this fusion research. In fact, they've got their funding the personnel for this right now.
Rather than establish a new function within this important office, I believe our approach should be to focus on ongoing efforts to tax as quickly as possible to capitalize our fusion investments. For these reasons, I must oppose the amendment. Again, I thank my colleague for offering this, and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. The gentlelady from Ohio is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Mister chairman, I rise in support of Miss Lee's amendment. Frankly, it's an exciting amendment that would increase the commercialization of fusion energy. I've actually seen this being built, and I recommend it to every member here. For generations, American scientists have chased one of the hardest problems in physics, and that is harnessing the energy of the stars.
Today, that goal is within reach. Think about giant magnets and the power that attends their interaction. Fusion energy is no longer a distant dream confined to laboratory walls. It's an industry being built right now. And the question before our country is whether it will be built in America or whether we will hand the future to our competitors.
You know, we've done that before and a few other things. It's not in our interest. So China's investing billions. They understand what is at stake. Fusion promises clean, abundant baseload power.
Without the waste we deal with today on the side of nuclear fission, fusion power can run a steel mill, a hospital, an AI data center, or lots of them, or a small town. It can reindustrialize our heartland and restore American manufacturing leadership. It must move fusion from the laboratory to the marketplace. And that means sustained federal investment in our national labs, our universities, and the private companies turning decades of private research into working machines, energy machines. We cannot afford to let this moment slip away.
America must continue to lead. I urge the adoption of the Lee Amendment. I thank her so very much, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, general lady, for remarks. General lady from Connecticut. Mister Lawrence, recognized for purposes of to address the amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment. Provides $10,000,000 to support the commercialization of fusion energy technologies. Fusion is one of the most promising technologies for delivering large amounts of clean energy consistently and for many years at a time. It is in a class of its own when it comes to cost per kilowatt-hour and provides firm baseload power independent of weather conditions.
We are at a critical point in our nation's cost of living crisis, which is also a cost of energy crisis. Electric bills have been skyrocketing across the country, and the recent disruption to the Strait of Hormuz due to President Trump's war of choice has halted nearly a fifth of global LNG supplies and 20,000,000 barrels of oil. Gas prices are nearly $5 a gallon on average across the country. It is clear that even when The United States is a net exporter of fossil fuels, as we have seen, as we have been for the last several years, there is still a great deal of geopolitical risk and many vulnerabilities that are inherent in the global energy supply chain. The lesson is not to put all of our eggs in one single basket.
Also, not to avoid missing out on transformational technologies that could dramatically reduce costs across the board. A quote, all of the above energy strategy is necessary for true energy independence. Part of that strategy must involve looking to the next generation of technologies that can deliver more power, more reliably, for less cost. But when it comes to fusion, we have been dragging our feet, and other countries are racing ahead. Last year, China launched a $2,100,000,000 state-owned fusion enterprise, and at least five major fusion facilities are under construction or in the late-stage planning across the country.
The United States has none. There are promising ideas across the country. I'm proud that researchers at the University of Connecticut have received a five-year Department of Energy award to pursue research into building nuclear fission fusion reactors. But our universities and research centers need more support to turn these ideas into viable prototypes and projects. Fusion research is being conducted at the National Laboratories in Livermore, California, Princeton, New Jersey, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Los Alamos, New Mexico, and Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Additional university research centers are located at MIT, US San Diego, Hampton University in Virginia, and the University of Rochester in New York. We can't afford to lose the fusion race. If we are unable to secure affordable, reliable power in the future, we will always be struggling just to keep up. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, general lady, for the remarks. General lady from Florida, Miss Washington Choice, recognized to address.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of my colleague, Miss Lee's amendment. As our nation's energy demands continue to grow, fusion energy holds the potential of nearly a limitless source of clean energy. In 2022, scientists at California's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory made history with the first controlled fusion experiment to yield a net gain of energy. We are on the cusp of further fusion technology advances that can permanently end our fossil fuel dependence and usher in a new era of clean energy.
For Floridians, scaling fusion energy to commercial viability cannot come soon enough. Our state bears the brunt of climate change impacts, from more intense and frequent hurricanes and flooding to warming oceans and beach erosion. This path to ruin was wrought by decades of fossil fuel reliance and reinforced by billions in federal taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry. It is long past time to shift our focus to future technologies. We also see the challenges of growth and increased power demand across the nation, especially with the increase in data center usages across the nation as you've heard.
Clean energy will be critical to keeping our communities healthy, safe, and online. Decades ago, we first invested in the clean, renewable energy technologies, excuse me, that are now online across the nation, delivering power for America's transportation and electricity needs. To continue down the path toward a net zero carbon economy, we need this DOE investment in fusion energy. It was American scientists at a DOE laboratory who made the first breakthrough in fusion. And with continued investment from Congress, they'll be the first to commercialize it too.
I thank my colleague, Miss Lee, for offering this amendment, and I wanna thank Congressman Bayer and the Congressional Fusion Caucus for their critical advocacy on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady for her remarks. The gentleman from Washington, Mister Newhouse, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Chairman Cole. I certainly appreciate chairman Fleshman's comments because I too have been a longtime champion of fusion energy. I'm proud of the innovations that are being made at fusion research and development that are taking place right in my own district in Central Washington through private enterprise. Helion Energy, for example, is an Everett, Washington-based company that's endeavoring to build the world's first commercially viable fusion power plant. Fusion technologies are critical to America's enduring energy independence and our economic competitiveness, and they are greatly facilitated by these public-private partnerships and federal backing.
However, the DOE has already directed resources and attention toward fusion research within existing DOE programs in the office of science. And this report already directs the Office of Technology Commercialization to prioritize this very aim. So, as the chair said, we can be confident that the fusion energy efforts currently underway will be effectively supported under the current language. Now I do appreciate the congresswoman's interest and her intent, and certainly our discussions on this very important topic. I'm always happy to help shine a light on the importance of fusion.
But at this point, I gotta say that additional directives would be duplicative in my estimation. So thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his comments. Someone from New York, Mister Morelli, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 13
Thank you very much, mister chairman, and I wanna thank miss Lee. I rise in support of her amendment and appreciate all the comments that have been made. In 2022, scientists at the National Ignition Facility achieved a breakthrough: fusion ignition. For the first time, a fusion reaction produced more energy than the laser energy delivered to the target. And since then, researchers have described, have replicated ignition, and continue advancement of the fundamental science.
This success was the product of decades of federal investment and collaboration between laboratories and universities across the country, which Miss Deloro described, including the laboratory for laser energetics at the University of Rochester in my district. What was one science theory and science fiction is now science fact, yet engineering and deployment challenges remain significant. Private industry understands that fusion companies, as has been described, attract millions of dollars in investment because the promise of safe, reliable, carbon-free baseload energy is enormous. But the private sector cannot build the bridge from laboratory success to commercial deployment alone. We know this is so-called valley of death on new technologies.
And so what we require is the federal government and its investments to develop the technologies, supply chains, public-private partnerships necessary to move fusion beyond experimental facilities and towards practical commercial power generation. Talking about the enormous potential. This unlimited potential solves so many challenges that we face in society today. And this amendment is an investment in maintaining American scientific leadership in one of the most transformative energy technologies of the century, maybe of humankind. And, I am passionate about it as others are.
I strongly urge adoption of the amendment with that. Mister Cherry, yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from California, Mister Levin, is recognized for remarks on the amendment.
Speaker 14
Mister chairman, I rise in strong support of my friend, Congresswoman Lee's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me. Fusion is the closest thing we have to a silver bullet for the energy challenges of the century. It's clean, it's safe, it produces no carbon, and leaves behind no long-lived radioactive waste. If we get this right, we're talking about limitless, affordable energy for our grid, for American manufacturing, and for the AI infrastructure that will define the next century. And nowhere is the promise of fusion more alive than in San Diego.
General Atomics, in my backyard, is one of the crown jewels of American fusion research. They run the 3D national fusion facility where scientists from across the country and around the world come to do the work that one day, I hope, will power our homes. So I'm a proud member of the bipartisan fusion energy caucus. Again, it's not a partisan issue at all. It's an American issue.
And to ranking member DeLauro's point, China is spending roughly $1,500,000,000 a year on fusion. It's nearly twice our federal investment. And as the ranking member said, they stood up a single state-backed fusion company with $2,100,000,000 in capital, more than 2.5x the annual budget of the entire Department of Energy fusion program. They built a laser facility comparable to ours in 18 months. It took us 20 years.
Their five-year plan, China's five-year plan calls for extraordinary measures to win this race, and ours should too. We still have the technical lead. We still have the best scientists, the best companies, the best universities, but that lead can be lost. And if we let China outinvest us decade after decade, we're gonna wake up one morning to find that the energy source that powers the next century was invented here and commercialized there. Congresswoman Lee's amendment is a smart, targeted, fiscally responsible step to keep America in front.
It signals to our scientists and entrepreneurs and our allies that the United States is serious about winning this race. I hope everyone supports the amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Marvin, is recognized for remarks on the amendment.
Speaker 16
I rise today in support of this amendment. Fusion energy promises to be sustainable, safe, and clean, as energy costs rise and demand on our grid continues to grow. We must invest in the expansion and commercialization of affordable and reliable sources of energy. Investing in fusion energy science and research programs is and should be bipartisan. Last year, the Trump administration stood up the new office of fusion within the Department of Energy to aid in the deployment of fusion technology.
While the committee has determined that commercialization efforts should be conducted through a different office within the DOE, this amendment provides a needed set-aside to support the work that needs to be done. Fusion Energy is a promising solution to expand our energy supply in an affordable and sustainable manner. I appreciate my colleagues' work on this issue, and I urge that we support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Active, gentleman, for his remarks. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 30
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair Fleishman, I think we are in general agreement about the importance of a commercialization. My understanding is we have one person who is coordinating all this. And for me, this amendment is really about speed and the urgency of the issue at hand. And, it ensures that Congress does not take our foot off the gas in supporting the development and commercialization of fusion.
While we can and should have a discussion about who in the federal government should lead that effort, we shouldn't let the debate halt the progress of commercialization. And simply providing $10,000,000 in funding will allow us to have staffing to support the type of coordination that needs to happen, to get this type of energy commercialized as quickly as possible, and function. And I also wanna point out that this is the funding level that the Trump administration did request for the new office. And so it's a first step in that direction, and I again ask my colleagues to support the development of this promising source of clean energy and vote yes on my amendment. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Nevada. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Any chair of the noes haven't. And the amendment, oh, roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 21
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar. I. Mr. Alford.
Mister Amaday. Mister Amaday. No. Mr. Spice. Mister Spice, no.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Bishop. I. Mr Calvert. Mister Calvert?
No. Mr. Carter? Mr. Carter? No. Mr. Case?
Mister Case, aye. Mister Cescamani? Mister Cescamani? No. Mister Klein?
Mister Klein? Mr. Cloud? Mr Cloud? No. Mister Clyburn?
Mister Clyburn, aye. Mister Clyde? Mister Clyde? No. Mister Cole?
No. Mr. Cole? No. Mister Cuellar? Mister Cuellar?
I missed in. Mister Lauro?
Speaker 21
Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz-Bollart. Mister Diaz-Bollart, no. Mister Edwards, no. Mister Elzy?
No. Elzy, no. Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Espayat, aye. Mister Fleishman?
No. Mister Fleishman, no. Miss Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin? Mister Franklin, no.
Mister Guest? Mister Guest? No. Mr. Harter? Mr. Harter?
I. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson?
Missus Henson? No. Mister Hoyer? Aye. Mister Hoyer?
Aye. Mister Ivy? Mister Ivy, aye. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce.
No. Miss Captor. Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota. Mister Lolota.
No. Miss Lee. Yes. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow.
Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy? No. McCullum.
Miss McCullum, aye. Miss Ming. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar?
No. Mr Moore? Mr. Moore. No. Mr. Morelli.
Mister Morelli, I, Mister Mervann. Mister Mervann, I, Mister Newhouse. Mister Newhouse, no. Miss Perez. Miss Perez, I miss Pingree.
Miss Pingree, I, Mr. Pocan. Mister Pocan, I'm Mr. Quigley. I'm Mr. Russian. Mr Russian. Mister Rogers.
Mister Rogers, no. Mr Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreef. Mister Shreev?
No. Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson? No. Mr Strong?
Mister Strong? No. Mrs. Torres? Aye. Missus Torres?
Aye. Mrs. Underwood? Aye. Underwood? Aye.
Mister Valadayo? Mister Valadayo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz, I'm Miss Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, I'm Mr. Womack.
Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke. Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentlemen from Missouri?
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to vote or to change their vote? Seeing none, the corporal tally. On this vote, the ayes are 28, the noes are 34. The amendment is not adopted. Gentlemen from California, Mister Levin, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 14
I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for unanimous consent that the reading of this amendment be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we all know that we're currently in the middle of the largest oil disruption in history. At the end of February, the president launched major combat operations against Iran. Before this war, the Strait Of was a bustling, relatively uninterrupted shipping route, including for about 1/5 of the world's oil trade. But since the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, shipping traffic has been reduced to a trickle, heavily disrupting global markets and supply chains for oil, natural gas, fertilizer, and other essential products.
Crude oil and gasoline prices have skyrocketed under these conditions. This year, all of our constituents are planning their summer vacations, and gas prices, at the same time, are reaching record highs. Airlines are warning that the ticket prices could surge by 20%, leaving families to foot yet another mushrooming bill. The national average gas price is well over 4.5, with no signs of relief in sight. This simply is not sustainable.
These prices are hitting families at the pump now. But as this war drags on, those higher gas prices are going to raise shipping costs for companies, and families will start to see higher costs when they go to the grocery store or order online. And these costs will start to show up in our constituents' monthly utility bills, too. 20% of the world's liquefied natural gas traverses the Strait of Hormuz on any given day. We do have robust natural gas and oil production in the United States, which has shielded us from some of the worst-case scenarios.
But look, the thing with oil and natural gas is that these are global commodities subject to price swings on the global scale. As natural gas prices continue to go up globally, utility bills at home will also. Already, the oil shock has cost American consumers roughly $45,000,000,000, eating more and more into the family's paychecks. Inflation data showed that overall energy prices are up nearly 18% over the last year, and that higher energy prices accounted for a whopping 40% of the total jump in inflation in April. Costs are absolutely a concern right now.
But in addition to costs, we could also start to face supply shortages. Europe is already facing widespread fuel shortages heading into the summer. The longer the war drags on, the more at risk we are of facing a similar fate. These are warning signs, folks. During the oil crisis of the 1970s and 1980s, we learned an important lesson about how critical energy independence really is.
We accelerated the adoption of new technologies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. With the current war in Iran, we find ourselves in much the same position, but we have even more technologies we can use these days to insulate the United States from fuel volatility. We're also in the midst of the most important global energy transition since the Industrial Revolution. The countries that can deploy clean energy the fastest are lowering costs, strengthening domestic manufacturing, driving innovation, protecting themselves from volatile global markets, and securing control over the energy supply chains that will define economic power for decades. We need sources of energy that don't have to traverse the Strait of Hormuz to power our homes and are not impacted by global supply bottlenecks.
If we want to lower costs, keep America competitive with China and other nations, and bolster our national security, it is imperative that we invest in a diverse energy portfolio. That's what my amendment is all about. It adds simple report language that DOE should be dedicating adequate resources to diversifying our domestic energy portfolio to protect us against the supply shocks rippling across the economy now. I hope that we all can support this amendment to enhance America's energy future. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his amendment. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mister Fleishman, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, mister chairman, and I thank my friend and colleague from California for offering this amendment. I must respectfully rise in opposition to the same. Appreciate my colleagues' interest in strengthening America's energy resilience and protecting consumers from global supply disruptions. This bill that we wrote already made significant investments in reliable and affordable American energy, including nuclear energy, hydropower, grid reliability, critical minerals, and advanced energy research. In our view, the amendment is overly broad, and this bill already supports a diverse portfolio of energy technologies, while maintaining appropriate congressional oversight and fiscal discipline.
For these reasons, I respectfully must oppose the amendment or urge my colleagues to do the same, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman lady from Ohio, Miss Captur, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of mister Levin's amendment. Energy security is national security. That has been the guiding principle of this subcommittee for decades, and it has never been more urgent than it is right now. Nearly fifty years ago, as our nation's economy reeled from the first Arab oil embargo during the nineteen seventies, President Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer, and our predecessors in Congress, including my own predecessor, Thomas Ludlow Ashley, and then Tip O'Neill, Speaker Tip O'Neill, here in Congress created the US Department of Energy.
Their vision was clear. America must never again be hostage to foreign suppliers. Have we learned their important lessons? With steadfast bipartisan commitment, we have made remarkable progress. US crude oil production has grown from 9,600,000 barrels per day in 1970 to 13,600,000 barrels per day last year.
Yet, American households are still at the mercy of global energy markets. Energy bills have doubled, and gas prices have risen. Everyone feels it. Diesel fuel is emptying the pockets of our transport industry. And from my part of America, boy, do we know that.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, oil prices spiked worldwide. We see it again as President Trump's invasion of Iran has sent energy prices soaring for America's consumers. That means that we don't have enough alternative sources of supply, and that's why we need a diversified energy economy. Gas prices have jumped more than a dozen or, excuse me, more than a dollar a gallon. Families are paying $10.20, or $50 or more, every time they fill their tanks.
And the Energy Information Administration says prices may not return to pre-conflict levels until 2027. As we've seen repeatedly, when gas prices rose in 1956, 1973, 1978, 1998, and 2008. And now above $4 per gallon, our nation plunges into deep recession. It is totally predictable, and it's part of our history. Now our constituents are enduring again the largest global oil supply disruption in modern history, exceeding that of the first Arab oil embargo in the 1970s.
We must again rise to the occasion. Working families, surely in Northwest Ohio and across the middle part of the country, in every corner of this country, are being squeezed hard at the pump, in their electric bills at home, and at the checkout counter when they buy groceries. They wonder why groceries are rising? Well, a portion of it is the transportation costs. Think about it.
When you import 75% of your fruits and vegetables, it has to be driven a long way. The answer to this crisis is not less energy innovation, it is more. Fair pricing and energy independence and perpetuity require that we diversify and make competitive our entire energy portfolio. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Lovin's well-considered amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady, for her remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman's recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 14
Well, I appreciate my friend, the chairman's hard work on this bill. I sincerely do. We agree on a great deal. And the bill does make important investments in nuclear, hydro, and grid programs, and I support many of them. What it does not do is address a specific current problem, reports that the Department of Energy is redirecting funds Congress already appropriated for certain technologies, advanced nuclear, geothermal, solar, storage, away from their intended purposes.
My amendment speaks directly to that. It simply asks the department to dedicate adequate personnel and resources to diversify our domestic portfolio, so we can weather supply shocks like the one rippling through the economy right now. Every analysis going back to the seventies under presidents of both parties has reached the same conclusion. Diversification is what protects American families from this global volatility. And I hope that we can continue to work on strengthening the bill.
I'd welcome the chance to keep working with him on it, and I'll yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
The opinion of the chair of the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk's call the roll.
Speaker 21
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt, no. Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Alford? Mr Alford?
No. Mister Amiday? Mister Amiday? No. Mrs.
Bice? Mrs. Bice? No. Mister Bishop?
Mister Bishop, I. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter? No. Mister Case? Mister Case, aye. Mister Cescamani?
Mister Klein? Mister Cloud? No. Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn, aye.
Mister Clyde? Mister Cole? No. Mr. Cole? No.
Mister Cuellar? Aye. Mistine? Aye. Mistine, aye.
Mister Loro? Aye. Mister Loro, aye. Mister Diaz Ballard? Mr.
Edwards, Mr. Elzi. Mr. Elzi, no. Ms.
Escobar? Ms. Escobar, aye. Mr. Espeyat?
Mr. Espeyat, aye. Mr. Fleishman? Mr.
Fleishman? No. Ms. Frankel? Aye.
Franklin? Mr. Franklin? No. Mr Guest? No.
Mister Guest? No. Mr. Harter? Aye. Mr. Harter?
Aye. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson?
Missus Henson? No. Mister Hoyer? Aye. Mister Hoyer, aye.
Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Joyce?
Mr. Joyce? No. Miss Captor? Aye. Miss Captor?
Aye. Mister Lolota? Mister Lolota? No. Miss Lee?
Aye. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow? Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye.
Miss Molloy. Miss Molloy. No. Miss McCullum. Aye.
Miss McCullum, aye. Miss Ming. Aye. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar.
Mister Molinar, no. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore? No. Mister Morelli?
Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Mervan? Mr. Newhouse? Mr Newhouse? No.
Miss Perez? Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingry?
Speaker 21
Miss Pingry, I. Mr. Pocan. Mister Pocan, I. Mr Quigley. Mister Quigley, I.
Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rashenthaler, no. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mister Rutherford?
Mr. Rutherford? No. Mister Shreev? Mr. Shreev? No.
Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson? No. Mister Strong? Mister Strong?
No. Missus Torres? Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Aye.
Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo? Mister Valadayo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz?
Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman. I, Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke.
Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentlemen from Florida.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to vote or to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk's tally. On this vote, the ayes 27, the noes are 33. The motion is not adopted. General lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Dean's recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 15
Thank you, chairman. I ask you, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Chairman Cole. I rise in support of my amendment, which would simply restore funding for ARPA E, the Advanced Research Projects Agency, energy to the FY '24 enacted levels. This bill currently provides 300,000,000 for ARPA E, 50,000,000 below the FY '26 enacted level, and 160,000,000 below the FY '24 enacted level. ARPA, as you all remember, was created in 2009 under George W. Bush administration to replicate the successful DARPA model of innovation that helped create the Internet, GPS, and other revolutionary technologies.
Like DARPA, ARPA-E invests in a broad portfolio of high-risk, high-reward research with transformational potential. ARPA E focuses on research that is not supported elsewhere, inside or outside of the government, and where targeted investment can result in meaningful advances. ARPA E selects projects that are designed to meet our future energy needs, from improvements in grid technology and power generation to industrial efficiency and transportation. Advanced energy technologies represent a huge global market, especially as global electricity demand continues to rise, as we have been debating here. It is essential that America compete.
Since its inception, ARPA E has provided over $4,000,000,000 funding to more than 1,700 projects in nearly every state in the union. 282 projects attracted 16,300,000,000 in private investment, nearly quadrupling the ARPA-E investment. There have been 38 exits through mergers, acquisitions, and IPOs, with a total reported value of $23,100,000,000. In my home state of Pennsylvania, ARPA E is supporting research out of Carnegie Mellon that it can extend the useful life of electric car batteries. A Penn State project to improve the performance of enhanced geothermal energy generation, and a group at Penn is designing better circuit components to improve grid control, resilience, and reliability.
These and hundreds of other projects across the country are reducing our energy imports, creating solutions to nuclear fuel and waste challenges, improving our infrastructure and energy efficiency, and reducing emissions. I'm struck by this warning from the National Science Board, which comes from an essay they were working on before being unceremoniously fired by the president last month. The board said we are facing a, quote, two-nation race, end quote, for leadership in science and technology, a race that is a marathon, not a sprint. We must continue to invest in ARPA E and programs like it, programs that leverage American creativity and ingenuity, enhance our economic and energy security, and our technological leadership. Mister chairman, in the spirit of the George W. Bush administration, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for the amendment. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mister Fleishman, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, I thank the gentlelady for her very thoughtful and kind amendment. I must respectfully rise in opposition to this, but I do appreciate my colleagues' passion for ARPA E, and I too am a fervent supporter of ARPA E. High risk, high reward mission. Over the years, I've seen many new endeavors succeed.
It's a great model. It front-loads. It pays upfront, so it gets it done. It's quite good. But that's why this bill includes $300,000,000 for the RPE.
It's robust funding. That is a strong level of support for new awards to advance the fusion industry, develop new approaches to nuclear reprocessing, and keep the United States at the forefront of energy technologies. But, respectfully, my colleague's amendment does not have an offset. It would bring us over our allocation, and upset the balance of this and other bills. For that reason, I must oppose the bill.
But once again, I appreciate the general lady's support, and advocacy for RPA. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Appreciate the gentleman's remarks. Gentle lady from Ohio, Miss Captur, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of Miss Dean's amendment. The Advanced Research Projects Agency Energy or ARPA E was established in bipartisan law in 2007 to enhance the economic and energy security of the United States. ARPA E accelerates transformational technology advances in areas where industry by itself is not likely to invest due to technical and financial uncertainty. And it has had success in 282 past projects.
They have attracted more than $16,300,000,000 in private equity follow-on funding, and now is not the time to turn our back on innovation and American leadership. I urge adoption of the dean amendment, yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the general lady for the remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the general lady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 15
Thank you, chairman. And I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for his kind words around RPE and around RPE funding. I would simply suggest if you take a look at my amendment, what I ask for is that in the bill on page 31, line 17, take out $300,000,000 and put in $460,000,000 just to get us back to the FY '24 levels. FY '24, folks, our need for innovative technologies and research in energy is not diminishing. And that's why I am asking for, let's just get back to at least FY24.
In terms of the front loading, I would suggest, excuse me. In terms of the offset, I would suggest it's the very thing you spoke about, which is the front loading of technology that goes off to become an economic engine, an innovation engine around energy in this country. So I respectfully ask for a yes vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Pennsylvania. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Any of the chair of the noes have it? Yes. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated.
Speaker 21
Missus Bice, no, Mr. Bishop. Mister Bishop, I, Mister Calvert. Mister Calvert, no, Mister Carter. Mister Carter, no, Mister Case. Mister Case, I, mister Siscamani.
Mister Siscamani, no, Mister Klein. Mister Klein, no, Mister Cloud. Mister Cloud, no, mister Clyburn. Mister Clyburn, I'm Mister Clyde. Mister Clyde, no, mister Cole.
Mister Cole, no, mister Cuellar. Mister Cuellar, I'm Mistine. Mistine, I'm Mr. Lauro. Mister Lauro, I'm Mister Diaz Ballard. Mister Edwards?
Mister Elze? Mister Elze? No. Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar?
Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Aspeyat? Mister Aspeyat, aye. Mister Fleishman? No.
Mister Fleishman, no. Miss Frankel. Miss Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin. Franklin, no.
Mister Guest. Mr. Guest. No. Mr. Harder. Mr.
Harter? I. Doctor. Harris? Doctor.
Harris? No. Mrs. Henson? Mrs.
Henson? No. Mr. Hoyer? Mr.
Hoyer? I. Mr. Ivy?
Speaker 21
Mr. I. Mr. Joyce? Mr.
Joyce? No. Ms. Captor? Miss Captor, I, mister Lelota.
Miss Lee. Miss Lee, I miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, I miss Malloy. Miss Malloy, no.
Miss McCollum. Miss McCollum, I miss Ming. Miss Ming, I am mister Molinar. Mister Molinar, no. Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. No. Mister Morelli. Mister Morelli, I'm Mister Mervann. Mister Mervann, I'm Mister Newhouse.
Mister Newhouse, no. Miss Perez. Miss Perez, I'm Miss Pingry. Miss Pingry, I'm Mr. Pokan. Mister Pokan, I'm Mr. Quigley.
Mister Quigley, I'm Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rashenthaler, no. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr. Rutherford.
Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no. Mister Strong.
Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres. Missus Torres, I miss Underwood. Miss Underwood, I am mister Valadao.
Mister Valadao, no. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman. I.
Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from North Carolina?
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to vote or to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk was Halle. Gentlemen from Indiana?
Speaker 1
Again, are there others wishing to change or record their vote? Again, saying none, continue the tally. Gentlemen from California.
Speaker 1
I under the wire. On this vote, the ayes are 27. The notes are 34. The amendment is not adopted. Obviously, we were voting, but we're very close.
We're with an amendment. We're gonna try to finish out. Obviously, if that, we're not able to do that, we'll just come back and finish it. Gentlemen from Indiana, mister Mavanna is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 16
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have an amendment at the desk, and I move that the reading be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 16
I rise to offer an amendment that would require the Department of Energy to provide additional transparency when issuing emergency orders on the section 202 of the Federal Powers Act. In essence, my utility company was, a month ago, ordered to return to a coal-fired burning plant. At the same time, the administration, secretary Wright, and secretary Lutnick were celebrating a gas power plant opening in Ohio and talking about the efficiencies. The after effect of that is the ratepayers are going to have a tariff of $100,000,000. What I'm asking for is when there is this type of order, emergency order used by that power, the executive power, that we utilize transparency and tell the ratepayers why that is, how much it's going, how much it's going to cost them, and make sure that they're aware of that.
And all I'm asking for is this amendment to be an opportunity for open government and transparency. With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mister Fleishman, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 2
I not only have, mister chairman, thank you. I not only have empathy, I have sympathy for what my colleague in Indiana has gone through, and I appreciate his passion in this regard. However, I do believe this is an issue for the authorizers. I think it rests clearly within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. And I will say this, the secretary currently has the authority to determine whether or not an emergency exists and how to best address it.
But in the interest of time and since we're voting, I'll respectfully ask for a no vote and yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentlelady from Ohio, Miss Captur, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the gentleman from Indiana's amendment, and thank Mister Mervann for your leadership on behalf of ratepayers across our industrial heartland. And in view of the time, I will abbreviate my remarks. But, we'll continue to support you in these efforts, and I ask for a favorable vote by the members present. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 16
Chairman, the bottom line is, the ratepayers in Northwest Indiana are paying some of the highest utility rates in the country, and we're looking for the same situation that you had with natural gas in Ohio. The administration had taken with the two secretaries. The private sector utility company was going to naturally, or because of the competitive market, transition into a natural gas power plant. If it's good enough to celebrate in Ohio, it's good enough for Northwest Indiana not to be forced to use a coal plant and to be able to have to pay a $100,000,000 bounty on the ratepayers who are already paying 26%. All we're asking for is an explanation to make sure that there's transparency, and people understand what they're paying for and why it's an emergency.
With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
Speaker 1
Opinion chair of the noes have it. Roll call is requested, insufficient.
Speaker 21
Mister Bishop, I'm Mr. Calvert. Mister Calvert, no Mister Carter. Mister Carter, no, mister Case. Mister Case, I'm Mister Siscamani. Mister Siscamani, no, mister Klein.
Mister Klein, no Mister Cloud. Mister Cloud, no, mister Clyburn. Mister Clyburn, I'm Mister Clyde. Mister Clyde, no, mister Cole. Mister Cole, no mister Cuéar.
Mister Cuéar, I'm Mistine. Mistine. Mistine, I'm Mr. Loro. I'm Mr. Diaz Ballard. Mister Diaz Bollart, no Mister Edwards.
Mister Edwards, no Mister Elze. Mister Elze, no Miss Escobar. Miss Escobar. Miss Escobar, I, mister Esbayat. Mister Fleishman.
Mister Fleishman, no. Miss Frankel. Miss Frankel, aye. Mr. Franklin. Mister Franklin, no.
Mister Guest? Mr. Harter. Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris. Doctor Harris, no.
Mrs. Henson. Mrs. Henson, no. Mr.
Hoyer. Know. Mr. Ivy. Mr.
Ivy. Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce.
No. Ms. Captor. Aye. Miss Captor, aye.
Mister Lalota. Mister Lalota, no. Miss Lee. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow.
Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy. Miss Malloy, no. Miss McCollum.
Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming. Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar. Mister Molinar.
No. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore. No. Mr Morelli.
Mr Morelli. Morelli. I'm Mr. Mervann. Mister Mervann. I'm Mr. Newhouse.
Mister Newhouse, no Miss Perez.
Speaker 21
Perez, I'm Miss Pingree. Miss Pingree, I'm Mr. Pokan. Mister Pokan, I'm Mr. Quigley. Mister Quigley, I'm Mister Russienthaler. Mister Russienthaler, no.
Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers, no. Mr Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev.
Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, no. Mr Strong. Mister Strong, no.
Mrs. Torres. Mrs. Torres. Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood. Miss Underwood, aye, Mr. Valadao.
Mister Valadao, no. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, I'm Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, no.
Mister Zinke? No. Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Any members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentlemen from Mississippi?
Speaker 1
Are there other members wishing to vote or change their votes? Seeing none, the clerks will tell you.
Speaker 1
This vote, the ayes are 26, the noes are 34. The amendment is not agreed to. Seeing no further amendments, I now recognize the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Rogers, for the purpose of a motion. Mister chair, I move to favorably report to the house the fiscal year 2027 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. The question is now on the motion to favorably report fiscal year 2027 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill to the House.
All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no. No. Opinion, chair of the ayes have it.
Speaker 1
Recorded vote has been requested. A sufficient number of hands have been raised. The corporal call of the.
Speaker 21
Mister Aderholt, I'm Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar. No. Mr. Alford. Mr. Alford.
I'm Mr. Amaday. Mister Amaday. I'm Mrs. Bice. Missus Bice. I'm Mr. Bishop.
Mister Bishop, no. Mr. Calvert. I. Mister Calvert, I, Mister Carter. I.
Mister Carter, I, mister Case. Mister Case, no. Mister Siscamani. Mister Cescamany, I mister Klein. Mister Klein, I mister Cloud.
Mister Cloud, I mister Clyburn. Mister Clyburn, no. Mister Clyde. Mister Clyde, I mister Cole.
Speaker 21
Mister Cole, aye, mister Cuéar. Mister Cuéar, no, Miss Dean. Miss Dean, no, Mr. Lauro.
Speaker 21
Mister Lauro, no, Mister Diaz Bellart. Mister Diaz Bellart, aye, Mister Edwards. Aye. Mister Elzy? Mister Elzy?
Aye. Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar? No. Mister Esbayat.
Mister Esbayat, no. Mister Fleishman?
Speaker 21
Mister Fleishman, aye. Mister Frankel? No. Mister Franklin? Mister Franklin?
Aye. Mister Guest? Aye. Mister Guest? Aye.
Mr. Harder? Mr. Harder? No. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris?
Aye. Missus Henson? Missus Henson? Aye. Mister Hoyer?
Speaker 21
Mister Hoyer? No. Mister, I no. Mister Ivy? No.
Mister Joyce? Mister Joyce, I. Miss Captor? We're Miss Captor, no. Mister Lolota.
Mister Lolota, I. Miss Lee? Miss Lee? No. Miss Letlow.
Mister Levin? Mister Levin? No. Miss Molloy? Yes.
Miss Molloy, aye. Miss McCullum? Miss McCullum? No. Miss Ming?
No. Miss Ming? Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar, aye. Mr. Moore.
Mister Moore, aye. Mister Morelli. Mister Morelli, no. Mister Mervann. Mister Mervann, no.
Mr Newhouse. Mister Newhouse, aye. Miss Perez. No. Miss Pingree.
Miss Pingree, no. Mr. Pocan? Mister Pocan? No. Mister Quigley?
Mister Quigley? I, mister Quigley? No. Mister Russenthaler. Mister Russienthaler, I, Mister Rogers.
Mister Rogers, I. Mr. Rutherford. I. Rutherford. Mister Shreev.
Mister Shreev, I. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, I. Mister Strong. Mister Strong, I.
Missus Torres? No. Missus Torres? Miss Underwood? Miss Underwood?
No. Mister Valadayo? Mister Valadayo? I. Miss Wasserman Schultz?
Miss Wasserman Schultz? No. Miss Watson Coleman? Miss Watson Coleman? No.
Mister Womack? Mister Womack, I'm Mister Zinke. I'm mister Zinke, I'm.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to record their vote or change their vote? We need to waive something. We have a lot of members standing around. So seeing none, clerk will call the roll, or clerk will call you. Give me the language that I need.
Speaker 1
On this vote, the ayes are 34. The nodes are 25. The motion is agreed to. I ask unanimous consent that staff be permitted to make technical and conforming changes to the bill and report, just approved.
Speaker 1
Seeing no objections, so ordered. Votes have been called. The committee will now recess. Please return promptly at the conclusion of the last vote series, so we can continue consideration of the bill. Yes, sir.
Speaker 1
The committee will reconvene. Our second order of business today is consideration of the legislative branch appropriations bill for the fiscal year 2027. I'll now recognize Chairman Valadao to present the bill.
Speaker 33
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I'd like to express my appreciation to you and your leadership staff for their support in keeping the appropriations process moving in a timely manner again this year. Returning the process to regular order has enabled our agencies to plan their budgets and priorities with certainty, making their operations more efficient and effective. Thank you for all your efforts and your excellent results. I'd also like to express my appreciation to ranking member Deloro and ranking member Esbiot for their partnership and commitment to moving these bills.
Today, I am pleased to introduce the fiscal year 2027 legislative branch appropriations bill for the committee's consideration. I'd like to remind our members that this bill marks another step of many towards providing a final fiscal year 27 funding for the offices and agencies within the legislative branch of our government. As we work within our allocation, we did our best to respond to the priorities of the members in executing their constitutional duties while supporting the operations of Congress, the Capitol complex, and the people who serve it. This bill provides $5,400,000,000 for House and Joint items. In keeping with the long-standing tradition, we leave the senate items for the other body's consideration.
I want to take a moment to note a few priorities for members on both sides of the aisle. First, we maintain the new member security program, increase funding for the US Capitol Police, and fully fund the request for the office of legislative council, increase funding for the green and gold congressional aid program, and the members' representative allowances to allow for the rising costs across the nation and to assist with the workforce retention and institutional knowledge. This bill also supports the addition of new primary services for female members of Congress through the capital, through the office of attending physician. It continues an ongoing investment for the critical renovation of the Rayburn House Office Building and provides for the employees and programs of the Library of Congress and the essential services they provide to Congress. I'd like to thank all members for their requests, especially our subcommittee members for their contributions and engagement in the subcommittee.
These efforts have resulted in a fiscal year 2027 legislative branch bill. I look forward to continuing the work together in the days ahead as we move the bill through the legislative process, both here in the house and in the final negotiations with the senate. Thank you, I'll yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. I would now like to recognize ranking member Espiott for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Chairman Cole, ranking member Del Oro. I also want to thank, chairman Baladeo, the staff on both sides of the aisle, Faye Cobb, Laurie, Roli, and April Lyman, as well as Nia Thomas from my DC office. Let me also take the opportunity, the moment again, to recognize my dear colleague and friend, Steny Hoyer. Steny, as I mentioned during our subcommittee meetings, thank you for your services to our nation and this subcommittee, for your leadership in this institution, for your friendship within the caucus. It has been an honor to serve alongside you.
Mister chairman, the interim allocation for the legislative branch is $7,300,000,000. Yet this bill, excluding Senate items, provides just $54,400,000,000 below last year's level and far below the request. Yes. There are modest increases to the MRA, Library of Congress, Capitol Police, but they do not outweigh what the bill takes away. This bill cuts the government accountability office by 25%, includes a partisan rider that weakens its ability to hold the executive branch accountable.
The keyword in the GAO is accountability. This means that over 1,000 public servants could lose their jobs as well. This is not budgeting. It is giving away our oversight authority. My friends on the other side of the aisle constantly talk about balancing our budget by finding wage, fraud, and abuse, yet they support a bill that would fire the very same people, the employers that identify it.
This bill also includes a rider that will prevent the GAO from enforcing the empowerment act in court, which effectively kneecaps Congress power of the purse. All of these changes couldn't come at a worse time, as the executive branch continues to undermine GAO's watchdog powers and refuses to use the funds as Congress intended. GAO returned $62,700,000,000 to the taxpayers last year. Cutting it is not a fiscal responsibility. It's turning our backs on oversight.
And this bill falls short when it comes to the long-term needs of this institution. Yes. It includes 21,000,000 in savings for the new Rayburn Building. But let's be honest, replacing that facility will require billions of dollars. This is not a plan.
It is not even a down payment. It is a placeholder that does not begin to meet the scale of the challenge. More broadly, these funding levels fail to meet infrastructure needs of the legislative branch. We are undercutting the critical architect of the capital projects needed to address the deterioration of house office buildings and the capital campus. Delaying these investments would only drive up costs and further jeopardize the safety and functionality of the capital complex.
This bill also blocks DACA recipients from working here, limiting opportunities and excluding talented young public servants from this institution. This is despite the bipartisan support this measure has received in the past. Bottom line, this bill weakens Congress. It weakens oversight, limits opportunity, and underinvests in this institution. I cannot support it, and I urge my colleagues to bring back a bill to strengthen Congress and protect accountability.
Mister chairman, I also hope that no further cuts are leveled against other entities as a result of ICE. Strong and steadfast position and support for the GAO and its full funding opportunities. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for his remarks. I now recognize myself for the remarks on the bill. Thank you, Chairman Valadillo, and thank you, ranking member SBI. Certainly, my friend, ranking member DeLauro, and all the members of the committee. As we move on to our second full committee measure of the day, we're reminded of the work before us simply by being in this room.
The portraits that surround us on these walls remind us of the history that belongs to an institution which is foundational to our republic. Because no matter how the nation changes, our core focus remains the same, serving the American people. The fy 27 legislative branch bill before us ensures that the house and congress has the capabilities, capacity, and central support to deliver on our constitutional duties. It provides resources for our oversight and accountability work, enhances investments to support operations and services for our constituents, and sustains key institutions like the Library of Congress. The message makes clear that every dollar must be justified, or the measure, excuse me, makes clear that every dollar must be justified.
We rein in unnecessary spending, redirect resources to core functions, and hold programs and contracts to a higher standard. That's what responsible governance looks like. Additionally, it reinforces a protected capital complex. It supports the safety of constituents, staff, and members both in our nation's capital and during district proceedings. All these objectives are met while also upholding fiscal discipline and incentivizing debt and deficit reduction, streamlining efficiency, and elimination of unnecessary spending.
Fundamentally, this legislation is about stewardship, ensuring that the congress serves the nation, is responsive to its citizens, and invests taxpayer dollars responsibly. Chairman Valadao has ensured the people's house can uphold the trust placed in it through responsible governance and effective oversight. I thank Chairman Valadio, Ranking Member Espiat, and the dedicated staff on both sides for their work. I look forward to having our seventh bill advance out of full committee, as we continue advancing regular order in our FY '25 work. With that, I yield back.
I now recognize my good friend and ranking member of the full committee, gentlelady from Connecticut, Missus Laura, for her opening remarks.
Speaker 5
I thank you, Mister Chairman, and I thank Chairman Valadayo and Ranking Member Esbayat. I also wanna say a thank you to Faye Cobb from the minor minority side, and her counterparts on the majority, Laurie Rowley and April Lyman. I wanna thank them as well for their work. I rise in opposition to the bill before us today. The bill guts funding for the Government Accountability Office or GAO, which makes it easier for the Trump administration to withhold funding that Congress approves, forfeiting our power of the purse.
I refer my colleagues to take a look at the dais here in front of the chairman. It says, no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law. Read it. Internalize it. Understand what it means for this committee.
GAO is what DOGE pretended to be, a force for efficiency within the federal government. In reality, DOGE was a cynical effort by a group of billionaires to use the language of good government to advance their own agenda. GAO, on the other hand, is the real deal. They are an independent agency, not beholden to one interest or another. They meticulously comb through government data to audit spending, identify savings, and then publish their findings for all to see.
They actually do root out waste, fraud, and abuse. Supporting GAO is one of the best investments that we can make. In fiscal year 2026 alone, they generated nearly $63,000,000,000 in savings with a budget of less than $1,000,000,000. What an incredible return. But this bill proposes slashing their budget by 25%, $200,000,000.
This dramatic cut would force GAO to lay off more than 1,000 employees, substantially weakening their ability to carry out their mission. Think about that. That is 1,000 fewer people working day in and day out to identify places where the government can save money. Any savings from cuts to their budget will be vastly outweighed by the cost of continued waste. I share my Republican colleagues' concern over government efficiency.
I am strongly in favor of making sure the American people are getting the most for their money. But it does not make any sense to slash funding for the agency dedicated to that very mission, especially when the agency generates so much more in savings than it costs to operate. This bill also includes a provision that would make it easier for the Trump administration to withhold the funds that Congress approves. It would prevent GAO from being civil actions against government employees who violate the empowerment and control act, unless Congress specifically signs off on each case first. GAO has the authority to bring these actions because Congress granted it to them in the first place.
In fact, it did so in the 1974 Impoundment and Control Act itself. This new restriction uses inefficiency as a weapon to hamstring the agency working to make the government more efficient. This provision would make it easier for the White House to unilaterally withhold funding for programs that the Congress has approved, funding that we agree to here on a bipartisan basis after rigorous negotiations. This administration has shown that they are willing to do this time and again. They illegally withheld $5,000,000,000 in foreign aid funding.
They froze $7,000,000,000 in education funding, and they blocked $8,000,000,000 in funding for energy projects across more than 130 congressional districts. Taken together, the effect is to weaken our power of the purse. That is bad for this institution as a whole, not just for one party or the other. I would just say that we take great pride in being members of the appropriations committee. You've heard me say over and over, it is the heart and soul of our government.
It says that we cannot move forward on spending without the approval of the Democrats and Republicans, the House, and the Senate. Why would we think about giving up that power to any administration, Democrat or Republican? It is the reason why we hold this committee in the highest esteem. Let us not relinquish the power of the purse to any administration, to any government. Let's hold it as sacred to move forward and to make sure that the money that we appropriate goes to the people who we believe are deserving of those funds.
Lastly, this bill also fails to allow American residents who are brought to this country as young children to work in the legislative branch. DACA recipients, DREAMers, are American in every way that matters. They were raised here. Many serve in our armed forces. Failing to allow DREAMers to serve their country in the legislative branch is an injustice to them and a disservice to us.
We deprive ourselves of the talent, intelligence, and commitment that they could bring to this institution, and we deny them a fair opportunity to serve the only country they have ever called home. While I am opposed to the legislative branch in its current form, when we considered the Milcon VA bill last month in committee, we saw that it is possible to improve a bill during markup. Lech branch is not far from getting bipartisan support. Today, we will consider amendments on the GAO and on DACA. I hope the majority can work with us to make improvements, so that we can report out another bipartisan bill.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for the remarks. The gentleman from Michigan, Mister Molinar, is recognized for remarks.
Speaker 34
On the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the FY '27 legislative branch appropriations bill. This bill provides the United States Capitol Police with a much-needed funding increase, ensuring they have the resources and tools necessary to protect our nation's capital. The bill also strengthens house-wide cybersecurity.
Congress handles sensitive information every day, and foreign adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party are actively looking for ways to compromise government systems and gain access to internal communications. The select committee on China was recently targeted by a failed intelligence operation in this way. Security investments help protect the capital from cyber threats and ensure that the legislative process can continue without interruption. This legislation also supports the core operations of the house, while providing direction on emergent issues like artificial intelligence and threats from the CCP. Thank you, Chairman Valadao, for your leadership on this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
With that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for his remarks. Gentlemen from Maryland, Mister Hall is recognized to address for remarks on the bill.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, mister chairman, and thank chairman Valadao for his work on this bill and, certainly, the ranking member, my dear friend, and the ranking member of the subcommittee. When I look at this bill alongside all the others we've considered, Mr. Chairman, there's one theme that I think connects them all. They're all sounding retreat from our constitutional responsibilities. Very frankly, I think this bill is deeply underfunded, given the responsibilities we have. I think the MRAs are not sufficient.
I think the committee of staff is not sufficient. I'll speak about that. To oversee a bureaucracy of 2,000,000 people. The majority, in my opinion, in so many instances, wants to take the cops off the beat. No oversight.
No accountability. In many cases, no hearings. Now I wanna congratulate Mister Baladeo because I think we had more hearings than anybody else, Mister Chairman. Thank you for that. This bill, as I said, raises the MRI counts to pay our staff a little more, certainly not as much as they deserve.
The bill does not provide for increases in pay for leadership staff and committee staff. Why is that important? Because it is leadership staff and committee staff that really have the intellectual heft and the time in grade to give us the opportunity to have real significant effective oversight. No cops on the beat. It's not just this bill, of course.
We marked up the FSGG bill in April, gutting IRS enforcement and reducing funding for election security. We say we wanna have people operating effectively, but if you have no hearings and you have staff that is not experienced and effective, you're not gonna have oversight. Cutting 5% from the office of government ethics, while it remains dangerously headless. No leader. Frankly, cutting all of these.
And the president, when he came to office talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, the first thing he did was fire all the IGs who are not political. And he ham and this bill hamstrings the FTC and the SEC. No cops on the beat. Last week, we had a CJS bill, which handcuffs leading scientists from being able to help solve critical problems. And, but for, in my opinion, chairman Rogers, it would have been deeper.
And I thank him for doing that. And this morning, we marked up an energy and water bill that cuts 252,000,000 or 12% from the program that helps prevent rogue states like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. No cops on the beat. This applies not only to the content of these bills, but to the character of our process. Very few hearings.
Hear me. Very few hearings. I'm not sure what we're basing our opinion on, with all these subcommittees, but it is not hearings. Very few hearings, not a single hearing in FSGG since the markup, and only one hearing, two hearings before that. In a general sense, they will really just be placeholders, these bills, until we inevitably fail and have to take up a CR, shamefully short of our responsibility.
No cops on the beat. If we abdicate our responsibility as a coequal branch of government, we will no longer be one. Or to put it another way, as I've said now at least three times, we are continuing to be the authors of our own impotence. Trust in Congress as an institution is already very low. Our constitutional framers are mourning the death of Article One.
They knew the danger of an overly powerful executive in a weak legislature was possibly one of their greatest fears. When Benjamin Franklin famously said, as he walked out of the Constitution Convention, people asked him what he'd created. He said a republic. But then we all know, he added, if you can keep it. And the only way you can keep it is through being vigorous in oversight.
As people's representative, that means us. It's our job. Sadly, feel, though, we are engaged in both misfeasance and malfeasance as an institution. If we do not assert congress's equal power or our constitutional system, our constitutional system, so critical to the check of abuse of power, which our founders so feared, it will be destroyed. And tyranny and corruption will be its progeny.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Georgia, Mister Bishop, is recognized for comments on the bill.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to start by saying thank you to the leaders of the committee and the subcommittee, as well as the staff for your hard work on this legislation. I'm happy to see some of the improvements that have been made to the FY27 legislative branch bill compared to last year's markup. The FY '27 bill includes a modest increase to the member's representational allowance, helping to ensure that member officers have the resources necessary to hire and retain talented staff. It also provides modest increases to the United States Capitol Police as they work to keep the Capitol complex safe and secure, as well as the Library of Congress.
Unfortunately, the good provisions included in the bill do not outweigh the negatives, so I will not be able to support it in its current form. The US Constitution vests in Congress. All legislative powers and its authors intended for.
Speaker 8
to be a coequal branch of government, not a rubber stamp, not an advisory body. The bill before us today makes a total top line cut of 2% or $125,000,000 to house operations under the legislative branch. But most notably, it would cut $200,000,000 or 25% from the Government Accountability Office, which reports to Congress on how we can combat waste, fraud, and abuse and make the federal government as efficient as possible. President Trump and his allies in Congress have claimed great interest in ruling out waste, fraud, and abuse in government programs, but this fails to adequately fund Congress's main tool that was created to do just that. Over the course of President Trump's second term, the GAO has pushed back on his administration's policies several times, including finding that the Trump administration broke the law by withholding funds approved by Congress, and detailing how the administration's attempts to dismantle the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights wasted up to $38,000,000.
This huge cut to GAO does not appear to be made in the interest of efficiency or fiscal conservatism. This is a political cover meant to appease the president who has consistently flouted the law and been rightfully called out for it by the experts, including the GAO. With costs rising and the mass federal workforce layoffs that have taken place over the last two years, I can't think of a worse time to undercut Congress's ability to fact-find. We need a robust, nonpartisan GAO that has the staff and the resources needed to tackle the issues that Americans care about most. GAO conducts investigative studies and audits that ultimately affect our constituents' quality of life.
It audits the food.
Speaker 8
Administration's inspections of foreign drug manufacturers help ensure our medicines are safe. It conducts statistical analyses of our wastewater systems to help identify lead contamination in our drinking water, and it audits RS backlogs and customer service performance issues that frustrate our constituents and spend taxpayer dollars unlawfully or imprudently. GAO has saved taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars by ruling out waste and fraud over the past decade. Eliminating 25% of its funding results in layoffs of over 1,000 GAO employees, and it risks reversing much of the progress that Congress has made in ruling out government waste. While I cannot support the bill in its current form as written, I look forward to a robust discussion on how we can improve the legislation and work to ensure that the House of Representatives and its supporting agencies have the resources needed to effectively serve the American people.
With that, I yield back by 28 seconds.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman for the twenty-eighth second. A gentlelady from Florida, Miss Washington Scholz, is recognized for her remarks.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'll admit that not all our markups will be as unanimous as the milk con VA bill was, but I did hold out similar hope for our ledge branch bill this year. When I first came to the appropriations committee, the legislative branch subcommittee was not only my first assignment, but it was where I first served as a cardholder. And that's where I learned that the legislative branch budget is a critical component of what we do in this committee. And mister Amate is shaking his head because you really get to know how important the inner workings of this operation, which is massive, really how critical it is that we have the levers and the underpinnings to be able to run this place in an independent way.
This is a bill that not only allows us to serve our constituents, but it allows us to truly be a coequal branch of government as the founders intended. Congress cannot be a check on the executive branch if we're not able to hire, train, and retain staff, or if we cut the support services that all members rely on to do our job effectively. Unfortunately, while this bill takes several small steps forward, it takes a giant step back with the unfathomable cuts to the Government Accountability Office. And what's most enraging about this situation is that we all watch this play out this year, just this past year. It's like Groundhog Day all over again.
The committee passed a bill that attempted to gut GAO, and House Democrats in the Senate said no. But now here we are, some six months later with the same self-destructive nonsense. The GAO is a nonpartisan independent agency within the legislative branch that performs auditing, evaluations, and investigations, which are a critical component of our oversight abilities. It's a tool for encouraging good, responsible government. That's why, during the Biden administration, Republicans relied on GAO to conduct their own oversight activities.
And it's why, now today, we rely on it to conduct oversight of the Trump administration. I remember when I was, you know, leading the committee, and we had to, and mister Aderholt may remember this also, you know, when we were trying to finish the CBC, and it was way over budget, and it was unbelievably late, and the architect of the capital was a total mess, and he got fired. And, I mean, the way that we were able to get the assistance and the expertise we needed was by assigning GAO in the ledge branch bill a quarterly responsibility to do oversight. A monthly responsibility to report to the committee so that we could bring it in for a landing more effectively, more soon, and also for less cost overruns than we were already explosively experiencing. So let's be real for a minute.
What's in this bill is not an honest effort to find ways to right-size government. This is an ask from the Trump administration to Republicans in Congress to try and fire the cops on the beat so that this White House that's just rife with ethics problems and bad management can continue their lawless behavior totally unchecked. One of the teams is clearly more eager to cheat than ever, and your answer in this bill is to fire the umpires. And the taxpayer value here is undeniable. For fiscal year 2024, GAO recovered $76 for every dollar we invested in it.
Since 2002, GAO recovered $1,450,000,000,000, trillion, with a t, in taxpayer savings. In Elon's wildest grok fever dream, they could not reach such legitimate savings. Yet somehow in this bill, GAO funding gets slashed. Now we all work for the American people, and this institution was set up to serve them. It was not set up to serve the executive branch or the president, or whoever he or she may be.
It was not set up to serve us as individuals or to do the political dirty work of an administration that is showing utterly no respect for the legislative branch at all. We have an administration that holds congress in utter contempt from top to bottom. We have cabinet secretaries who'd rather go on taxpayer funded bucket list vacations than come and answer questions in front of Congress, and we have to work withhold percentages of their budgets to force them to come testify in front of us. We have White House staff who openly bully members of Congress when Trump is not getting his way, and a president who said he was the actual Speaker of the House. I'm not exaggerating.
This is simply insane. Republicans are handing the keys to Congress to an imperial president drunk on abusing his power. Congress is not a suggested partner. The constitution mandates that we're a coequal branch of government. To cede our power like this is just plain wrong, and it is a dangerous precedent to set.
Alternatively, though, I was relieved, so I can say something good because I have a special place in my heart for this bill, to see that the Congressional Research Service funding was given the boost that they needed given their increased workload and specific needs. CRS is an incredible resource for us and our staff, and I think if members truly understood the role they play in congress's everyday functions, we could not have seen years of level funding that resulted in real term cuts in their operations. And I'm also happy to see support services like the hardworking United States Capitol Police, the Library of Congress, the Architect of the Capitol, and House staff are receiving increases to allow these talented women and men to continue to support and protect us. The Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, and its sub-agencies, and the GAO all allow Congress to be independent and fill the knowledge gaps that we have when we're dealing with complex issues. So while some in Congress are fine to let the administration get away with covering unchecked and on the back of a napkin, it's stunning to see so many Republicans willing to block nonpartisan experts from conducting oversight on behalf of Congress and abandon the jobs our constituents elected us to do.
There are several members on the other side of the aisle who I had the privilege of co-leading this bill with for many years, and we did that arm in arm and made sure that we had the independence we needed and the expert expertise well funded so we could do our jobs. And that's what we should be doing in this bill, but we're not. Deep down, I know most of you agree with me, whether or not you vote the way you truly feel. I urge all of my colleagues to vote no or better yet, let's pull this bill and figure out a better path forward. Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time. I'm sorry for going over.
Speaker 1
Thank you, John. It's alright. Thank you, General Lady. Are there other members wishing to make general comments about the bill? Seeing none.
I would like to recognize chairman Valadao to offer a manager's amendment.
Speaker 1
Without objections, the reading is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized to explain the manager's amendment.
Speaker 33
Manager's amendment contains technical edits to the bill and adds a general provision ensuring that appropriators have a seat at the table when selecting the legislative branch agency heads. It also adds report language that has been agreed to in a bipartisan manner. I urge a yes vote on the amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The ranking member, Miss Espott, recognized to comment on the matter.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not object to the chairman's amendment to further advance his house initiatives by supporting staff recruitment and retention, access to childcare, and strengthening our workplace rights. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Y, Mr. Case, is recognized to comment on the manager's amendment.
Speaker 35
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise on this manager's amendment, not in opposition to it, but to register a reservation as to one section of it. And it's not a reservation as to content, but a reservation as to omission, and really lost opportunity. I refer to title one, general provisions, appointment of the Library of Congress and director of the Government Publishing Office. It may come as news to members that congress owns institutions.
It's critical institutions by which we do our job, including a check and balance, including oversight, including acting as a separate and independent branch of government, that our institutions, including the government printing office, the Library of Congress, and, yes, the Government Accountability Office, are actually not ours exclusively to appoint and to remove. In fact, the president has a role in these under law today. It's a very mixed and convoluted situation. But the bottom line is the president has a say, has a role, and, as we all know, this president has shown no qualms about exercising that role. And we will talk at length about the Government Accountability Office.
That discussion tonight is not finished. I am very happy that this language does.
Speaker 35
Clarify that with the government printing office and the library of congress, that role now is congress's exclusively. And so this is a substantive change in the appointment and the removal process, that is welcome. The lost opportunity is with the comptroller general, who is the head of the Government Accountability Office. And it may come as a great surprise to members that actually, for our own institution's body that helps us with our oversight, that helps us with our constitutional duties, that, in fact, we only recommend who our comptroller general is. The president gets to make that appointment, and that's not correct.
And that's not correct, and it shouldn't be. I have a bill in with other members of this Congress, H.R. 6517, the Legislative Branch Independence Act, which essentially says for all three of these critical agencies that it's up to Congress to both appoint and to remove. And it's up to Congress, in particular, to appoint an exclusive congressional action, our comptroller, excuse me. Yes. Our comptroller general.
And so, I think it's unfortunate that although this bill does move in the right direction, it doesn't finish the job with actually the most important oversight agency, in congress. And so, I support this manager's amendment. But I really hope that somewhere along the way, whether it's this bill or other bills, that we will close the loop. And we will have far more debate when we get to Mr. Espayat's amendment as to actually what this bill does to the JAO. But I don't want, I do wanna, I do want to note this complementary parallel action as we go through this process at this point.
With that, I yield back. Thank you.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentlemen. Gentlemen from Merrill, Mister Hoyes, recognized remarks in the manager's amendment.
Speaker 3
Thank you. I just wanna strongly associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Case. This is a perfect example where Congress can, in fact, and we are in this amendment, taking back some of the authority that we let go ourselves. And I think this is actually the right thing to do, and I congratulate Mister Baleo Balado for having it in the bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Gentle lady from Illinois, Miss Sandra Wood, is recognized for remarks in the manager's amendment.
Speaker 36
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the manager's amendment, which includes my amendment to add report language directing the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights to make recommendations to improve our systems to prevent and respond to workplace misconduct. It is crystal clear to me, and I hope to everyone in this room, that we have a lot of work to do to address the serious and pervasive problem of sexual misconduct in Congress. It is rampant. It transcends party lines, and it is unacceptable.
The Democratic Women's Caucus and the Republican Women's Caucus have launched a partnership to address this bipartisan issue. An important first step that has come up in those conversations is the need for the OCWR to revamp its congressional workplace climate survey. If you read the results of the latest survey, you might get the impression that everything is going great. Unfortunately, we know that this rosy picture is not accurate. So it is clear that this survey is failing to capture relevant, urgently needed information about the root causes of the problem and the gaps in our existing accountability systems.
I am eager to hear how OCWR plans to increase the survey's response rate, which is only 10%, and means that we're missing the experiences and insights of the vast majority of our staff. I also strongly encourage OCWR to update and add questions, solicit staff suggestions for improving reporting structures, and incorporate feedback from relevant stakeholders, such as staff associations and survivor re support groups. It is our duty as members to ensure that staffers, interns, and all members of our community feel safe and respected in their workplace. These are the people who make Congress function. They come here to serve our country, and they deserve to be treated better than this.
It's also a democracy issue because the American people need to know that they can trust us to represent them with integrity, transparency, and accountability. Confronting the full extent of the problem is critical to that mission. Improving the workplace climate survey will help us do that. So I support the manager's amendment, and I look forward to continuing to work on this with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I also wanna thank my colleague, Mister Ivy, who also worked on this report language, and I commend the Democratic Women's Caucus for its leadership on this issue.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. Do any other members seek recognition to speak on the manager's amendment? A gentlelady from Washington is recognized.
Speaker 17
The manager's amendment and discuss one of our core, constitutional duties as members of Congress, which is hearing from and responding to our constituents. To do so, we all use correspondence management systems, or a CMS. House offices have the option to contract with the selection of vendors at their own discretion, and the House authorizes CMS vendors according to standards approved by the Committee on House Administration. When Americans write or call our office, it gets logged in these CMS services, and they help us send replies. And they work pretty well most of the time.
The issues, they are really expensive. Are you guys aware of how much we are all spending on our CMS services? It's like $25,000 each. You add that up across all of our House offices. We're talking about $11,000,000 a year annually that we're just throwing. I mean, we could we could develop this.
So this is to just fulfill our constitutional duties of office. This is a state capacity issue. We should be able to utilize a house-run service to communicate with our constituents, not be forced to pay private companies to fulfill our constitutionally obligated duties. I'm glad to see this work supports the work that the CAO is doing on the CMS innovation project, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue supporting and moving this work forward. Thank you.
Feedback.
Speaker 1
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen from Maryland. Mister Ivy is recognized for comments on the manager's name.
Speaker 28
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'd like to thank the chair and the ranking, for the full committee and the subcommittee with respect to the language that Miss Underwood just spoke about, the workplace rights and resources language. I just wanted to say that the genesis of this issue for me came a couple of weeks ago. I was invited to speak to a group of young staffers, interns, and staffers who just come to the hill. And they like to invite me because I had been a staffer back in the 1980s here on the house side as well.
And as I came into the room, prepared to talk about my career and the things that I've done, and, you know, the standard thing that you do in those kinds of meetings, I overheard two of the staffers talking about mister Swalwell, and they were talking about the accusations that were against him at that time. He had just resigned from Congress. And so I came in and sat down, and this is a young group of people, early to mid-twenties or so, maybe late twenties. And so I came in. It's also the same week that Mr. Gonzalez had resigned from Congress as well.
And if you'll recall, Mister Gonzalez was accused of, and continues to be, having an affair with a woman who committed suicide, I think, by self-immolation. And mister Swahwell's accusations seem to be growing by the day, and they seem to be falling into the criminal category, not just sexual harassment, but actual sexual assault. And so I asked the group if they knew about these two cases, and they said absolutely yes to a person in the room. And they were clearly shaken by what had happened. And so the next thing I asked them was, how many of you know, well, what would you do if you were sexually harassed in your office?
And there was this long silence. They didn't know what to do, what to say, who to turn to. And I said, well, do you know that there are resources that are available right here in the Congress and the House of Representatives to help you? You can go to them, they can help you out with these, with information about how to move forward. And a couple of them knew. There were probably about 50 people in the room.
Only about a handful of them knew. And they tried to tell each other what that was. And then some of them asked me what was available. I'm on the ethics committee. I've been here in Congress for three years now.
And as I just told you, I started serving here in 1987, served on the Senate side. I saw the whole evolution of this. We had no rights to staff back in 1987. A whole panoply of rights has grown up around that now. And we've put in place a staff of lawyers, social workers, and the like who can provide assistance to these mainly young women when they find themselves in these situations.
And the thing to remember about many of them is they're not from DC. Many of them are not from families where, you know, mom's a lawyer or dad's a power broker or something like that. For many of these kids, this is the most exciting thing that's happened in their family. And then this pops up. Now it's not easy for women in that situation, even when they're older, even when they're further in their professional careers, even when they're more established.
I've seen careers train-wrecked by this kind of issue, even for women in their forties. We've gotta make sure that we take every step possible to fix this issue. And you heard Miss Underwood talking about what this report will help to disclose, but I can tell you what the report's gonna disclose right now. And we all know it. Now here's the challenge, and I'll speak to the men in the room for a second.
We know that these issues exist, but we don't necessarily know the full depth of them. I knew Eric Swallow. We served on the judiciary committee together. I saw him almost every day. I had no idea he was engaging in this kind of stuff.
And another guy that came up when I was talking to this group was Justin Fairfax, the lieutenant governor of Virginia, former lieutenant governor, who one day went home, pulled the gun out, killed his wife, and then killed himself. I knew him. I knew Eric. I knew Tony. I knew all these others, many others that we've seen have faced these allegations.
Many have been forced out. I've seen people go to jail over this kind of thing. We can't pretend like everything's fine, and we do need to take additional steps to make sure that when these young women come here, they're safe and protected. They know their options. And the options, I'll stop with this, don't just include going to the ethics committee.
They might include going to the Metropolitan Police Department. And when I was a prosecutor helping women think through all of those implications and how that might play out. I wanted them to know at the front end that if they decided to move down that track, there were gonna be tough pieces that came with that, tough times that could result from it. They have a right to know. So they have a right to know the rights that they have, the services we can provide, and the impact it can have on their lives.
So let's do the study, but let's not waste time. Let's not wait 180 days before we start moving on this and try and fix it. So I wanna thank the chairs and the ranking members for putting this language in. I wanna thank Miss Underwood for working to help this get done. But let's make this happen.
This is clearly bipartisan. This happens to women whether they're Democrats, Republicans, independents, or whatever. Let's fix this. And with that, I yield back. Welcome.
Speaker 1
Back to the gentleman. Are there other members wishing to make remarks about the management movement? Gentle lady from Ohio is recognized.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a question to ask of those who offer this, and I support this. But does this include the service personnel who work in this building? Those that clean the rooms, those that are involved in serving all of us?
Speaker 28
I'm not sure. I did want to, you're making me jump to another provision. I do have a provision where we would extend the contract authority. This is an amendment down the road, so I won't say much about it. But those kinds of protections should be included in the collective bargaining agreement that would be.
Speaker 4
Before being open to considering that, because I have actually had individuals come to my office asking for us to pay attention to this.
Speaker 28
I thank the lady, and I agree completely. Thank you. And I yield back. Are.
Speaker 1
Are there any other members wishing to make comments on the matters? Seeing none, Chairman Valadao is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 1
Question is on the amendment. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted.
The gentleman from New York, mister Espeth, recognized for the purpose of an amendment? No. No.
Speaker 27
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman is recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 27
Mister chairman, this amendment will provide $860,000,000 for the government accountability office, an increase of $48,200,000 above the fiscal year 2026 enacted level, and $2,248,200,000 above the house mark. At a time where OMB is asserting that GAO's views are not binding on the executive branch, Congress should not weaken the very agency that exists to help us oversee the executive branch. GAO is Congress' independence watchdog. It helps identify waste, fraud, and abuse and mismanagement across agencies, improper payments, and the violation of the law. The recent OMB guidance makes clear that the current administration intends to define internal control requirements for itself.
That makes GAO's independence and its independence role even more important. Not less important, but more important. If Congress underfunds GAO while OMB is minimizing GAO's authority, we are effectively reducing our ability, our own ability to conduct oversight. We are Congress. Why are we not choosing, why are we choosing to weaken our own power of the purse?
Why are we going down this road? Weakening GAOs weakens our ability to hold the executive branch accountable to ensure taxpayers' dollars are spent as intended. The house mark would force GAO to lay off over a thousand employees, getting the very workforce that conducts audits, investigations, oversight on behalf of this body. GAO's work returned 62,700,000 dollars in financial benefits in the fiscal year 2025. If the concern is fiscal responsibility, then cutting GAO is exactly the wrong place to start.
Providing $860,000,000 for the agency that saves taxpayers tens of billions of dollars is not just responsible. It is essential to protect taxpayer dollars. And let me be clear. This amendment is offered without an offset because the overall allocation for the legislative branch bill is already far too constrained. Every agency funded in this bill is already operating under significant pressure.
Taking resources from another legislative branch bill will simply weaken Congress somewhere else and further undermine the institution's ability to govern itself effectively. Congress should not be forced to cannibalize its own oversight and support agencies, and it should support agencies just to preserve basic accountability. This amendment strengthens GAO and preserves Congress' ability to hold the executive branch accountable. I encourage my colleagues to vote yes for this amendment. And, again, mister chairman, I hope that this is not followed by an amendment from the other side of the aisle that will further hurt other agencies that are right now constrained from conducting their business and what they do on a daily basis for congress in an effective manner.
I hear back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Gentleman from California, Mister Valadao, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 33
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mister chairman, this amendment provides for a large increase in funding for the JO and doesn't provide an offset, and would therefore increase the total funding level in this bill. I urge a no vote on this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Y, Mister Case, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 35
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in very strong support of the ranking member's amendment. What a simple, uncontroversial bill this, of all of our 12 bills, should be. This should be a measure in which the leading institution in our country, if not our world, embraces our responsibility and gives ourselves, not somebody else, all of the tools possible to assert our constitutional duty. And by doing so, we would exert and expend minimal, minuscule even funding compared to our federal government overall, and really, compared to the weight and value of our obligations.
To spend this kind of money to fulfill our constitutional obligations, that should be a no-brainer. This bill should be about a proud, responsible, effective institution such as this, that cannot exist solely on paper. We all know that we cannot do this job just with what’s in our head. We need help. We need expertise.
We need the ability. But we have to have the full range of tools to do our job, and it's a critical job for our country for us to fully assert ourselves as a separate and independent branch of government with full and competent and authoritative, credible oversight of the executive branch and elsewhere. But, unfortunately, assuredly, that is not what this bill is. And so let's talk about the Government Accountability Office, one of our most important agencies within Congress. Founded in 1921, over 100 years old today.
Not today, but a century-old. Formed after World War one because we were concerned about controlling government expenditures and debt in the wake of World War one. Does that sound familiar? Are we not worried about government expenditures and debt today? And, of course, in the seventies, the congressional impoundment act, when we asked the GAO, Oh my goodness.
We asked the GAO to actually study whether the executive branch was not spending the money that we appropriated. What a crime we committed then by asking the GAO, our own body, to help us and to give it the tools possible to enforce our authority of the purse. That's what we did, and that's what the GAO has been doing for over 100 years. You know, the GAO as one example of what it does is it publishes and has for many years now a high-risk series. These are areas and issues within our government that the GAO considers to be high risk on a non-partisan basis.
This is not partisanship. And currently, the JO has 38 high-risk areas that it wants us to focus on and that it has the ability to focus on with expertise and with resources. Let's take a look at some of these high-risk areas. At the highest level, their high risk areas are reducing billions in significant improper payments and fraud. Oh, I hear a lot about fraud and improper payments.
So we can all talk about it, but you don't want, or at least some people don't want, our own congress to be able to enter into what we are going to do about that. I shouldn't even talk about this one, closing large gaps in revenue owed to the government. That used to be something that we were all concerned about. But we know from the actions of the majority on the IRS that they're actually not concerned about that. So let me skip over that one.
Let's talk about better controlling cost growth and schedule delays in high-dollar value procurements. The DOD appropriations bill, which takes up half of our budget, is very much concerned about this now. But we're not gonna give the GAO the ability to look at this for us. Rightsiding the government's property holdings could generate substantial savings. I hear all the time from the majority about how the federal government owns too much land and how we should sell some of it off.
Well, the GAO wants to take a look at it, but you don't want to fund them to do that. Achieving greater financial management discipline at the DOD. I think we all care about that. I think we all care about that, but we don't want the GOP to help us out with that at all. So, you get the point.
There's 35 other examples of this on the 38 list, but we don't want the JO to help us with those. You know, what at the end of the day, what a petty, defensive, obsequious, weak, and destructive action it is to gut the GAO, to throw a fit over our ability to question the president of The United States about whether he is correctly exerting his authority to spend money already appropriated. I urge that we reverse this action along the way. This is not the way Congress should be acting. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentlelady from Pennsylvania. Mister Dean's recognized for comments on the amendment.
Speaker 15
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of Mr. Esbayat's amendment. Currently, the FY 27 ledge branch bill cuts $200,000,000 from GAO, a 25% reduction, and eliminates over 1,000 jobs. It includes a rider that prevents the GAO from taking legal action against executive branch officials who unlawfully withhold funds from the American people. We fought to strip that rider last year, and it succeeded.
And yet here it is again. In fiscal year 2025 alone, think of these numbers. GAO delivered $62,700,000,000 in financial benefits to the federal government. The year before, it yielded $67,500,000,000, a return of $76 for every dollar invested in it. Since 2002, GAO's work has achieved a $1,500,000,000,000 financial benefit for American taxpayers.
$1,500,000,000,000, folks. We're appropriators. These are good numbers. I've heard my Republican colleagues talk endlessly about rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse. The GAO is the nonpartisan, independent agency that does just that.
Yet here we are cutting it by 200000000, tying its hands, but this goes way beyond dollars and cents. The GAO is not just a savings mechanism, it's a constitutional one. Article one gives Congress the power of the purse. It is the foundational check that the framers built into our system to ensure that no president could spend the people's money without the people's representatives authorizing it. Without the people's representatives, us authorizing it.
The provision that strips the GAO of its ability to bring civil actions against the executive branch officials who defy the impoundment control act, makes the intent of this bill clear. This is not about fiscal restraint. This is about making sure that when the administration decides to withhold funds that Congress has appropriated, there is no one left with the tools or the authority to stop them. We must stop that. Supporting this amendment says that Congress is serious about its constitutional responsibility to oversee how taxpayer dollars are spent, especially at a moment when this administration has shown a willingness to impound funds and defy the law.
Mister chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for the comments. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Gentleman from Maryland, mister Horace, elect to come back.
Speaker 3
Again, I'll shorten my speech by adopting the presentation of Mr. Case. I think mister Case, both in his initial comments on GAO and on his comments just made recently, states the case very clearly. And I can't see this being anything other than a cover-up. What are we afraid of the GAO finding? What they have found is an average of $60,000,000,000 per year.
That's the average savings. And you're talking about 200000000. And you're cutting apparently, and, mister Validaire, will you yield for a question?
Speaker 3
No. Well, I don't know whether anybody knows exactly how many employees there will be, but I've heard the figure. 1,000 to 1,500. You're cutting a third, essentially, of the budget. And what that will mean is, let's just assume it's a dollar for dollar, but you're gonna reduce the 60,000,000,000 by 20,000,000,000.
Maybe as much as $30,000,000,000. Now you recall I argued on IRS, when you cut its enforcement budget by hundreds of billions of dollars, from five to three, essentially, that that was gonna undermine enforcement. And I told you for every $1 we spend on enforcement for taxpayers who have large incomes, you make approximately anywhere from 8 to $12. That didn't make any difference here. But, ladies and gentlemen, if we're going to balance the budget, and we're not gonna balance the budget, but if we're at least gonna start to reduce the debt, which I feel strongly is something that we ought to do.
But very frankly, I think focusing on 14% of the budget is really not very productive, but none of us want to deal with the other 80% of the budget. So the gentleman from Hawaii is exactly right. Why would we do this? The gentleman from Maryland, mister Ivy, gonna have another amendment because we try to not only reduce them substantially and make them impotent, I use that word because we are making ourselves useless. We're doing it to ourselves.
And I don't know about the rest of you. I get awfully frustrated in this. There is no debate here. There's no give and take. There's no defense of the provision.
You know, this doesn't meet our 302b's. Well, we don't have 302 b's. We have half of 302 b's. So there's a lot of money left over, and nobody knows where it's going. Mister Calvert raises his glass.
He thinks he's gonna get most of it.
Speaker 3
And, of course, I guess the laughter is about those dollars don't count for the debt. Somehow, they're free of financial burden. Mister Obi, who I referred to earlier, was very concerned about our war in Iraq. And his most concern was, he said, if this is important to do, pay for it. Of course, we didn't.
And so we upped the debt. And our children and grandchildren are gonna be paying for Iraq. And my great-grandchildren are gonna be paying for the billion-plus dollars we're spending every day in Iran. The GAO is designed to try to, at least as we're spending money, make sure we don't have waste, fraud, and abuse. And you are rendering it unable to do the very job that you talk so much about.
But it's not gonna make any difference because logic and argument are not prevailing, and that is very frustrating. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This really comes down to one simple question. As been stated by many of my colleagues here, does Congress still want the tools in their hands to hold the executive branch accountable? At a time in history when the executive branch attempts to be a runaway train, can we have accountability? Can we ensure the balance of powers?
Speaker 27
GAO, again, uncovers waste, fraud, abuse, and improper spending on behalf of the American people. That's what they do, and on behalf of our congress. And at a moment when this administration is trying to diminish GAO's authority, this is exactly the wrong time to weaken it further. We're kicking it while it's down. Cutting more than 1,000 professional jobs does not make a government more efficient.
It makes the government less accountable. GLO saves taxpayers tens of billions of dollars every year. Very few investments made by Congress deliver that kind of return to the American people. Very few investments that we do give that kind of return. Congress should not weaken its own ability to conduct oversight and protect taxpayer dollars.
I urge a yes vote on the amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Any chair of the nose have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated.
Speaker 21
Aderholt, Mr. Aguilar. Mister Aguilar. I. Mr. Alford. Mister Alford, no.
Mister Amaday. Missus Bice. Mr. Bishop. Mister Bishop, I. Mr Calvert.
Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter? Mr. Carter? No.
Mr. Case? Mister Case? I. Mister Siscamani? Mister Siscamani?
No. Mister Klein? No. Mister Cloud? No.
Mister Cloud? No. Mister Clyburn? Alright. Mister Clyburn, aye.
Mr. Clyde? Mr. Cole? No. Mister Cole? No.
Mister Cuellar? Aye. Mister Cuellar, aye. Miss Dean? Miss Dean, aye.
Mister Lauro? Aye. Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz Ballard? Mister Edwards?
Mister Edwards? No. Mister Elzy? Mister Elzy? No.
Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Asbayat? Aye. Mister Asbayat, aye.
Mister Fleishman? Mister Fleishman? No. Miss Frankel? Mister Franklin?
Mister Franklin? No. Mister Guest? Mister Harter? Mister Harter, I.
Doctor Harris. Missus Henson? Missus Henson? No. Mister Hoyer?
Aye. Mister Hoyer, I. Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Ivy?
Aye. Mr. Joyce? Mr. Joyce. No. Miss Captor.
Miss Captor, I. Mister Lolota. Miss Lee. Miss Lee, I. Miss Letlow.
Mr. Levin. Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Molloy. Miss Molloy, no.
Miss McCollum. Aye. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming. Miss Ming, aye.
Mister Molinar. Mister Molinar, no. Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore. No.
Mr Morelli. Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Mervan. Mister Mervan, aye. Mr. Newhouse.
Mister Newhouse, no. Miss Perez. Miss Perez, I miss Pingree. Miss Pingree, I, mister Pokan. Mister Pokan, I, Mister Quigley.
Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rogers. Mister Rogers. No. Mr. Rutherford.
Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev. Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson. Mr. Strong.
Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood. Aye.
Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadao. Mister Valadao, no. Miss Wasserman Schultz. Missus Watson Coleman.
Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from Florida? No.
Speaker 1
The food of the company must be really good. Hopefully, both. Are there any other members wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally.
Speaker 1
On this vote, the ayes are 27. The nodes are 33. The amendment is not adopted. General lady from Connecticut, Miss Bloor is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 1
With or without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady is recognized for remarks on her own. I
Speaker 5
Rise to offer this amendment because this administration has been demonstrating its disdain for the American taxpayers since day one. The president, by his own admission, does not think about Americans' financial situation, but his administration clearly does. The president has appointed an acting attorney general, also his personal lawyer, who was stealing $1,800,000,000 out of the treasury, and is preparing to shovel it directly into the pockets of the president's political allies. President Trump claimed that he would drain the swamp, but his handpicked cabinet is flooding it. The rank corruption of the $1,800,000,000 theft is overwhelming.
But what is truly disgusting are the yes men across the street from the West Wing at the Office of Management and Budget that eagerly rubber stamp every single corrupt idea that comes from this administration. And what has this Republican Congress done to hold these OMB sick officers to account? Have showered them with $100,000,000 on top of their annual budget, purportedly to find, and I quote, budgeting and accounting efficiencies. While OMB director vote has violated the law by hiding legally binding budget decisions from this Congress, from us and the taxpayer, decisions we are entitled by law to see. He coordinated an illegal attempt to assist the secretary of agriculture in stealing SNAP benefits during last year's shutdown, and a direct effort to starve people that he took all the way to the Supreme Court to say no to food for people.
Director vote has at every turn sought to substitute his own judgment. Spelled out in detail in his project 2025 manifesto for the judgment of President Trump, duly enacted appropriations laws, and those of us on this committee. With this track record, is it surprising to anybody that OMB director vote has had $100,000,000 to find, and I quote, budgeting and account efficiencies, end quote, and has not spent a single solitary cent of it. Doesn't surprise me. Today, we are considering a bill that would fund the GAO at woefully inadequate levels, and agencies whose work to find budgeting and accounting efficiencies has yielded over $775,000,000,000, three quarters of a trillion dollars, in financial benefits over the last fifteen years, all to serve the American taxpayer.
They have done the work, and the results are inarguable. With that in mind, who can use $100,000,000 better over the next three years? A corrupt and politicized OMB that has made itself an enabler of an administration's corrupt initiatives, or a nonpartisan government watchdog that has returned billions of benefits to the American taxpayer? The answer is clear, and my amendment would see to it that we do everything that we can today to stop overspending money we cannot afford on the failed institution of OMB, and instead send it to the controller general to continue GAO service to the American Congress and the American taxpayers. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The gentleman in California, mister Valdell, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 33
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mister chairman, while I appreciate the creative nature of this amendment introduced by the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, the Office of Management and Budget is outside the jurisdiction of this bill under consideration today. So we do not have jurisdiction there, and I urge a no vote on this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from New York, mister SBI, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of this amendment. For the past year. The administration has repeatedly ignored and undermined congress's constitutional authority by withholding funds that congress already appropriated into law. And now, instead of defending the power of the purse, this bill proposes to weaken the very watchdog responsibility for helping Congress hold the executive branch accountable. That makes absolutely no sense.
If Congress is willing to surrender his own oversight authority, then we are voluntarily weakening this institution and empowering unchecked and ill-advised executive overreach. We should not be handing more flexibility and more power to political operatives at OMB while gutting the nonpartisan agencies tasked with protecting taxpayer dollars and exposing waste, fraud, and abuse. Thank you, mister chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Minnesota, Miss McCollum, is recognized to respond to the amendment.
Speaker 10
Mister chairman. Know, I heard about, you know, OMB not having jurisdiction. Well, OMB had no problem stepping all over our jurisdiction. So I'm gonna consider this such a transfer of funds that's gonna be approved by Congress. So let's be clear.
The government accounting office is an important tool for Congress. It's not our enemy, and I don't think anybody here thinks that it is. It was created by Congress. And as the gentleman from Hawaii pointed out, it's over 100 years old. It's 105 years old.
And it's an independent watchdog for waste, fraud, and abuse. GAO is our partner to help us ensure transparency in how funds are spent. It offers recommendations to make our government more effective and efficient. And, frankly, we don't have the personnel either in our personal office or in the committee office to replicate the work that GEOA does and its expertise. Now I'm gonna give you a couple of examples.
One is a report from 2023. It's the Indian Health Service under the Biden administration, so it's criticizing the Biden administration while it's actually criticizing many administrations. But it does highlight how many facilities are in poor condition, the lack of data to evaluate the aging medical equipment. And this report is not a partisan attack. This report is pointing out our obligations under trust and treaty responsibilities to the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
It's in here. It's a guide on what we can do better in the initial bill. It's not partisan. And so if we follow this report, we could actually save lives. We could cut funding, you know, that provides us with facts based.
We wanna cut that. We don't wanna have that available on how we could do a better job. Here's another example. The GIO also issues important findings on whether laws that this committee has passed have been violated, and they help us to defend our power of the purse. Now under the last Trump administration during the 35 day shutdown, we found that the interior department was keeping some of the national parks operations ongoing using park fees in the wrong way.
Now I thought that violated the NI deficiency act, and Secretary Bernhardt had a conversation. And he disagreed with me. He said, I have a law degree. You don't. And I said, well, I still think you're not supposed to do that.
Well, we found out that, in fact, it was a violation of the statute. And the administration publicly disagreed with JAO's findings. But even if an administration disagrees with JAO's finding, as it did in the interior case, the GOA's decision brought an important level of transparency forward. Now, to be clear and to be fair, I don't always agree with GAO's findings either.
Speaker 10
Here's my next example. In January, GAO issued a decision stating that the Grand Scare case Escalate Resource Management Plan was subject to the Congressional Review Act. Now despite how every prior administration had treated management plans, GAO looked at the definition of the role under the Administrative Procedure Act and said that the resource management plan should be considered as a rule. Now I personally thought this was a terrible precedent. I was disappointed, and I wholeheartedly agreed with it.
But I didn't think we should throw out GAO just because of it. And lastly, I want to point out that GAO works on accountability across long timelines, longer than most of us chair some of our subcommittees. When Mister Calvert chaired the Interior Committee, and I was ranking member, he did an amazing thing. He held Yale hearings in 2016 on the necessary steps to wrap up the office of Navajo Hopi and Indian Relocation. Remember?
We did that together. We went on a field trip. We went out and looked. We used GAO as part of the reason on how we knew what to look for. And in 2018, GAO worked jointly with us, worked with us because we didn't have enough personnel staff or committee staff to do this job, to release a report, review any actions needed to transfer the responsibilities and close the office.
So eight years later, sad to report, Ken. We're still working on closing it off, but you know what? We're not gonna give up. And why? Because Geo has a last piece of the blue blueprint on how to do this.
So I wanna urge my colleagues to really consider supporting this amendment to restore GAO's funding, to support our independency, to support our watchdog when we agree with them and when we don't agree with them. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentle lady. The gentle lady from New Jersey, Miss Watson Coleman, is recognized to address the amendment. Thank.
Speaker 20
You, mister chairman. I rise in support of this, member ranking member Dolores, amendment to ensure that GAO gets the funding that it needs. It's more important than ever to invest in government oversight. The bill, as written, allows the executive branch to operate with even less accountability, slashing $200,000,000 from the GAO, a 20% cut. A thousand employees would lose their jobs, cutting the agency's function to help the government save money and work more efficiently.
Securing proper staffing levels is just common sense. Through the big ugly bill, Republicans gifted the OMB director Russ Boot what's essentially a $100,000,000 slush fund, lacking any commitments to guardrails or transparency. After legally allowing Trump, Donald Trump, President Trump, to spend money Congress didn't authorize and avoiding budget committee oversight. He can't be trusted to ensure this money is spent properly and efficiently, especially without any limits on its usage. This amendment would redirect $100,000,000 to the GAO, which has a highly regarded record of effective and responsive oversight.
If my Republican colleagues were actually committed to rooting out wage fraud and abuse. They would join me in supporting this amendment, and I certainly hope that they do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentle lady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a very simple amendment. The amendment would transfer unobligated OMB funds to the controller general and shall be available for funding, budgeting, and accounting efficiencies. In 2026, the office of OMB received $125,000,000. And the big beautiful bill, we added this additional $100,000,000, which, as I pointed out, has not been used to look at efficiencies.
And so it's just unallocated there. Now I just asked my colleagues on the other side. Yeah. What are you afraid of with the GAO? I mean, they've got a track record that is one that is really pretty impressive in terms of its mission and the job that it does.
And as our colleague from Minnesota said, you can agree or disagree with them, but they have, in fact, carried out what they are supposed to carry out. And they've done it, in an independent way. But that's so for me, I mean, the choice is clear. On the one hand, we have an unchecked, lawless, corrupt agency actively defying the will of Congress. They defy the will of con, they defy our will, what we do in this appropriations committee every single day.
They have moved to get around us in a reconciliation process. They do not want to acknowledge the appropriations committee and want to take that power away from the appropriations committee. And I've cited this in many cases over the last several months that I'm working together with my good friend and my colleague, the chairman of the committee, Chairman Cole. We passed 11 to 12 appropriations bills. And if we hadn't done that, OMB would have taken its own control and its own power and appropriations process.
We cannot allow them to do that. It is a lawless agency, and they thwart the will of congress, while the president's tariffs and wars of choice send the cost of living for Americans skyrocketing. On the other hand, we have a nonpartisan institution that fights every day to support the American people by delivering services efficiently and reliably. It should be easy to decide which of these two is worth this country's resources and the 100,000,000. Adopt my amendment, help turn the tide away from corruption and toward accountability.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Connecticut. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, they no.
No. Any of the chair of the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call.
Speaker 21
Mister Aderholt? No. Mister Aderholt? No. Mister Aguilar?
I. Mister Aguilar, I. Mr. Alford? Mr. Alford? No.
Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday, missus Bice, mister Bishop, I. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert, no. Mr. Carter?
Mister Carter, no. Mister Case? Mister Case, aye. Mister Siscamani? Mister Klein?
Mister Klein? No. Mr. Cloud? Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyde?
Negative. Mister Clyde, no. Mr. Cole? No. Mister Cole?
No. Mister Cuellar? I. Mister Cuellar. Miss Dean?
I. Dean? Mister Dean?
Speaker 21
Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz Bellart? Hello? Mister Diaz Bellart? No.
Mr. Edwards? No. Edwards? Mister Elzy? Miss Escobar?
Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Espéat?
Speaker 21
Mister Espayat, aye. Mister Fleishman? No. Mister Fleishman? No.
Miss Frankel? Mister Franklin? No. Franklin? No.
Mister Guest? No. Mister Guest? No. Mr. Harder?
Mister Harter, I. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson?
Missus Henson? No. Mr. Hoyer?
Speaker 21
Mister Hoyer, aye. Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Ivy, aye. Mister Joyce?
Mister Joyce? No. Miss Captor? Aye. Miss Captor, aye.
Mister Lolota? No. Mister Lolota? No. Miss Lee?
Aye. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow? Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, aye.
Miss Molloy. Miss Molloy, no. Miss McCollum. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming.
Miss Ming, aye. Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar? No. Mr. Moore?
Mr Moore? No. Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Morelli?
Aye. Mister Mervan? Aye. Mister Mervan? Aye.
Mr. Newhouse? Mister Newhouse?
Speaker 21
Mister Newhouse, no. Miss Perez. Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingree. Miss Pingree, aye.
Mister Pokan. Mister Pokan, aye. Mr. Quigley. Mr. Rashenthaler? Mister Rashenthaler?
No. Mister Rogers? Mister Rogers? No. Mr Rutherford?
No. Mister Rutherford? No. Mister Shreve? Mister Shreve?
No. Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson? No. Mister Strong?
Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Missus Torres, I. Miss Underwood? Miss Underwood?
I. Mister Valladeo? Mister Valladeo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz.
Miss Wasserman Schultz, I'm Mrs. Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, I'm Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentlemen from Nevada.
Speaker 1
Are there other members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. On this vote, the ayes are 27. The days are 34. The amendment is not adopted.
The gentleman from Montana, Mr. Zinke, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 28
Mister chairman, I have an amendment at the desk and request unanimous consent for its reading to be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 28
I will be withdrawing this amendment, but just indulge me for a second. You know, we've talked about buildings, and interior had a 21% occupancy rate. Department of Agriculture had about the same. I'm a little familiar with the interior. It has to be eight stories long and two blocks long, eight stories high and two blocks long.
Agriculture is bigger. We just talked about the Rayburn, but we don't know on the Ford. So the administration took the step of sending everyone back to work. And there's cases for remote working. I wouldn't wanna work in DC either.
But that's where the billet is. And for just intention, I think we need a data call on how many people are actually working, how many people are remote. And look, if there's a reason for them to remote, I don't have a problem with that, but we shouldn't count them at a desk in a building here. You look at how many buildings we have and what the occupancy rate is, I'm sure we can do a lot better than we are. We're talking about the four buildings. We're talking about these huge monstrosities that have a percentage of people working in them.
I think we can do a lot better doing the data call, seeing how many people are out there at their desk. And with that, I yield back, and thank you for the indulgence. Less than 2 minutes.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. Gentleman from New York is recognized, responding to amendment if he chooses to.
Speaker 1
There's wide bipartisan support for that. If there's no further debate, the gentleman is actually recognized for one minute to close. Thank.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. Gentleman from Maryland, Mister Hoyers, for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 3
I ask this so much to read the amendment. Can you consider the reading of all the amendments?
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 3
And that reform commission found that members of Congress, House and Senate, given comparable responsibilities to the private sector, were substantially underpaid. It recommended an increase. That increase occurred. In that legislation, it was provided that there would be a COLA that would not happen if the federal employees got no COLA. But if they did happen, consistent with the ECI, which is the employment cost index, meaning the private sector had to come get a COLA adjustment in effect in the private sector so that we would not get something that the private sector was not getting.
They ruled that we would be adjusted appropriately. I have been involved in this issue for essentially 35, 40 years, all of my time in congress. But I wanna call your attention particularly to the times, from '20 or excuse me. 2010 to 2027. For a period of that time, I'm looking for it because I have something that I wanna make sure you have.
I don't know where it went. Got too much paper. In any event, the adjustment was made pretty consistently from 2000 to 2010. During that period of time, the Republicans were, you know, off in the majority from 2000 to 2006, and then we took the majority from 2007 to 2009. That ten-year period, there was only one year where we had zero adjustment.
Nine of those years, Dick Army was majority leader for two, Tom Delay for three, John Boehner for one, Roy Blunt for two, and Cantor for one. All of us worked to get together, so that we could be kept even. In $26 in $20.26 dollars, you are now making $133,000 a year, which means your pay has been reduced by over a third over the last years from 2009 to date. When we first adjusted the COLA, Speaker Boehner took us to court. And he came before the court arguing that this was a pay raise, and that it could not be done.
Now the constitution of The United States says, and in the eighteenth century, the debate at the constitution convention was that members could not have their pay reduced during the course of their service unless there was an intervening election. In other words, unless you waited until the 29 election or the 28 election in our instance here. But we have consistently included this language, and we have followed that language, notwithstanding the fact that the courts found that the COLA was not a pay raise. It was to keep the value of the compensation received by a member of Congress even. That was the case until 2009, and we have now foregone seventeen years with the same compensation.
As I said to you, that compensation is now worth, in 26$, today's dollars, $133,000. The number of us, including mister Colbert and myself, our plaintiffs, along with a number of Republicans, including the chair of the intel committee, in a case which has gone to court and has said that what has happened is inconsistent with the constitution. I think mister Clyde takes the same position, and he will, I'm sure he's gonna talk on this as well. One of the reasons I've been involved, this issue was in the, what we then call the Treasury Postal Appropriation bill, now called the FSGG bill. Why was it in that bill, as opposed to the legislative bill?
Because OPM salaries are controlled by that committee. I was the ranking of that committee then. Now I've just received, mister chairman, I would hope we can have a little latitude because this is gonna be very important to members and to, frankly, to the public. Today, apparently, just minutes ago, I want to read you a paragraph that the court just issued an order in the case to which I referred. In sum, we hold, one, that plaintiffs have not waived and are not stopped from bringing these claims.
We are the plaintiffs. That class, we are members of that class. Two, that the twenty-seventh amendment applies to laws decreasing congressional compensation. Three, that cola blocking laws are varying, quote, congressional compensation under the amendment, and, therefore, are inconsistent with the constitution. And, fourthly, that the laws bearing congressional compensation are ineffective to the extent they seek to effectuate a change in congressional compensation before an election intervenes.
Now the sum of that conclusion, and obviously, this is all I've read. I have not read the court's findings, so I'm I just received it five minutes ago. Obviously, it has an impact on the amendment that, mister Clyde, we're not offering it together, but we're offering the same amendment. It appears to me that the finding of the court was that when we, without an intervening election, and there's no intervening election, if we pass this amendment today, there's no intervening election until 2028, is ineffective because it varies the pay, which is unconstitutional because the founding fathers were concerned about the king or somebody, not the king, obviously. We don't have a king.
Then they felt that it would be used as a political bludgeon to say, if you don't vote for this, that, or the other, we're gonna reduce your pay. So they in the that in the founding father's mind was something that would undermine the legislative's article one status. Now, I was going to go through a lot of numbers and a lot of why we should not undermine the ability of average men and women to serve in this body. Some of you may be very wealthy. Most of us think not very wealthy.
We're not poor. The public is compensating us. Well, it has deteriorated over the last 17 years, very, very substantially. But, nevertheless, what we don't want to have is a congress that is exclusively wealthy people. Now this does not affect me at all.
Okay. I will yield now. I'm gonna get some people to yield to me, I'll get some point.
Speaker 1
To that. No problem with people yielding me, but or you. But I will hold. I mean, just I got you. We're getting close to the magic minute here.
So the gentle lady from Florida is record.
Speaker 1
No. I that's why the gentleman got four extra minutes. I think you're absolutely right.
Speaker 3
Thank the gentlelady for yielding. I had a number of other people lined up to do the same. You've got a plan for these things because I know we have limited debate here. But this is an issue. Why do I bring it up, ladies and gentlemen?
I bring it up because we're not gonna do this in secret. I know there are a lot of members who come to me, they want this done as an immaculate conception. But the press is so interested in this issue, it never happens. And this is an issue that causes some members a real problem. Why?
Because they have tough elections. And this is an issue easy to demagogue. And it is demagoguery on a regular basis. But if we're gonna have a congress, that can feel that it is not a congress that is you, we made the ethic laws that people can't do anything for us, and that's great. That's appropriate.
It should be. But to the extent that members are living in their offices because they cannot afford the two dwellings to live in. That's not right. They have to be here. All of us have to be here.
It's our duty to be here. And most of us, I don't know. I'm not a good example, obviously, because I live just down the street, so to speak, about 1 hour away. But most of you don't do that. You have to travel long distances.
Mister Cavard's, you know, the longest guy is you go to California.
Speaker 3
Well, Hawaii. Steve Case is smiling. I mean, yeah, Steve gets the but we really do need to come to grips with this issue because whatever the court rules, it's gonna be the law. And, hopefully, they will rule soon. And I was surprised by this.
I did not know it was coming. But if you look at the figures, the difference between what we should be making under the law, that's not by our own under the law, I will be glad to hear. Yeah. Sure. Yes.
I'll yes. Thank you mister.
Speaker 11
Chairman and Mister Hoyer. I missed what you said at the beginning. Has the court issued a settlement in this case or announced any?
Speaker 3
And the finding said essentially four things. A, the constitution required you can't change our salaries without an intervening election. In other words, prospectively. B, that we are not stopped from bringing the suit by these provisions. This provision is the same as we've done for 17 years.
We're not a stop from doing that. And thirdly, they wanna move forward, with respect to the laws, con congressional Trump say, are ineffective to the extent they seek to effectuate a change without an intervening election. So, essentially, this amendment, the court is saying, would have no effect legally, so that we would get a COLA adjustment similar to, and maybe less than, this.
Speaker 11
We're reclaiming my time for a question. So is the court saying essentially that the prohibition for a cola in the language in the ledgeranch bill is actually null because there's not been an interview in an election, and this provision changes our salary?
Speaker 3
Based upon my intensive five minute observation of that, that is the interpretation that I give it on the language that they have here.
Speaker 11
And reclaiming my time, and therefore, a COLA would kick in according to this. Right. Decision because of this language.
Speaker 3
Which provided, which was subsequently found in the Boehner suit not to be a raise. It's an adjustment to keep pay even.
Speaker 11
Thank you. I would yield back unless the gentleman needs additional time, and someone else will need to yield. Before.
Speaker 1
We do that, let me let the chair offer an opinion. It's certainly appropriate. Anybody can yield time, and we can go on as long as you want. I would suggest this. We are going to finish tonight.
So the long, and I know this is a matter of intense interest to everybody. So if you we can talk about it as long as you want to because there's obviously plenty of members to yield time, and, delighted to see that, happens for distinguished member from Maryland. But we don't know anything really about the opinion yet. Probably be better to read it before we sit here and pontificate about it. I would be very careful if I were any of you, because you're in television mode right now.
So I, again, I'm happy to facilitate the discussion as long as my friends and his colleagues care to do that. Would you yield? I will certainly yield him. One second. I would just ask you to try and wrap this up in a reasonable length of time, because we are gonna stay here for the other amendments, which are substantive amendments to the bill, and it's gonna take a lot of time. So with that, I yield. Would somebody yield to my friend so he has time?
Mister Pocan is recognized.
Speaker 3
Mister chairman, I love your advice, and I'm gonna take your advice. I bring it up because I will guarantee you 17 years I have gotten people from my side and people from the other side saying, can't we fix this? We now have a court decision. It's a temporary, I mean, it's not temporary. It's not a full decision on the disposition of the case and the claim, but it is a decision.
And Mr. Clyde and I have had a discussion. I don't think there's any point in bringing this to a vote at this point in time, but I think there is a good point, and we're all thinking about this as to whether or not we think we can continue to reduce the compensation of the members of congress. Some people say, you know, that's a lot of money. I said, well, the job is worth it. If you don't think I'm worth it, get somebody who is worth it.
Everybody in this room works essentially around the clock. Here we are, 8:00. We're gonna be longer. So, mister chairman, if there's no objection, I will withdraw the amendment given the court decision that is gone, but I'll be getting it to he can claim his own time.
Speaker 22
Unless you want a full five minutes or want to stay at midnight, you can have the time right now. I'll give you three minutes and 21 seconds.
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of this amendment, to strike section 210, which is not in compliance with the plain reading of the constitution. It's the same amendment as mine, so I'll speak on this one. I will withdraw lines since it's the same. I think we can all agree that everything that this body does must be measured against the constitution as it is the supreme law of the land.
In 1989, as was mentioned, Congress passed the Ethics Reform Act, which granted Congress an annual cost of living adjustment known as a COLA, meant to adjust for inflation so that the value of congressional compensation would remain the same. Not an increase, but remain the same and not lose value. This COLA from the 1989 Ethics Reform Act was to be capped at the percentage that every other federal employee would receive. In exchange for the annual COLA, all members of Congress were prohibited from earning significant outside income, like speaking fees or other fees that could easily be translated into pay for play arrangements, resulting in potentially tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual income and additional income, especially for more popular or more powerful members. I certainly agree with the prohibition of this type of outside income for members of Congress.
Yet I disagree with the manner in which section 2.10 addresses the COLA. If congress wants to eliminate the annual COLA, congress can certainly do so. But this cannot be done through the appropriations process, constitutionally. When an intervening election has not occurred, that would violate the election clause requirement of the Twenty-seventh Amendment. It must be done through a bill on the House floor that lasts for more than a year.
I firmly believe that the appropriations process is the wrong vehicle for this effort because appropriations bills only last for one fiscal year and must comply with the entire Constitution, including the Twenty-seventh Amendment. So how does section 210 violate the twenty seventh? Well, let's look at it. The twenty-seventh amendment says, and I quote, no law varying the compensation for the services of senators and representatives shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened. This means the twenty-seventh amendment prohibits any law from taking effect that varies congressional compensation without an intervening election of the members of the House.
It is a common-sense amendment originally drafted by Thomas Jefferson in 1789 and meant to ensure members of Congress stay accountable to the American people. Yet an appropriation only lasts for one year, the fiscal year of the appropriation. So if this section is added to the FY '27 appropriation, then per the twenty-seventh amendment, it will have to wait until after the November 2026 election of representatives before it can take effect. But this fiscal year 2027 appropriations bill will take effect on October 1 with no intervening election between this varying of compensation. So to add the COLA amendment through this section, and then to execute on the COLA amendment in the FY '27 appropriations bill on October 1 would violate the constitution.
My opposition to this amendment is intended to guarantee that the twenty-seventh amendment of the, that the FY '27, excuse me, legislative branch appropriations bill remains in accordance with the Constitution. I simply cannot support measures like section 210 that clearly violate the constitution, and I hope that none of you will either. Therefore, I respectfully suggest that we strip section 210 from this bill and do so by approving this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Let me ask a couple of questions to make sure I understand the state of play, and we proceed appropriately. Is the gentleman going to withdraw? I've withdrawn his amendment.
Speaker 1
Okay. So that is taken care of. Is the gentleman withdrawing your amendment? Are there further amendments? An excellent suggestion.
But we do have four, so the gentleman from Maryland is recognized on another amendment.
Speaker 3
I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment you consider the reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 3
Mister chairman, I mentioned this earlier in the evening or in the afternoon. My amendment, I think, right or wrong, that impacts every single one of us who serve here, work here, or visit here because we're being protected by the brave men and women of the US Capitol Police, even while those individuals are missing out on a key benefit enjoyed by many others who serve in law enforcement. I think I mentioned that earlier in my opening statement. Under current policy, none of the overtime worked by US Capitol police officers counts towards base pay for retirement purposes. Because of the shortage we've had, they have been required to work significantly overtime.
My amendment would provide a phase-in of counting overtime toward retirement pay based upon length of service. Already since the January sixth attack on the Capitol, US Capitol Police Force has been losing, and this is the key, dedicated, highly qualified and experienced officers. Why? Because other police departments in the Washington Metropolitan Area do, in fact, count either all or a part of overtime pay in the computation for retirement. Officers can leave for other federal law enforcement agencies and get large signing bonuses and big pay increases.
It's no wonder the US Capitol Police are struggling with recruitment and retention. As they depart, the force has to rely on overtime to close the gap. So the problem compounds itself. Indeed, the fiscal year 26 committee report described the force reliance on overtime, this committee, as dangerous. The text of my amendment was originally introduced as a standalone bill by my friend, our late colleague Jerry Connolly of Virginia, who died recently.
Jerry counted many officers as his constituents, as I do, and he understood their services and sacrifices of our brave US Capitol police officer. And I think I know I do, and I think everybody on this committee understands what they face on a daily basis. During my time as democratic whip and majority leader, I spent every day with them. Many remain dear friends. Now I've had productive conversations about fixing this issue, and I know we are going to keep trying to find a bipartisan solution.
So I'm also, mister chairman, gonna withdraw this amendment because, first of all, it really is an authorizing amendment. But I think that and I hope that the chair of the subcommittee is sympathetic to this issue and will work with us, as I know mister Esbayat, because he has a similar amendment or would have had if I hadn't offered it. And with that, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 3
I'll withdraw the amendment. You know, back the balance of my time. I appreciate that.
Speaker 31
Agree with the sentiments expressed by my friend Mister Hoyer. I spent eight years as majority whip. And, for those eight years, Capitol Police became an extension of my family. Mhmm. Before I came to congress, because of the nature of my work in South Carolina and issues surrounding the discussion of the confederate battle flag, when I spoke out against that flag flying over our state capitol, I was subjected to some pretty violent and virulent, let's just say, which necessitated for my last five years a full time security person.
And when these Capitol Police come into our communities, they're there on Saturdays and Sundays. And I, they go to church with us, other events on weekends, and they accumulate a lot of overtime. And I think it's a shame that none of that overtime can be applied to credit their retirement. Their families suffer through that like we do. And I think that they are entitled to, for consideration, as a contribution to their overtime.
I'm thinking particularly, one Saturday, we were on Interstate 20, and the driver of my vehicle saw an accident in front of us. And this car with a woman and her child in it was smashed, sideswiped, knocked off the highway. That young man ran to that vehicle, drove us up to the back of it, jumped out of the vehicle, dragged the woman through the rear window of her automobile. And when he got her and the child out of the car, the car immediately blew up. Blew.
Speaker 31
And his action that day earned him high praise and a formal presentation of some kind of a hero award from the South Carolina state law enforcement division. Not only was he working overtime, but he was doing heroic work, and it was a Saturday afternoon. His overtime for that day will not be credited to his retirement. There's something that's.
Speaker 31
Fundamentally unfair about that. And so I think that, at some point in time, I know you're withdrawing this amendment, but we ought to give some serious consideration to that, because the way of the world today, every single one of us is subjected to the need of a capital policeman in your town, in your home, sitting in church with you, and they ought to be able to credit that pay toward their retirement. Are you back?
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his remarks. I think now we'd probably move on to the other amendments. Certainly, gentlemen from Maryland's recognized.
Speaker 28
I promise to be very brief. Just a couple of quick points, though. The capital police, as we've heard, aren't eligible for the consideration of the overtime for their retirement compensation determination. All of the executive branches are. So what that means is that we are essentially training these officers to go to work in other police departments.
And the cost of onboarding and training for each of these officers is around $150,000. So instead of training them to help out, you know, MPD or whoever, why don't we train them so we can keep them and benefit fully from the experience and the training that they've received? And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the, I thank the gentleman, and I think the discussion on all those topics was good to have. But, we'll try to return now to our regular process. A gentleman from California, Mister Aguilar, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his amendment.
Speaker 32
Mister chairman, this is a similar amendment that I've offered in the past. As I stated before, I hope my colleagues understand that this is something that I feel passionate about. Many of us here feel that there should be a solution for individuals with DACA status and their employment ability. We talked about this in FSGG. This is a narrow solution that only applies to ledge branch, as we have discussed and debated in the past as well.
This amendment is simple. It would allow individuals with DACA status, 500,000. It would allow them to work for the federal government. Right now, they are prohibited from working for the federal government. This would allow them to work within the legislative branch component for the United States federal government.
If we're going to be a body that is deliberative, I don't think we're there. But if we're going to be a body that is deliberative and we're hearing, then we need voices from all over in order to shape our opinions, to respond to constituents, and to come up with the best policy possible. And that should include a solution to DACA. This isn't an immigration bill. This is a solution that allows individuals with this status to work for the halls of Congress.
It would allow us, rather than the current system right now, where individuals have to be sponsored by other agencies if they want to work in an office and have a fellowship or a program. This would allow individuals directly to work for us, to give us advice on immigration or small business or any topic under the sun, because these are individuals who are US citizens in every way but a piece of paper. Again, I would just implore you, colleagues, I'm not asking for a full solution to immigration policy. What we are asking with this amendment is to allow a pathway for individuals with DACA status to work for the Library of Congress as a researcher, to work as a staff assistant or an LA in your office. That's all this bill does.
It allows, it's a narrow solution that allows individuals with DACA status to work for us here in Congress. This amendment was built, was put in the base bill when Democrats were in the majority. I've offered this when Democrats were in the minority. We had won this amendment last year. We failed at this amendment in the past.
And I think, as I mentioned before, we've tried this amendment before. So there isn't an outcome that can surprise me, mister chairman. But what I'm asking is that we include this in the base language, that we allow individuals with status, with DACA status, to work for the federal government. We're gonna continue to debate the numbers within ledge branch. But as we have done in the past, I think it's an important signal to have a bipartisan solution to this issue that will allow us to go into conference and to have other discussions, realizing that this is something that the time is right to address.
So I appreciate my colleague's indulgence, and I yield back, mister chairman.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlemen, for his remarks. The gentleman from New York, mister Espiace, recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment, as has been said. This amendment has passed in the past. It is a common-sense amendment that would allow young people the ability to work here with us. It's sort of like a pilot project, if you may, right, here in our own house to ensure that we give them the opportunities to move forward.
Now, 91% of DACA recipients aged 25 and older are employed. Many of them contribute to our economy. Congress should really not deny them, these qualified individuals, the opportunity to serve the American people because of their immigration status. This amendment is about fairness, opportunity, and recognizing the contribution of Dreamers, already the contributions they've already made for our country. They are, in many cases, small business owners, homeowners.
They're teachers. They work for communities. Last year, we were able to prove that this can get support from both sides of the aisle. This is, I believe, a bipartisan amendment. Polling shows that the American people feel that it could get support from both sides of the aisle, and I urge all my colleagues to support it, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The gentleman lady from Florida, Miss Washington Scholz, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 11
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support for the amendment offered by my good friend, Mr. Aguilar. This amendment would clear the path for young people with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, status to enter government service in the US Congress. For far too long, dreamers have been barred from public service or, in some cases, even from serving our country, their country, in the military. That exclusion is just plain wrong.
And I've had the honor and privilege to represent Dreamers in my congressional district and host Dreamers interns and fellows in my office. I remember one year I wanted to actually promote a dreamer intern to be my staff assistant and learned then that wasn't possible because dreamers aren't allowed to work for the federal government. I've seen firsthand the immoral and unfair barriers that Congress has put in their way. Why would we keep these young people from pursuing their dreams and giving back to this country, the only home they've ever known? As elected representatives of the American people, we have a duty to make sure that the best and brightest can serve our country.
It is a dereliction of that duty to turn away qualified applicants simply because they are DACA recipients, a lawful status, which is what the current law requires. We have an obligation to provide our constituents and the American people with the best, most effective congressional staff that is available. When I hire a candidate, those are the characteristics I look for: qualified, educated, patriotic. I would hope that that's what my Republican colleagues look for as well. DACA recipients already work as doctors, teachers, lawyers, scientists, and in virtually every professional field there is.
Dreamers represent the ambitious, dedicated people who will strengthen the federal workforce and represent a population that's too often ignored here in Washington. And the same is true in any field. We should break down barriers to employing qualified legal immigrants. It makes us all better off. We should encourage dreamers to contribute to our country, not threaten to kick them out and separate them from the only country and communities that they know.
According to the George W. Bush Presidential Center, not exactly a left-wing source, the United States would lose 460,300,000,000 in GDP over the next decade and pull 685,000 tax-paying workers from the economy if we ended DACA. We should lead by example in the bill that controls Congress's funding. This committee is the proper venue to discuss the status of dreamers, especially why, while a partisan attempt to pump more money into ICE brutality and internment camps takes place just down the hall. For all these reasons, I strongly support the gentleman's amendment. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will remember the dreamers that they have met or represent when casting their vote. I yield back the balance of my time.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. Miss Watson Coleman is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 20
Chairman. Horizon supported the amendment offered by Congressman Ibralar. DACA recipients have been here. They've been raised here. Their life is here.
Their home is here. For years now, they've been able to find jobs, pursue higher education, and strengthen our country's future. Even during the COVID pandemic, recipients provided critical health care services as doctors and nurses who benefited all Americans. If someone is qualified and capable of working in this country, they deserve an opportunity to do so. If they wanna serve by working in public service through the legislative branch, they should be allowed to serve.
In my state of New Jersey, over 25% of the residents were born in another country. Immigrants make our community stronger and are an integral part of our nation's history and progress. DACA recipients deserve an opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their families, and to contribute to a better America. Thank you to Congressman Aguilar for his tireless advocacy on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 32
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I wanna thank my colleagues for their support in this amendment. Some of you colleagues have also actually sponsored individuals who have DACA status, who have worked in your offices, and I appreciate that. Individuals at DACA status pay taxes. They've gone to school here.
They work here. They can own a business in the United States. The question before us is why should they be prohibited from being a staff assistant in this building? Why should they be prohibited from being the clerk of the appropriations committee in a number of years? Not anytime soon, madam clerk.
In years ahead. They should not be prohibited from working in this building because they have this status. This is a small solution that we can address. Let's show people that we can actually get something done. Let's show people that we can do something in a bipartisan way.
I hope that all of us will find a way to be supportive of this amendment. Thank you, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
Speaker 1
The opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call.
Speaker 21
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt, no. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford.
Mister Alford, no. Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday? No. Mr. Spice?
Mr. Bishop? Mister Bishop, I. Mister Calvert. Mister Calvert, no. Mr. Carter?
Mr. Carter? No. Mister Case? Mr Case? I.
Mister Siscamani? Mister Siscamani, I. Mister Klein? Mister Klein, no. Mr. Cloud?
Mr. Cloud? Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyde? Mister Clyde? Clyde?
No. Mr. Cole? No. Mister Cole, no. Mister Cuéar?
Mister Cuéar, aye. Miss Dean? Miss Dean, aye. Mister Lauro? Aye.
Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz Bellart? No. Edwards? Mister Edwards, no.
Mister Elzy, no. Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Esbayat?
Speaker 21
Mister Esbayat, aye. Mister Fleishman? No. Fleishman? Miss Frankel?
Miss Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin? Mister Franklin, no. Mister Guest? Mr. Harter?
Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson?
Missus Henson, no. Mr. Hoyer? Aye. Mister Hoyer, aye. Mister Ivy?
Aye. Mister Ivy, aye. Mister Joyce? Miss Captor. Aye.
Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota? No. Mister Lolota? No.
Miss Lee? Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow? No. Miss Letlow?
No. Mister Levin? Aye. Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy?
Miss Malloy, no. Miss McCollum. Miss McCollum, aye. Miss Ming. Miss Ming, aye.
Mister Molinar. Mister Molinar, no. Mr. Moore. Mister Moore, no. Mister Morelli.
Mister Morelli, aye. Mister Mervann. Mister Mervann, aye. Mr Newhouse. Mister Newhouse, aye.
Miss Perez. Miss Perez, aye. Miss Pingree. Miss Pingree, aye. Mister Pokan.
Mister Pokan, aye. Mr. Quigley. Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rashenthaler, no. Mister Rogers?
Mister Rogers? No. Mister Rutherford? Mr. Rutherford? No.
Mister Shreev? Mister Shreev? No. Mr. Simpson? Mister Simpson, no.
Mr Strong. Mister Strong, no. Mrs. Torres. Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood?
Aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valadayo? Mister Valadayo? Aye.
Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack?
Mister Womack? No. Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke?
Speaker 1
No. Are there any members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentlemen from Mississippi?
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to vote or change their vote? Seeing none, the clerk will tally. In this vote, the ayes are 30, the noes are 32. The amendment is not adopted. General Lady from California, Miss Torres, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 38
Chairman, I ask I have an amendment, and I ask for unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the general ladies are recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 38
Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to require members of Congress to complete their workplace conduct training in person. As you know, pre-COVID, members were required to attend these trainings in person. A temporary change was made to reduce the spread of the virus. But that was a temporary change. Now, even though we are back in the capital and all of our staff have returned to work, we still have this work, we still have this training online.
So we need to cancel that mandate. In-person mandate has to be available. It is in its place. We must sit through a video presentation that you can mute and click through while you perform other business, talking on the phone, watching TV, reading your assignment for the next day. Members are not even required to turn on their cameras.
Let's be honest about what is happening here. Everyone in this room knows there are serious doubts about whether members are even looking at their screens and listening to the training, or even if they are handing their login information to a younger staff to click through the training for them. It is a lazy, irresponsible approach to a very serious issue that continues to plague our work environment. It also shows a complete lack of respect for the hardworking staff in this building who deserve a safe work environment. This is a serious issue.
We have watched our colleagues resign in disgrace over horrific allegations of sexual misconduct and harassment that have dragged on for years. We stood on this floor, expressed our outrage, and promised Americans that we would do better. So if you believe these allegations are terrible, we don't want to hear your script or your talking points anymore. Take action. We can take action today.
This amendment isn't going to solve everything. Abusers may continue to abuse, but it's an easy step that we can take right now to reassure our staff and our constituents that we are serious about promoting a safe and professional work environment for them. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, general lady, for the amendments. My understanding, the general lady from Utah has an amendment in the second degree.
Speaker 1
Okay. We complete the debate on the underlying amendment first, then we'll go to the second. There are other members wishing no. He does not want to address it. Mister, the gentleman from New York.
I'm sorry for the confusion. Mister Espiat is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm proud to rise in support of the congresswoman's amendment. This is a common-sense measure that will require members of Congress to attend a workplace rights and responsibility training in person. Such an important training for a safe work environment, a professional and safe work environment should require members to be in person. The congresswoman's amendment is a reasonable first step on the path of eradicating troubling patterns of behavior in congress.
I am proud to support it and encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. Are there other members wishing to speak on the underlying amendment? Seeing none, the gentle lady from Utah is recognized for an amendment in the second degree.
Speaker 37
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to offer a second-degree amendment. Well, I appreciate my colleague.
Speaker 37
Yes. I would like it to be considered read. Okay. I'll suspend the reading.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the second degree amendment is dispensed with, and the general lady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 37
Thank you. I clearly don't do this very often, but I think this one is really important. I appreciate that my colleague from California is trying to make sure that we take sexual harassment allegations seriously. And so I offer a second degree amendment that instead of mandating in-person training, we support the efforts that are already happening with the leadership in the house, the Republican congressional women's caucus, and the democratic congressional women's caucus to do a comprehensive overhaul of the system. As a former staffer and a current member, I've done this training several times, in person, online, and I just don't think training is going to address the issues that we're actually trying to get at here.
But there is work happening right now. It's moving quickly, and it's got the support of the leadership. It's got the support of women on both sides of the aisle. And rather than take a small step here and make a slight change, I propose that we throw our weight behind that effort, replace the language in the bill, and show that we are taking this seriously. And we wanna make sure that there are sufficient means in place for addressing sexual harassment allegations, and make sure that the staff here feel safe and comfortable in their work environments.
And with that, I yield.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen from New York, actually, mister Eshpiad is recognized if he chooses to address the second degree amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The second amendment is also a worthy one. However, mister chairman, I would support taking into consideration the general woman's amendment from California if she so desires to move forward with it.
Speaker 1
Just to be clear, what we will decide is whether the second degree amendment's accepted, then we'll return it if it is as amended. Or if it's not, we'll just go back to the general lady's amendment. So you've been able to. Does anybody wish to address the amendment in the second degree? General lady from Florida?
Speaker 11
Thank you. Yeah. I'm trying to determine what the thank you, mister chairman. Would the sponsor of the secondary amendment yield for a question?
Speaker 11
Rise and grab a mic. It doesn't appear that your second-degree amendment does anything. It says the committee supports the work of the speaker's office and the bipartisan congressional women's caucus task force to review sexual misconduct procedures in Congress and make holistic recommendations on how to better protect victims and guarantee fair and impartial investigation and accountability. I mean, we all agree with that. But what does that have to do with whether or not we should make sure that when we take the workplace rights training, instead of being distracted by the 6,000 other things that are going on around us, we have to show up in person when we're more likely to pay attention, where we're more likely to be able to absorb the information.
It can be both ends, not either or. Respectfully, what does this amendment actually do except highlight that this work is ongoing?
Speaker 37
So as the committee that funds the legislative branch, we are saying that we, in funding the legislative branch, are supporting overhauling this system. It is already happening. I've been part of building the framework. We're having a meeting thirty-six hours from now to go over this with a bipartisan group. So in talking to the sponsor of the original amendment, she expressed concern that she didn't want to put her weight behind something that would just languish for a long time while we say we're working on it.
I think the bipartisan nature of it ensures that it's going to move in a timely fashion. But I can look around this room today and guarantee you that some people who are here in person are still distracted. So I don't know that having an in-person training is going to solve the problem of people knowing how to respond to sexual harassment or
Speaker 11
We're claiming my time. I'm just not sure what's wrong with an in-person training. And nothing just goes, amendment would be necessary. We can have a second, we can have a language put in the bill. Well, we are here to discuss and debate things.
And so I’m trying to get clarity on what’s wrong with ensuring to take a step forward. We don't know, listen. I've been here a long time, and I've watched processes like the one you're describing take an excruciatingly long time because they deal with consequences to members of Congress. And a lot of our colleagues, speaking as a woman, are not in the habit of really liking to have consequences or to be held to account. So as a result, these processes, like what you describe in your second degree amendment, take a long time when we could actually take a step, a baby step as the author of the underlying amendment says, towards ensuring that at least we're in a small room in front of one another, and we have those workplace rights trainings in person so that we're more likely to absorb them.
It seems like you're trying to throw a wet blanket on the process and just reference a process that's already gone going, but that we have no idea when it will reach a conclusion or its recommendations would even be adopted. And this is an urgent crisis.
Speaker 37
I concur that we need to take a step. I'd just rather take several large steps than one small one, and I yield.
Speaker 3
Thank you so much. It seems to me we have an agreement here. Yes. What if you just struck your first sentence, and then added your language to the amendment?
Speaker 37
I would rather not bind the bipartisan group and the leadership to saying that in-person training is the answer. I'd rather have us be able to look at a framework and come up with things that are innovative. Yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentle lady from California, Miss Torres, is recognized to address the amendment in the second degree.
Speaker 38
Thank you, chairman. Members, we cannot put a band-aid on a crisis. That's not acceptable. We cannot do that. This was the policy.
In-person training was the policy before COVID. Okay? What I'm trying to accomplish here is simply to go back to that policy. We're asking for one hour of your time, one hour to pay attention. And sexual harassment, by the way, as a mother of three sons and two grandsons, is not limited to women.
Women cannot just be the ones at the table making policy on this. It is our responsibility. This issue does not only impact the abuser. It impacts all of us. It gives every single one of us a black eye.
So forgive me if we're in a conundrum is something that is offensive to you. But that is exactly how you sound when you say, let's just push this previous policy aside because it's inconvenient for us to spend one hour together listening, paying attention, and learning about creating a safe environment for our young staff, men and women alike. And with that, I urge support for my amendment, and I yield back to the chair.
Speaker 1
Are there other members wishing to address the amendment in the second degree? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close on her amendment.
Speaker 37
I'll use a mic. Okay. I've said most of what I need to say. I just wanna reiterate that what I want us to do is take a comprehensive look at policies that will make a difference, a bigger difference than attending an in-person training, which I will point out we've had in the past, and we've also had problems in the past. So I wanna try something different to address the problem in a new way.
And with that, I yield.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. The question is now on the second-degree amendment offered by Miss Malloy. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
No. The painting of the chair, the eyes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 21
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aguilar? No. Mr. Alford. Mister Alford, I.
Mister Amaday? Mister Amaday, I. Missus Bice, I. Mr Bishop? Mister Bishop, no.
Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert, I. Mr. Carter? Mister Carter, I. Mr. Case?
Mister Case, no. Mister Siscamani. Mister Siscamani. Mister Klein. Mister Klein.
Mr. Cloud. Mister Cloud, I. Mister Clyburn?
Speaker 21
No. Mister Loro, no. Mister Diaz Belaert. Mister Diaz Belaert, I'm Mister Edwards. Mister Edwards, I'm Mister Elzy.
Mister Elzy, I'm Miss Escobar. Miss Escobar? No. Miss Escobar, no. Mr. Escobar?
No. Mister Escobar? Escobar? No. Mister Fleishman?
Mister Fleishman? I. Miss Frankel? Miss Frankel? No.
Mister Franklin? Mr. Franklin? I. Mister Guest? Mister Guest, I.
Mr. Harder? Mister Harder? No. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris.
Missus Henson? Missus Henson, I. Mister Hoyer? No. Mister Hoyer?
No. Mister Ivy? Mister Ivy, no. Mister Joyce? Mister Joyce, I.
Miss Captor?
Speaker 21
Miss Captor? No. Mister Lalota? Miss Lee? Miss Lee, no.
Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin. Mister Levin, no. Miss Malloy. Miss Malloy, I.
Miss McCullum. Thank you. Miss McCullum, no. Miss Ming. Miss Ming.
Miss Ming. No. Miss Mister Molinar. Mister Molinar, aye. Mr. Moore.
Mister Moore, aye. Mister Morelli. No. Mister Morelli. No.
Mister Mervann. Mister Mervan, no. Mister Newhouse? Mister Newhouse? I.
Miss Perez? Miss Perez, no. Miss Pingry? Miss Pingry? No.
Mister Pocan? Mister Pocan? No. Mister Quigley?
Speaker 21
Mister Rashenthaler. Mister Rashenthaler, aye. Mister Rogers, aye. Mister Rutherford? Mister Shreev.
Mister Shreev, aye. Mr. Simpson. Mister Simpson, aye. Mister Strong, aye. Mister Strong, aye.
Missus Torres? Missus Torres, no. Miss Underwood? No. Miss Underwood?
No. Mister Valadao. Mister Valadao, aye. Miss Wasserman Schultz? Miss Wasserman Schultz?
Miss Wasserman Schultz, no. Missus Watson Coleman. Missus Watson Coleman, no. Mr. Womack. Mister Womack, aye.
Mister Zinke? Aye. Mister Zinke, aye.
Speaker 1
Are there other members wishing to vote or to change our vote? Gentlemen from New York? Yes.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to vote or to change their vote? Seeing none, the corporal talent.
Speaker 1
Gentlelady from Minnesota, vote. Oh, okay. I'm just sorry. On this vote, the ayes are 34, and the noes are 26. So the amendment in the second degree is adopted.
We'll now return to the amendment offered by Miss Torres as amended. Are there any members wishing to seek recognition to speak on that? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 38
Thank you, chairman. I will simply ask for your support, for my amendment, and yield back.
Speaker 1
Question is now on the amendment offered by Miss Torres as amended. All those in favor, say aye.
Speaker 1
Can you hear the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. A gentlelady from California, Miss Torres, is recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 38
And I ask for unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 38
Thank you, chairman. I rise to offer an amendment to increase the size of the ethics committee nonpartisan investigative team. Right now, they are overwhelmed with claims of sexual abuse and misconduct. Let's be clear about who bears the brunt of this unprofessional and illegal behavior. It is the people working in these offices on this campus who are targeted by those abusing their power.
In this committee, we deal with hundreds of billions of dollars at a time. And I am asking for a modest $500,000, that is a rounding effort for us. But it means everything to a victim trying to get justice. It puts four more investigators on the ground to handle the backlog, so victims aren't left unprotected while their case sits idle on someone's desk. We pay for it, we take a very tiny slice out of a 10,000,000 fund meant for upgrading committee rooms.
I think that we can survive with an old carpet if it means that we stop protecting the predators and start protecting our staff and our constituents. To give you a sense of what these investigators are dealing with, I have a few data points for you. In the last congress alone, this investigative team reviewed nearly 1,500,000 pages of documents, conducted more than 100 witness interviews, and authorized 108 subpoenas. We need to stop complaining about how much time an ethics investigation takes, and start taking action to expedite them. Today, we can do our part to help expedite these investigations.
Mister chairman, I ask for support for my amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady, the gentleman from New York. Mister Espiat is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am proud to rise in support of the congresswoman's amendment. Like the congresswoman's initial amendment, this is a basic common sense measure that takes aim at an ethical behavior from certain members of congress and others, which have blemished the institution. A modest $500,000 will boost the ethics committee staff and its investigative capacity. It will make it swift and professional in its approach.
I am proud to support it and encourage my colleagues to do so. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Gentlemen from Mississippi have an amendment in the second degree. We first, we're gonna have others. I just wanted to see.
Speaker 1
Okay. We're continuing to debate the amendment. General Lady from Ohio is recognized.
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, I just rise to ask a question of clarification, and that is, were the general ladies amendment to succeed, and I would support it. My question is, does it cover those who work in these facilities who may not be staff members or members, but rather individuals who clean the facility, individuals who prepare our food, individuals who repair the buildings. How do you define staff?
Speaker 38
This is the staff for the committee, the bipartisan committee to hire investigators. It is not limited to complaints to members of Congress. It is the general staff. Right. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to speak to the amendment? None. There is at the desk an amendment in the second degree offered by Mr. Guest.
Speaker 39
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I rise today to offer a second-degree amendment and would waive the reading of that amendment.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the second degree amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks on his second degree amendment.
Speaker 39
Thank you. First, Miss Torres, thank you for offering your amendment. There is no one on this committee, other than myself, Miss Henson, Mister Ivy, who appreciate your support for additional staff for the ethics committee than the three of us. There have been ongoing discussions with members of the ethics committee and house administration about ways in which we can expedite the increase of staff for the ethics committee. There are, as I understand, funds that the House administration can use immediately to go ahead and increase the funding or the budget of the ethics committee both for FY '26 and FY '27.
And so my amendment is not intended to short circuit what your intent actually, the amendment is to try to expedite it. Your amendment would say that in FY '27 that we're gonna take money that's already been the money from a fund that would be used to update committee rooms and that money would then be allocated to the ethics committee for us to hire additional staff. What does this say? I believe from my conversations that is already well underway, that there exist funding now that house administration can allocate to the ethics committee, that it will allow us to immediately hire staff so that we can address some of the backlog, and that those staffing issues will be made permanent going forward. So, again, I'm not attempting to short-circuit your amendment.
I believe that your amendment is very important as far as providing us the resources that we need. My secondary amendment only asks that we not take the money out of the fund that you have designated, that the money already exists, and that there are processes underway to reallocate those funds and to increase the budget of the ethics committee. Look. And while I've got everybody, I will tell you, and I think Glenn and Ashley will agree that the nonpartisan staff on the ethics committee, they work extremely hard. The reason we have a backlog is not because they don't work hard.
It is because we have more work than we can do and do in a timely fashion. And that certain cases have to be prioritized over other cases. And so that is one of the reasons that in making sure that we conduct thorough investigations that deliver results, and also protect due process. That is one of the reasons that the ethics committee takes as long as it does sometimes to come to conclusions. I have advocated to leadership on both sides that they increase the resources for the committee.
I believe that the secondary amendment that I've offered does that. I believe it's in spirit, Miss Torres, with the amendment that you have offered. And so, I would ask that everyone please consider supporting the secondary amendment, so that we can then move forward for additional staff. And so, with that, Mister Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for his remarks. Stillman from New York. Mister Ascot's recognized to address the amendment in the second.
Speaker 27
Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I arising opposition to this amendment. Once again, the gentlewoman from California has presented a common sense first step, and he will have kicking it back to a committee. Justice delayed is justice denied.
If we need action, the action should begin now, today, tonight. While I do appreciate the spirit of the gentleman's second-degree amendment, the congresswoman's underlying amendment would do just that. It will start to do just that. Why delay it? Why postpone it?
It is imperative that we equip the ethics committee with additional resources that require them to conduct swift investigations, clear the backlog of their docket, and begin to move forward. For these reasons, I respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment and encourage my colleagues to do the same. It is the same strategy used for the previous amendment, and we must move forward. We're in the middle of a crisis and should not ignore it. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to address the amendment in the second degree? Gentlemen from Maryland, Mister Ivy is recognized.
Speaker 28
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm gonna seek clarification from my chairman on the ethics committee about the impact of what his amendment would do. We're just trying to piece it together quickly. But if I'm reading your amendment correctly, it's not, it doesn't subs, it's not a substitute for what hers would do for 2027. It adds a provision for 2026 so that the funding could be used or received now?
Speaker 39
And it wouldn't require that the funding be taken from the category that was identified by Miss Torres. There is already money that can be moved over to accommodate the increase in staff, not only for FY '26, but as I'm understanding from chairman style and others that that funding would continue to go forward. And so it would leave in place the $500,000 that would be taken from renovations. So that money would remain in there, but it would increase the staff of the ethics committee by $1,000,000, which would allow us then to hire four additional staff, likely two lawyers and two investigators. But as far as exactly where those dollars would be spent, that would be for us as a committee to discuss once those funds are appropriate.
Speaker 28
Now. Immediately. And that would not strike her language or her intent with respect to 2027, other than finding an additional source of the revenue.
Speaker 39
Yes. And, again, I appreciate Miss Torres bringing this forward. I appreciate her seeking to increase the budget and the staffing of the ethics committee. This is not a delay tactic. This is me trying to expedite us getting additional resources to the ethics committee, so that we can speed up the investigative process.
Speaker 28
Well, it doesn't sound like a hostile. It sounds like a, you know, a hostile amendment at all. So I think, it's offered in a good spirit that would be helpful to the committee immediately. And as the chairman of the ethics committees pointed out, we could use the help now. We've got a lot of work going on.
To the extent there's been issues with respect to delay in part, that is just the nature of some of these investigations taking a long time, you know, millions of pages to be reviewed. But some of it's staffing and adding two lawyers and two additional investigators or four additional investigators or whatever would certainly be helpful. And some of the comments I've seen from my colleagues who are not on the committee but are expressing concerns about the length of time it takes for something to come through the ethics committee, I think this would be a step in the right direction to help address that. So I would encourage my colleagues, and if you're okay with, to accept the second degree amendment at this time.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentleman. Are there others wishing to address the amendment in the second degree? Someone from New York is recognized.
Speaker 13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the ranking member of the committee on House Administration, I think I would strongly object. No one has consulted those of us on this side of the aisle. I mean, clearly, the dollars are necessary. But I think as we did on member security, where the speaker and minority leader got together and decided how we would increase resources for member security.
And I appreciate the bipartisan support for that. Many of you are taking advantage of that, particularly back in your districts. That money came out of dollars that were identified by the speaker. I would think in this case, if the committee on ethics needs additional dollars, that there are dollars that the house has. Taking it from the committee on house administration, which has important work, without consultation seems to be highly inappropriate, particularly since the speaker is appointed. As I understand her, there's a partnership between members Kamec and Ledger Fernandez as well as the house administration members to come together with a plan.
And it seems to me before we effectuate that, moving dollars from one committee that has important work to another without consultation is highly suspect. So I would urge we not adopt this amendment. I think we should pass Miss Torres' amendment, and the house can certainly find the necessary dollars to do the important work.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen, for your remarks. Are there others wishing to address the amendment in the second degree? If I may, we're going to there's a little bit of confusion here about the exact nature of this. So we're gonna take a recess for about 10 minutes.
Speaker 1
Give our staff an opportunity to clarify that, and then we'll come back and resume consideration at that point. Thank you. Please return promptly in about 10 minutes if
Speaker 1
This, yeah. We're gonna come back into session, if we may. And, wanna recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mister Guest, to discuss his amendment.
Speaker 39
Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. In light of the conversations that we have recently held, I would like to withdraw my second degree amendment.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Now I go to recognize the gentle lady from California, Miss Torres, discuss her amendment.
Speaker 38
Thank you, chairman. In this business, the only thing that we have is our word. Our word is our bond, and I'm committed to continuing this conversation and the work with the chairman of the ethics committee, and I also withdraw my amendment.
Speaker 1
I appreciate both of you, so we can keep moving now. Okay. Gentle lady from California, Miss Torres, is recognized for an amendment.
Speaker 38
Chairman, I have an amendment and ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentlelady is recognized for remarks about her amendment.
Speaker 38
Thank you, chairman. I rise to offer an amendment to require those members of Congress who are under active public investigation. Keyword here, active public investigation by the ethics committee to complete their workplace conduct training in person. So not all of us, but just those who are under active investigation. I will be brief if members are banned from a person in person training.
I think that the people under active public investigation by the ethics committee should need to come in person to do their one hour training. I'll say it again. Talk is cheap. Talk only serves to shield the abusers, and that's what's been going on for years. Here is one concrete action that we can take today.
I urge support, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen from California, Miss Valdeo is recognized to discuss the amendment.
Speaker 33
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, because we've been able to find ways to get along and withdraw the previous amendment on this one, I rise to accept the amendment and, in the good spirit, that we could continue to work together. And this is obviously an important topic. And, I know there's a lot more conversation that needs to be had on this, and I'm glad that the authorizers are doing their part. And I'm glad leadership is involved in this, and this is another opportunity for us to show some good faith.
So I appreciate it, and we accept.
Speaker 1
If there is no further debate, the general lady is recognized for one minute to close. The lady has yielded back. Questions now on the amendment offered by the general lady from California. All those in favor, say aye. Aye.
All opposed, say no. The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment is adopted. A gentleman from California, Mr. Levin, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 14
Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask for unanimous consent that the reading of this amendment be dispensed with.
Speaker 1
Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with, and the gentleman's recognized for remarks about his amendment.
Speaker 14
Colleagues, my amendment does one simple thing. It prohibits the use of the judgment fund to pay elected officials of the United States unless there's a binding order from a court. That's the entire amendment, and I would submit it to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This is not a controversial proposition. It should not be a partisan one.
So let me explain why we need it and why we need it now. The judgment fund is a permanent appropriation. Congress created it in 1956 for a specific and narrow purpose. It exists so that when the federal government loses a lawsuit or settles a claim, the Treasury can pay what is owed without each one of us having to vote on every individual payment. It's not a policy tool.
It's not a campaign account. It's not a discretionary pool for any administration to draw from at will. But that, mister chairman, is exactly what it's becoming. Two days ago, the Department of Justice announced what it's calling an anti-weaponization fund, nearly $1,800,000,000 drawn directly from the Judgment Fund, to be paid out to claimants the attorney general selects by a commission the attorney general appoints and that the president can fire at will. And the processing window closes at the end of 2028 before the next inauguration.
Mister chairman, that timeline alone should give every member of this committee pause. Now DOJ points to something called the Keep Siegel settlement as precedent with respect to the two are not compatible. Keep Seagull was a court-supervised class action. The claimants were a defined group of Native American farmers and ranchers who had pursued their case through the federal courts for more than a decade. A federal judge signed off on the settlement and on who was paid.
What was announced this week is something else entirely. A permanent congressional appropriation repurposed by executive memo with no enabling statute, no eligibility criteria written in the law, no audit requirements, no reporting back to this body, and a commission fireable at the political whim of the very official whose allies stand to collect. I want my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to hear me clearly on this, because I'm asking you to think one administration ahead. Imagine the next democratic president. Imagine that president's attorney general standing at a podium and announcing a $1,800,000,000 fund.
Claimants selected by the AG, commission appointed by the AG, fireable at the president's discretion. Processing window conveniently closing before the next presidential election. Every member on your side of the aisle would be outraged, and you'd be right to be. The structure is the problem, not the party in power, the structure. Last November, some members I'm sure will remember that the Senate slipped a provision into a continuing resolution to allow eight senators to sue the federal government for at least $500,000 apiece in connection with phone records collected during the investigation of the 2020 election.
Members on both sides recoiled. The speaker of the house said he was, quote, very angry, called it self-dealing, said it was way out of line. Other Republican members, maybe one or two in this room, called it, and I quote, stupid, quite honestly, to put that language in the bill. Another said constituents would see it as self-serving, self-dealing kind of stuff. I agreed with every word of that, and this body moved on a bipartisan basis to repeal it.
What I'm offering today is the same principle applied prospectively, so we don't have to do that cleanup again. The judgment fund should not pay elected officials, not Democrats, not Republicans, not the president, not members of Congress, not in this administration, not in the next one, not in any future administration of either party without a court order. This is a guardrail we should have had in place decades ago. If you believe no elected official of either party should be cashing checks written this way out of the treasury with no court order. Vote yes.
One last thing. I wanna be very explicit. My amendment includes an exception if the funds are distributed by operation of a final judgment or other binding order approved or issued by a court of the United States. I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman for his amendment. The gentleman from California, mister Valdeo, is recognized to speak or address the amendment.
Speaker 33
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment eliminates permanently the ability for a current or former president, vice president, or member of congress to settle meritorious claim against The United States. The amendment requires individuals to litigate a claim in court, receive a court judgment, or court-approved settlement of a lawsuit before any compensation can be paid. The amendment as written raises unintended consequences in situations such as the Federal Tort Claims Act. For members who are veterans, if you are a victim of medical malpractice, file a claim against the Department of Veterans Affairs.
This amendment would take away your ability to settle your suit at the administrative stage, a common settlement for the FTCA claims. Instead, this amendment requires the member to file a lawsuit in court and either win the lawsuit or reach a court approved settlement. So I urge a no vote on this amendment, and I yield back. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The gentleman from New York, Mister Espiat, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 27
Mister chairman, thank you. I arise in support of this amendment. Again, this issue was recently elevated, as was mentioned by the sponsor of the amendment, in the United States Senate, where certain members fought to include provisions that would allow them to sue the federal government for $500,000 in connection with past investigative tactics applied to them. Again, this is out of the treasury with no court order, highly irregular, and one that will lend itself to partisan behavior. Whether in one majority or the other, it doesn't make sense.
I ask my colleagues to support the member the amendment, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentleman. The gentlelady from Connecticut, Miss Dolores, to address the amendment.
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment, and I'd like to start with some facts. President Donald Trump has accepted a $400,000,000 luxury airline from a foreign government. He has received over $90,000,000 in settlements from tech and media companies while he occupies the Oval Office, and has influence over critical business deals. And he and his family have pocketed over $850,000,000 from cryptocurrency transactions, many made by people seeking to influence federal policy, including foreign governments.
These are undisputed facts. This week, we are witnessing yet another example of this administration's incessant efforts to enrich President Trump and his political followers. This week, the president's personal lawyer who was currently serving as the acting attorney general took $1,800,000,000 from US taxpayers without an act of Congress or a court order, and intends to enrich the president's friends, allies, and January 6 violent insurrectionists. If you do not believe me, take it from the vice president who said, and I quote, we do have people who are accused of attacking law enforcement officers. That doesn't mean that we are going to completely ignore their claims, end quote.
I guess last week was Police Week. And now that the photo opportunities are done with, why not give a windfall to violent criminals who literally attacked the police here at the US Capitol? I wish that were the end of it. But yesterday, news broke out that as part of this corrupt bargain, the president's personal lawyer has used his position at the Department of Justice to grant lifetime immunity to the president, his family members, and his businesses. A ban on the whole of government, including the IRS, the Department of Justice, and, quote, any and other agencies or departments, end quote, from, quote, prosecuting or pursuing any and all claims, whether presently known or unknown, end quote.
Why bother pardoning yourself when your personal lawyer can abuse his power to do it for you? This week's actions demolish every norm and ethical standard to which elected officials ought to be held, and is a perfect example of why so many people across our country are furious at the people in power right now. The American people are drowning in a cost of living crisis, facing gas at nearly $5 a gallon, ever-increasing grocery bills, and skyrocketing health insurance premiums. Meanwhile, President Trump and his allies are pulling levers to take money from working families and put themselves above the law. They believe that they are beyond accountability.
This cannot stand. This administration cannot be allowed to make and repeal their own laws or draw money from the United States treasury without a bill going through the congress. We must respect the rule of law, or we will have truly lost the soul of our country. Last year, we voted unanimously as a whole house to repeal the disgusting senator payout scheme that was snuck into the legislative branch compromise. We all denied Senator Lindsey Graham the million-dollar payout he publicly stated was in his intention to seek.
What the administration has created this week is another attempt to enrich the president's allies, not with hundreds of thousands of dollars, but with billions. Today, we can say no by adopting our colleagues' amendment. We will not enrich elected officials with windfall payments at the expense of the US taxpayers. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentle lady. The gentle lady from Florida, Miss Ankle, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 24
Well, here we go. My. While Americans are struggling to put gas in their tanks, food on their table, pay their rent, or even see a doctor. Now comes a nearly 2,000,000,000 slush fund to pay off Donald Trump's family, friends, and political allies, including those who criminally attacked our Capitol police and our democracy. And I say, pardon the French, hell no.
Americans need lower costs and honest government, not taxpayers using taxpayer funds for kickbacks to Trump's friends and allies. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, General Lady. General Lady from Pennsylvania. Ms. Dean's recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of the amendment by the good gentleman from California to prevent US electeds, president, vice president, members of congress from receiving a payout from this administration's recently created, with the help of an acting attorney general, 1.7 billion dollar slush fund. This is take money that will allegedly be taken from the judgment fund, which has a legitimate purpose, and put into a slush fund. And that's all the amendment does. This week, the administration announced the creation of what they're calling the anti-weaponization fund, a $1,800,000,000 pool of taxpayer dollars, and established it for a self-dealing settlement of a lawsuit that the president of The United States filed against us, filed against his own IRS, his own government for $10,000,000,000.
Does that not offend anybody in this room? Let me say it again. The president sued over the IRS leak of his tax returns. He had a cause of action there. That cause of action, in terms of who did the leaking, I believe, has been adjudicated.
But what he did was he settled his own lawsuit with himself by directing his own Justice Department, the acting attorney general, to set up this $1,800,000,000 fund. That's not a settlement. It's a slush fund. And who might be eligible? Doesn't this offend anybody in this room?
January 6 rioters. He pardons them, and then he says, you're gonna be entitled to pay. Pay for your violence. Pay for your violence against members of the Capitol Police, members of the Metropolitan Police. Five police officers died, hundreds wounded, many.
God bless you. God bless you and their memories and their service to this capital. I was there on January 6. I would argue to say there were many in this room who were there. It was a trim.
Speaker 15
Yes. I was up in the balcony with you, many of us trapped in the balcony. I heard the banging on the doors. Like others, I struggled to get the damn gas mask out from under my seat. We struggled to open the thing.
We struggled to put it on our heads in disbelief as the center doors were being broken through, as we heard a gunshot, as we were hustled out of the room to we didn't know where, and then held for hours as Americans, incited by their very president, came and attacked the Capitol, leaving massive destruction, shards of glass, splinters. Just a disgusting time. And somehow now, this president wants to change history and say, I pardon all of you, many of whom have now gone on to commit other crimes, grotesque, violent crimes, crimes against children. I pardon you, and now I set up a payout fund for you. This cannot be the America we want to live in.
America demands of us that we in Congress say no. We're not going to trample the rule of law. We're not going to allow the trampling of history this way. The American people elected us to be a check on executive power. That's not just a democratic value.
That's not just a Republican value. That's an American value. That's a constitutional commitment. This bill abandons the responsibility that we are called to. If you have any doubts, I really commend all of you to read this settlement agreement.
I'm a recovering lawyer, but I ain't seen anything like this. This is disgusting. Signed off by the acting attorney general who's actually, as we know, and I've met with him personally. He's acting as a defense attorney for this president to cover up any wrongdoing. And the final thing I would say to you is, why would any president ask for such immunity, for such a waiver of any kind of obligation to file his taxes.
Doesn't the president want to say I'm a proud American? I'm filing my taxes. I pay my taxes, and you have everything here in front of you. But the president never said that. As a candidate for office, I take you back to that.
What did he say when asked for the common courtesy, responsibility, I would believe, to reveal his tax returns? Remember how he started his campaign? I couldn't possibly release them. They're all under audit. So the cover-up continues, and now he has gone so far as to get the Department of Justice in an insider deal to say, mister president and your family, none of us have any right to see what you've done in terms of tax payment.
This is an abomination. We can't be part of it, and the amendment should be passed. I yield.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen from Georgia, Mister Bishop is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 8
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. JJ Hallum wrote, God give us men. A time like this demands strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands, men whom the lust of office does not kill, men whom the spoils of office cannot buy, men who possess opinions and a will, men who have honor, men who will not lie, men who can stand before a demagogue and damn his treacherous flatteries without winking. Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog in public duty and in private thinking. For while the rabble with their thumb worn creeds, their large professions and their little deeds mingle before injustice.
Just as sweeps and waiting, just as sleeps. God, give us men. Give us men that have courage like the gentleman from California, Mr. Levin, to whom I yield the balance of my time.
Speaker 14
I wanna address my friend from California, the chairman. He mentioned the hypothetical of a veteran who's also an elected official and has a claim against the federal government that would be paid out of the Judgment Fund. Is that veteran harmed by my amendment? The answer is no, and I want to explain why. My amendment doesn't turn on who the claimant is.
It turns on how the claim is adjudicated. The amendment requires that any payment from the judgment fund be made pursuant to a final order of a court of record. That's the standard, the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims established by Congress with judges confirmed by the Senate with decisions reviewable by the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court is a national court of record. So every United States district court in which a veteran might bring a Federal Tort Claims Act case, that would apply. So is the court of federal claims for monetary damages against the United States.
If a veteran, whether that veteran is a member of this body or not, secures a final order from any one of those courts, the payment is made. The amendment is satisfied. The check is cut. There is no carve-out needed because there's no exclusion to carve around. What this amendment prohibits is the payment to an elected official that has not gone through that process, a payment authorized by executive memorandum, a payment from a commission appointed by the attorney general, fireable at the president's pleasure, a payment to a member of congress for a claim that no court has ever adjudicated and no judge has ever ordered.
So the veteran who's also an elected official, and we've got some great ones in here. For example, any of our great colleagues who served honorably in uniform and who later have a legitimate claim against the federal government. That member is paid under my amendment. That member's claim, like every veteran's claim, runs through the courts that Congress built to hear it, and the decision of those courts is fully sufficient under this amendment. This amendment simply asks that every elected official, veteran or otherwise, meet that same standard the veterans of this country meet every day.
I yield back.
Speaker 1
Alright. Thanks. Gentlemen and gentlemen from Maryland. Mister Ivy is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 28
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanna make one additional point. To the extent the January 6 defendants are gonna be eligible to recover from this, it is a slush fund. There's really nothing else you can call it. The irony that jumps out at me, in addition to the fact that the way this is set up is Fox guarding the henhouse.
The boss tells, you know, the IRS employees to settle with these guys, and does the Department of Justice who also works for him. And then based on what Blanche said, they could be making payouts to January 6 defendants or pretty much anybody else they decide they wanna pay it to because he's gonna put a board together who would make the decisions. Not an independent board, not an objective board, not a board of judges, just several people that he picks. But the irony for me here is you could have January 6 defendants coming forward to allege that they deserve some kind of payment for injuries. But these guys were ordered to pay restitution to the people who they injured on January 6.
Some of those were cops. Some of those were other people. Some of those were about the damage that was caused to the building that day. Some of it was fines. But when he pardoned them, all the restitution payments and the fine payments went away.
So there's millions of dollars that these guys, in addition to getting out of jail for free, millions of dollars in restitution that they don't have to pay. By the way, that's true for some of the other pardons that he made as well. Billions of dollars that fraudsters got away with having to pay restitution for, all wiped away by the pardons. The irony here is not only do they get that wiped away, so they don't have to make the restitution payments or the fine payments that were ordered by a court. And by the way, all this stuff about the weaponization and everything, 1,500 plus of these guys, most of them pleaded guilty.
And when you plead guilty in federal court, what that means is you write out an affidavit that says you did it. And then when you stand before the judge, you raise your hand and swear under oath that you did it. And if you won't do that, you don't get to plead guilty. You go to the trial. So they're saying they didn't actually do it, but they all swore under penalty of perjury that they did it.
Others went to trial. They were convicted by juries of their peers, who found that they did it. And then under either circumstance, there's a judge who reviewed it and said, yeah. You did it. And not only did you do it, you did it as a very serious criminal act or series of criminal acts that you committed.
And they sent many of them to jail, some of them for years. So the fact that they could come out of this potentially not having to pay restitution to people that they injured and get a judgment from the United States taxpayers for having committed the crimes but done nothing to deserve it and receiving no injury. Because the injury of this stuff about, you know, they were mistreated by the system, give me a break. If these guys got justice, if you wanna find some people who don't get justice, pick a court any day here in The United States. You can find low income people who can't just barely get a yeah.
That happens. They're not gonna get any money out of this fund, though. I guarantee you that. So I support this amendment. I gotta say it's one of these things where I never would, I just don't have the mind to have figured out this circuitous path around the law to actually pay off people who committed crimes like this.
And you're gonna have your attorney general. Unthinkable. If I think of if Barack Obama had Eric Holder do this. Wouldn't y'all be going crazy about it? I mean, right?
I mean, you'll think about it. So no president, even Nixon, wouldn't have done this. Nixon and John Mitchell wouldn't have done this. In fact, to the extent they were doing stuff like this, they tried to hide it. Not these guys.
Not these guys. So let's vote for this amendment. Clearly, as Mister Levin pointed out, there's no injury to veterans or anybody like that. And, also, I think Mister Levin pointed out, there's a process for people to get judgments from the United States that thousands of people go through day in and day out. It's not the easiest process.
Maybe it's not the best process, and it certainly isn't the fastest process. But these people that they're talking about giving this money to, they certainly don't deserve expedited treatment, and they certainly don't deserve $1 of American taxpayer money. And with that, I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Gentlemen from Maryland. Other gentlemen from Maryland. Mister Hoyer is recognized.
Speaker 3
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would ask my Republican friends who I think are thinking you're not gonna vote for this amendment. I want you to try to put in your mind for just a minute if this is what Joe Biden had done. My supposition is we could not contain in this room the anger and the outrage of this conduct. Too often, all of us too often, sort of situational ethics apply that if it's our guy, well, we'll rationalize it.
The other guy will really go after him. Sanford Bishop read a very powerful quote. On our side of the aisle, we think our fundamental rights are at risk. That's what we believe. We partially believe that because every day we see evidence of the erosion of justice, honesty, and constitutional conduct.
And as a result, we wonder why are people who we know good people? Where is their outrage? The president said he wanted to drain the swamp. My view is he excreted a sewer. Of criminal activity, of self-aggrandizement, of self-help wealth.
If Joe Biden had accepted a $400,000,000 plane, you would have been through the roof. Last night, I was thinking of, as I watched the news, my wife had a book on the coffee table. It's Ken Burns' discussion about the revolution. It was a great show, great movie. And I thumb through it, and there was a quote from Thomas Paine.
And every one of us ought to take this seriously. The quote by Thomas Spain was, man finds himself changed and discovers that the strength and powers of despotism consist wholly in the fear of resisting it. And that, in order to be free, it is sufficient that he wills it. No despotism came to power proclaiming that’s what it intended to do. I was chilled when Donald Trump said to a large audience, elect me, and you won't have another election.
Did he mean it? I don't know. Ladies and gentlemen, we have to bring some honesty and common sense to our deliberations and to our protection of our democracy. Joe Welch said to Joe McCarthy many decades ago, senator, do you have no shame? Look.
I count on you. I have 17 grandchildren. Well, I have four great grandchildren. They need your help. They need all of us to ensure that their democracy is not at risk for the guys that the president said stand back and stand by, that he now wants to make sure are not guilty of what he urged them to do, and that there is a fund, perhaps, to pay them.
Perhaps a private army to be deployed down to the white, to the capital, to fight like hell. Ladies and gentlemen, on both sides of the aisle, I hope we summon the courage, the conviction, and the honesty to make sure that our government doesn't go this way.
Speaker 1
Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? General Lady from Maine is recognized.
Speaker 26
Chair. Very proudly in support of this amendment, and I yield my time to the gentleman from California.
Speaker 14
I thank my good friend, and I wanna do something that I think we do not do very often around here. I wanna invite anyone in here to make a substantive argument against this amendment. I've laid out what this amendment does. I heard one potential argument. I refuted it to the best of my ability.
So I'll say it again. If any member in the committee has a legal argument against the amendment before I close, I'd like to hear it right now. Miss Pingree, perhaps you'd be willing to yield the rest of this time to any member of this committee who'd be willing to make a substantive legal argument against this amendment.
Speaker 23
Thousands of disputes are settled by meeting between the parties and working out a dispute. The only thing you have going for you in this to make it look like something bad is that it was settled by someone who was appointed by the president to be his attorney general of the United States.
Speaker 23
Which I have heard that man say he does not work for the president. He works for the United States of America. I heard him less than two days ago say that on television. Okay? It had nothing to do with what you argue here.
But without that argument, you have no case. Because anybody can settle anywhere they want to, and it doesn't even have to go to a court. If they do, if they have a dispute and they choose to settle it, they can settle it. Now that's a fact. So the only issue you've got is you're saying his lawyer was actually it, yeah.
Like, it was his personal lawyer.
Speaker 23
And that's the only issue you've got. The other issues are all automatically done. I can tell you that Exxon settled Exxon Valdez for billions of dollars, and I actually have seen all the evidence that would fill this room, and it was never done by court. So you gotta realize this settlement, and you know this because you're a lawyer. Yes, sir.
Settlement can be done anytime, any day, by two parties who are willing to agree. And your only issue is you're saying the attorney general who was representing the attorney general will represent anyone in this room if necessary. Because he's the attorney general of the United States, and it involves our fed us being involved with the federal laws. So he did nothing wrong except you're saying it because he was appointed by the president. Makes sense.
He was number two man in the department. It wasn't like he was somebody weird. That's the guy you should have appointed. And it's temporary. He still can appoint another one.
So you've taken a settlement that two parties made, and the only issue you have is that the president was represented by the attorney general, and he could've fired him.
Speaker 28
Just one quick point. Two private parties could certainly settle without going to court. The United States of America cannot. So when you're settling with tax dollars, you can't just do it on the side. And keep in mind what is missing here.
Any kind of indication that there's a legitimate basis for settling with these guys. In other words, I'll say it this way, it was a frivolous lawsuit that would have been thrown out under other circumstances. There's no legitimate bay, yeah. There's no legitimate basis for paying these people. They haven't even named who the actual plaintiffs would be to get the money for the settlement. Right?
So in a normal scenario, let's say, a class action case, the judge would determine who's eligible to be paid. And then they would determine who's in that before they made the payments, so you don't exhaust the funds in the fund and leave somebody out who's a legitimate claimant.
Speaker 23
So that case was before the court. This case was before a court. Somebody filed a lawsuit. Right?
Speaker 23
Okay. They settled it. If you didn't then write your amendment that says, go before the judge and get it approved.
Speaker 28
The judge didn't want to approve this. Right? That's they went around it with the settlement. That's why they did it that way. Yeah.
Right. So the judge, if they tried to go and settle this through a judge under normal circumstances, he would have rejected the settlement.
Speaker 23
Well, we don't know that. We don't know that. You're telling me a lot of outside stuff that doesn't fit. I'll yield it to you. Okay?
Speaker 23
Think it should be there. They make your amendment before you spend the money. Well, before.
Speaker 1
Lady's time who facilitated the debate has expired. Well, are there any other members wishing to address the amendment? Gentlelady from Nevada is recognized.
Speaker 14
I thank my good friend from Nevada. First of all, I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from Texas who has decades on the bench. I won't pretend to have forgotten more about how these things work than I remember from my years of practice. But I will say in this particular instance, you know, you had a judge involved who, you know, basically was trying to adjudicate whether the DOJ in this instance could settle, you know, with the plaintiff because of that inherent conflict of interest that agreed. And the acting attorney general, as we all know, was the former criminal-defense attorney for the president.
You know, my reaction, judge, is it's correct that thousands of claims against the federal government are settled out of court every year. Those judge the settlements are routinely paid from the judgment fund. But the difference is that every one of those settlements arises from an actual claim filed through an established process, adjudicated or negotiated by career officials operating under statutory authority, with documentation on the record, with a defined legal basis for the government's liability. There's a claimant. There's a claim.
There's a process. There's a public record. What was announced on Monday is none of those things. It's a permanent appropriation tapped by executive memorandum. It's administered by a commission that the acting attorney general appoints, that the president can fire.
It plan pays out to claimants the executive branch itself selects. It operates with no enabling statute, no eligibility criteria written in the law, no defined legal basis for the United States' liability to any particular individual. It's not a settlement process. It's a payment program created by Memo. It's an inherent conflict of interest.
And, respectfully, I would ask if to my dear friend from Maryland, if Joe Biden had done this or my other dear friend from Maryland, if Barack Obama had done this, what would your reaction have been? And when you have a president who sues his IRS, settles with his DOJ. There's this look. You all know how this looks. We can debate this back and forth all day long.
I think I'm right on the facts and respectfully judge on the law here as well. But the real court that we all have to be concerned about is the court of public opinion. And this smells bad, and it looks bad. And that's why this past November, very similar situation. I would argue this is worse.
Senators were gonna settle for half 1,000,000. Lindsey Graham and all the rest of them, half $2,000,000. And they walked it back, and Mike Johnson, Speaker Johnson, decided to walk it back because of the court of public opinion. So I would ask you to think long and hard about this before trying to, you know, find a rationalization for what is so clearly and unequivocally a misuse of taxpayer money. And I yield back to my friend from Nevada.
Speaker 8
Isaiah 59, chapter 14. So justice is driven back, and righteousness stands at a distance. Truth has stumbled in the streets. Honesty cannot enter. Truth is nowhere to be found, and whosoever shuns evil becomes a prey.
The Lord looked and was displeased that there was no justice. He saw that there was no one. He was appalled that there was no one to intervene. This committee and this Congress should intervene. I yield back.
Speaker 30
Thank you. Judge, did you want to speak? Okay. I'm finished. You wanna do you have anything to okay.
Speaker 14
One last thing. I thank my friend from Nevada. So just to put the facts out there, the president sued the IRS. He sued the Treasury Department. He sued agencies that report to him.
He sought $10,000,000,000. The Justice Department that represents those agencies was negotiating a settlement with the president's personal lawyers on behalf of agencies the president himself directs. The federal judge presiding, judge Kathleen Williams of the Southern District of Florida, looked at that arrangement and raised exactly the question that any honest person would raise. She asked whether the parties were even sufficiently adverse to one another to satisfy article 3 of the constitution. She questioned whether there was a real case or controversy at all.
She admonished the DOJ for refusing to share the terms of the settlement with the public. And in her order of dismissal, she made clear that the government had not submitted the kind of documentation that would ordinarily allow a court to assess whether a settlement is appropriate. And I yield back.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise to support my colleague's amendment, and I appreciate the back and forth about the legal aspects of all of this. But this is really fundamentally a very simple question and a very simple issue. I don't know if when you all heard the news about this settlement, and actually, we can go further back than that. When the president decided to sue the federal government to try to extract money from the federal government for himself, I don't know about you all.
I found that shocking. I cannot imagine a public servant attempting to enrich themselves while serving the government that they have taken an oath to. That was shocking in and of itself. But then when we learned not only about this settlement, but the amount which was also just incredibly offensive, dollars 1,776,000,000, intended to evoke some sort of patriotism in order to funnel money to criminals. Criminals.
My colleague earlier from Pennsylvania talked about January 6. These are people who assaulted Capitol police officers who now want a payout, and they're already lining up for it. The Proud Boy leader, Enrique Tarrio, he was sentenced to 22 years for seditious conspiracy over the January sixth insurrection. He announced he is planning to apply for this fund, and he is expecting to get between $2,000,000 and $5,000,000. There's the other interviews, other insurrectionists who have come forward. There's one insurrectionist who's already announced also that he intends to ask for 30,000,000.
This really is fundamentally a question of right and wrong. And we know what is right. We know what is wrong. And we know this is really wrong. We also know the Senate is already looking at ways to curb or eliminate this.
And I'm talking about Senate Republicans. So there is a recognition that this is very wrong. We can and should do something about it via this committee, via this bill. We have an opportunity to do something about it. If those individuals who are looking to cash in feel they have a claim, they should file a claim, and they should go through a legal process.
This is not a legitimate process. This is not a fair process. This is not an honest process. This is not a correct process. And I think we all know this.
I know we all know this. The question is whether we will openly try to stop this very wrong thing from happening, and we should. It's our job. Thank you, Mr. Levin, for bringing forward this amendment. If you need any more time, I'm happy to yield you more time.
Alright. Mister Bishop would like some more time, mister Bishop.
Speaker 8
Truth forever on the scaffold. Wrong forever on the throne. Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dem unknown standeth God within the shadow keeping watch above his own. We are the watchmen. We are the protectors of the American people.
This is a good amendment, and we need to stand our watch and stand it well. I urge the passage of this amendment.
Speaker 29
Thank you, Mr. Bishop. I too urge the passage of this amendment. We all know the difference between right and wrong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, lady. Are there other members wishing to speak to the amendment? They are just seeing none, the gentleman's recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 14
I'll just say this directly. Going back to November, you knew how it looked. You knew how it smelled. You knew what your constituents would say when they saw US senators with their hands in the treasury, and it was walked back. What was announced this Monday is far worse structurally and substantively, and I think privately many of you know it.
Nearly $1,800,000,000 of commission. The president can fire a window that closes before the next inauguration. No statute, no audit, no reporting to this committee. The precedent we set today will outlast this administration. It'll outlast the next one, and whoever sits in the Oval Office four years from now or 8 years from now, they're gonna reach for that precedent. So I'm asking you to do something that I know is not easy.
I'm asking you to distance yourself from this. I'm asking you to join a number of Senate Republicans and even some House Republicans I saw today, at least a few, who are willing to draw a line in the sand on this and to stand up for accountability. That accountability should apply to all of us. I hope you vote yes. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. The opinion of the chair, the noes have it. A roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. The clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 21
Mister Aderholt. Mister Aderholt, no. Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar, aye. Mister Alford?
Mister Alford, no. Mister Amade? Mister Amade? No. Mr. Spice?
Mr Bishop? Yes. Mister Bishop, aye. Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert?
No. Mr. Carter? Mr. Carter? No. Mr Case?
Mister Case, I. Mister Siscamani. Mister Klein. Mister Klein. No.
Mr. Cloud. Mister Clyburn, I. Mister Clyde. Mr. Clyde? No.
Mr. Cole? No. Mister Cole? No. Mister Cuellar?
Miss Dean? Miss Dean, aye. Mister Lauro? Aye. Mister Lauro, aye.
Mister Diaz Bellart? Mister Diaz Bellart? No. Mister Edwards? No.
Mister Elzy. Mister Elzy, no. Miss Escobar. Miss Escobar, aye. Mister Esbayat?
Aye. Mister Esbayat, aye. Mister Fleishman? Mister Fleishman? No.
Miss Frankel? Miss Frankel, aye. Mister Franklin? Mister Franklin, no. Mister Guest?
Mister Guest? Mister Guest? No. Mr. Harter? Mister Harter, aye.
Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris? No. Missus Henson? Missus Henson?
No. Mister Hoyer?
Speaker 21
Mister Hoyer, I. Mr. Ivy. Mister Ivy, I. Mr. Joyce? Mister Joyce?
No. Miss Captor. Ay. Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota?
Miss Lee. Miss Lee, aye. Miss Letlow. Mister Levin? Aye.
Mister Levin, aye. Miss Malloy? Miss Malloy? No. Miss McCullum?
Aye. Miss McCullum, aye. Miss Ming? Aye. Miss Ming, aye.
Mister Molinar? Mister Molinar? No. Mr Moore?
Speaker 21
Mr. Moore? No. Mister Morelli? Aye. Mister Morelli?
Aye. Mister Mervan? Mister Mervan? Aye. Mister Newhouse?
Mr Newhouse? No. Miss Perez? Miss Perez. Hi.
Miss Perez, I. Miss Pingree. Hi. Miss Pingree. I.
Mr. Pocan. Mr. Pocan. I. Mister Quigley. Mr. Quigley.
I. Mister Russenthaler. Mister Russenthaler. No. Mister Rogers.
Mister Rogers. No. Mr. Rutherford. Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev.
Mister Shreev, no. Mr. Simpson? Mr. Simpson? No. Mister Strong?
Mister Strong? No. Missus Torres? Aye. Missus Torres, aye.
Miss Underwood? Aye. Miss Underwood, aye. Mister Valladeo? No.
Mister Valladeo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz?
Speaker 21
Missus Watson Coleman, aye. Mister Womack? Mister Womack? No. Mister Zinke?
No. Mister Zinke? No.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to vote or change their vote? Gentlemen from Texas.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to vote or change their vote, seeing non clerical tally. On this vote, the ayes are 27. The notes are 32. The amendment is not adopted. General lady from Pennsylvania, Miss Dean, is recognized for the purpose of an amendment.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, and I ask that my amendment be read.
Speaker 21
An amendment offered by Miss Dean in the report at the appropriate place. Insert the following. January 6 exhibition. The committee directs the architect of the Capitol to develop and install a display or exhibition within The United States Capitol Complex documenting the attack on the Capitol on 01/06/2021, incorporating damaged artifacts currently in the AOC's possession, photographic records, and other relevant materials. The architect shall consult with the House and Senate curators to ensure a comprehensive presentation drawing upon artifacts held across all relevant custodians.
Not later than 180 days after enactment of this act, the architect shall submit to the committees on appropriations of the House and Senate a plan for the exhibition, including a proposed location, artifact inventory, installation timeline, and any other funding requirements.
Speaker 15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for the reading of the amendment, just to see how very clear it is. I notice in here we disagree about what happens on different days in our history, but I think we can all agree January 6 did happen, and it is a part of our history. I've long thought, after the damage, destruction, and chaos of that day, that it was swept up so quickly that maybe we should have pondered a little longer to take a look at what actually happened that day. It is part of our history.
You know, as we waited for hours, as Capitol police held off what can only be described as a medieval mob, Americans using the American flag and Trump flags to beat and batter Capitol police, to stalk members of Congress, to threaten to hang Mike Pence. I remember thinking, don't fix this too quickly. Leave something here so that the American people will see what happened here. Let America bear witness as it did, because television didn't lie. But, of course, the glass was swept up by very faithful custodians.
The windows were replaced by very capable craftsmen. The doors were rehung. We have a country to govern. I understand that. But I am grateful that the architect of the capital had the foresight to set some of those broken pieces aside and not discard them.
I've met with the architect of the capital, two different architects of the capital over the course of these last few years to make this pitch, save this stuff, catalog it, make an exhibition so that visitors of this capital can see what happened on that fateful day, to see that Americans attacked this institution, incited by a president who was very upset that he lost an election. Broken glass, damaged doors, pieces of shutters from the Senate, the connecting corridor. Some are catalogued. Some are in storage. I have documentation from the architect of the Capitol, because here's what I know.
History doesn't preserve itself, and we have an administration that is doing everything in its power to erase history, to whitewash history. Think of the discussion we just had. Violent criminals pardoned and now offered pay. Think of that, the whitewashing of history, an attempt to forgive oneself, perhaps for one's role in what happened here. We've watched efforts to minimize, to sanitize, to erase.
But I believe it is important that we record that painful day, and that when people visit this capital, they will see what happened. And they will see, most importantly, that the people who came in that day were not successful. They wanted to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power. And while they interrupted peacefulness, they did not interrupt the proper and constitutional transfer of power. The architect of the capital remains ready to assist in the preservation of related, and any related efforts that Congress wishes to pursue.
That is their job. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. For the officers who defended us and this building, for the staff who were terrorized along with us and tried to shelter in place, for every American who deserves to know the truth about their democracy and what it has endured and what it has survived, and what I hope someday, somehow, will make us stronger. I wanna close with the group I've thought of very often, and that is our custodial staff. As we were huddled in a safe room for hours, and we said, we're going back to the floor.
They will not defeat us. They will not run us out of this building. Who had to do the cleanup? The custodians, the members of all our crews. I think of them cleaning up broken glass, shards of wood, feces spread on the floor and the walls of this place.
I think of their feeling of duty. We should have that same sense of duty to clean this place up, to preserve for all of history and for all who visit here what they did. They brought back the beauty of this place. So I ask you to consider my amendment. I ask you to vote for this amendment so that history cannot be whitewashed, and so that we will prevail and show that democracy prevailed.
I yield.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Gentleman of California is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 33
Hey, mister chair. I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mister chairman, the AOC needs to remain laser-focused on the completion of the new screening facility for security purposes and prioritize the renewal of the Rayburn House Office Building. This adds another task. And right now, I just don't know if they have the resources for urgent no vote on the amendment. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you. The gentleman from New York, mister Espiat, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in support of this amendment. It took us 4 years, right here in this committee. It took us 4 long years to finally get the installation of a plaque quietly. It was installed in a somewhat obscure, hidden hallway.
Speaker 27
In the middle of the night. For the men and women who protected all of our lives. They didn't ask whether we were Democrats or Republicans. They didn't ask whether we were from blue states, red states, or purple states. This supported all of us and served many of our lives.
And yet it took four years to fight for this plaque to be installed in the middle of the night. In a place where I think many of us here, many other people here don't know exactly where it is or maybe haven't seen the plaque itself. And so I think this is a fitting measure, an exhibit that will highlight the courage of the men and women on that dreadful day,
Speaker 27
Properly done to acknowledge them permanently. Not in the middle of the night. Let's do it on a sunny day, where everybody can see. Let's do it openly in an open space where children and families could come and see. The families must be aware of the good and the bad of our history.
It is important that to prevent the bad from occurring again that they know it. And so this is a very good amendment, a timely amendment. I commend the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, and I encourage all my colleagues to vote in support of it. I yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank you, gentlemen. I recognize the gentlelady from Ohio, Miss Captor, to discuss the amendment.
Speaker 4
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong support of the amendment from my friend, Congresswoman Madeline Dean, and thank her for her leadership. One can try to rewrite or deny history, but truth will out. On 01/06/2021, the hallowed grounds of The United States Capitol and our very system of governance that has sustained our country for nearly two and a half centuries came under attack. How do I know this?
I was trapped for most of the day and evening in the Capitol on that fateful day, just as a few who remain in this room were subjected to such chaotic destruction. While history can often be framed as events which happened decades to centuries before our lifetimes, it is also being made every single day. While this attack happened just over five years ago, it is still a critical moment in our nation's history and, frankly, for those of us who were present in our own lives. We remember the chaos, the harm, the tear gas, the shouting, the uncertainty, the throwing of furniture, the release of tear gas, and the gunshots. Ice was sitting right above where that happened.
I'll never forget that. It is necessary we set up remembrance of this event in this beloved chamber when it is still fresh in our minds and the nation's mind, and those who lived it and survived it and are still with us, so that it can be captured, discussed, and portrayed accurately. Many of us wrote extensive remembrances of that fateful day, and I would like to know where those are archived and available. In part, this is why I supported and fought for sixteen years for the creation of the World War Two Memorial in this capital and along the nation's Mall. 100000000 people have now visited that memorial as a tribute in that sacred space to the greatest generation.
I was lucky to work with the people who fought in and lived during World War II. I'll tell you what. I miss every one of them. That war shaped me. It shaped the globe in which we live for all the following decades.
Now as fewer members of the Greatest Generation continue to walk with us, we treasure the exhibits and their teachings to help guide those of us who follow in their stead. These stories and our story must be saved so they can be passed down from generation to generation. The same approach must be taken for the 01/06/2021 attack on this historic house complex, incorporating an exhibit in the US Capitol Building where the flag flies highest in this nation's Capitol, higher than the White House, higher than the Supreme Court. Here, it creates an educational opportunity for all who visit, all the school children who visit each year. A responsible exhibit also demonstrates a sense of responsibility, ownership, and recognition for our country's challenges to liberty.
Showing all Americans in our capital's international visitors that we are not hiding or covering up our difficult history, even the uncomfortable blemishes and troubling memories. The capital is full of museums and memorials acknowledging so many different types of complicated moments in our nation's history. 01/06/2021 Surely needs to be one of them. I know the architect of the Capitol and the Smithsonian have collected many artifacts from that day. We should responsibly help give them a permanent home here in these hallowed halls.
We cannot be ashamed of what happened, but we must recognize it for what it was. May I encourage all of my colleagues to remember the events of that day, support this amendment to ensure that we remember and learn from it, and do not allow that lawless history to repeat itself. We owe it to the American people and to those who will follow us. Thank you, and I yield back. Support the amendment.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 1
I'm sorry. I did not see my friend from Georgia. Gentleman from Georgia is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 8
Your children shall ask their fathers in time to come, saying, what mean these stones? Then you shall let your children know, saying, Israel came over this Jordan on dry land. This exhibit will allow generations to come to know how the people's house was held hostage and attacked by an insurrection, and how our democracy was saved on January 6. How, after twelve hours, we were able to resume the people's business and have a peaceful transition of power following an election. What do these stones mean?
Pass this amendment. It's good for the American people because he or she who does not remember their history is doomed to repeat it. You're back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlemen. Are there other members wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the gentleman is recognized for one minute to close.
Speaker 15
Well, I don't think I can beat the eloquence of my colleague, mister Sanford. But I will just say by way of procedure and facts, I met with the architect of the capital, mister chairman, several times, in May '24, again in February '25. In between, I asked for a catalog of that which they had, and he gave me a partial listing. And he closed his letter like this. The architect of the capital is always prepared to assist in any commemorative or preservation related effort that the congress wishes to pursue through these channels.
I believe we should pursue it because it will not just be the story of destruction, attack, and brutality. It will be the story of democracy prevailing. We should make sure we preserve that by way of an exhibition. I yield.
Speaker 1
Thank the general, lady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the general lady from Pennsylvania. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no.
No. Opinion of the chair, the noes have it. Roll call has been requested. Sufficient support has been demonstrated. Clerk will call the roll.
Speaker 21
Mister Aderholt, Mister Aguilar. Mister Aguilar, aye. Mr. Alford. Mister Alford, no. Mister Amaday.
Mister Amaday, no. Missus Bice? Mr Bishop? Aye. Mister Bishop, aye.
Mister Calvert? Mister Calvert? No. Mr. Carter? No.
Carter? No. Mister Case? Mister Case? Aye.
Mister Siscamani? No. Mister Cline? Mister Cline? No.
Mister Cloud? Mister Clyburn? Mister Clyburn, aye. Mister Clyde? Negative.
Mr. Clyde? No. Mister Cole? No. Mister Cole?
No. Mister Cuéar? Mister Cuéar, aye. Miss Dean? Miss Dean, aye.
Mister Lauro? Aye. Mister Lauro, aye. Mister Diaz-Bollart? Mister Diaz-Bollart, no.
Mister Edwards? Mister Edwards? No. Mister Elze? Mister Elze?
No. Miss Escobar? Miss Escobar? Aye. Mister Esbalat?
Aye. Mister Esbalat, aye. Mister Fleishman? Mister Fleishman? No.
Miss Frankel? Ay. Miss Frankel? Mr. Franklin? Mister Franklin?
No. Mister Guest? Ay. Mister Guest? No.
Mr. Harter? Ay. Mister Harter, aye. Doctor Harris? Doctor Harris?
No. Missus Henson? Mister Hoyer? Aye. Mister Hoyer, aye.
Mister Ivy? Aye. Mister Ivy, aye. Mister Joyce? Mister Joyce?
No. Miss Captor? Aye. Miss Captor, aye. Mister Lolota?
Miss Lee. I. Miss Lee, I. Miss Letlow. Mr. Levin.
I. Mister Levin, I. Miss Malloy. Miss McCollum? I.
Miss McCollum, I. Miss Ming? I. Miss Ming, Mister Molinar. Mister Molinar, no.
Mister Moore? Mr. Moore. Mister Moore, no. Mister Morelli. Mister Morelli, aye.
Mister Morvan. Mister Morvan, aye. Mr. Newhouse. Mister Newhouse, no. Miss Perez.
Miss Perez, I miss Pingree. Miss Pingree, I, mister Pokan. Mister Pokan, I, Mister Quigley. Mister Quigley, I, mister Russian. Mr Russian.
No. Mister Rogers? Mister Rogers? No. Mister Rutherford?
Mister Rutherford, no. Mister Shreev? Mister Shreev? No. Mr. Simpson?
Mr. Simpson? No. Mister Strong? Mister Strong? No.
Missus Torres? Aye. Missus Torres, aye. Miss Underwood? Aye.
Valladeo? No. Mister Valladeo? No. Miss Wasserman Schultz?
Aye. Miss Wasserman Schultz, aye. Miss Watson Coleman? Aye. Missus Watson Coleman, aye.
Mister Womack? Mister Womack, no. Mister Zinke? Mister Zinke, no.
Speaker 1
Are there any members wishing to vote or to change their vote? Gentlemen from Alabama?
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to vote or to change their vote? Say non-clerical tally. On this float, the ayes are 28, the noes are 34. The amendment is not adopted. Gentle lady from Washington is recognized for the purpose of the amendment.
Speaker 1
Okay. Without objection, the reading of the amendment is dispensed with. The gentlelady is recognized for remarks on her amendment.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is clearly a very divided and dark time in our country, and it's often easy to get dragged down in this and focus on it. And I would encourage us all to say that there are beautiful things in this country worth fighting for and upholding, and it is far too easy to focus on the broken things and not the things worthy of praise. Whatever is good, whatever is just, that is true. Meditate on these things.
And I believe that quilting is one of those things. How many of you have a quilt? How many of your family quilt? Do you have quilters in your family? How many of you got a quilt for your wedding?
How many of you have those displayed? Don't answer that. But quilting is a core piece of the American identity. It is thrift. It is generosity.
It is skill. It is knit together with muscle and memory, and this union of work and visual intelligence, of stewarding things, not just being consumers but producers, things who make beautiful things and steward those skills through generation. That is worthy of praise and merit. We have a congressional app challenge. How many of us here think that we need more technology in our young people's lives?
How many of us here think that we wish we spent more time on our phones? Not as many. Right? So let's take this time to uphold what is good and beautiful. My amendment is very straightforward.
It's very low cost. What it does is establish a congressional quilt show. You can choose to participate in this by holding a lottery. Your constituents are eligible for this lottery by winning a ribbon at a fair. And so we're avoiding the whole contest question.
We're holding up our affairs. We hold it, know, you hold a lottery, and that quilt can be displayed outside of your office, for a period of time, a month or so, altogether. And I, you know, I think about how ugly things are. Let's do something that's beautiful. Let's bring humanity and pride and dignity and a proper pride of skill into this place.
This is a deep culture. This is a long history, and I think it merits our attention, our praise, and being upheld in Congress, especially right now. This is not expensive, the cost of this is gonna be roughly the cost of installing a curtain rod outside of a member of Congress's office. I believe Dr. Harris has offered to bring his drill. If you're worried about the cost, he'll install the curtain rod for you.
I'll bring the drywall anchors. But, you know, I think this is a low cost way to uphold the things that we think are beautiful and merit our attention in congress. And I am so grateful for your consideration of this amendment. I would love your support. And with that, I will yield back.
Speaker 1
Thank you, gentlelady, for the amendment. Gentleman from California, Mister Valadao, is recognized to address the amendment. So.
Speaker 33
All the name-calling. This room has gotten so dark and negative that I felt like this was the opportunity to bring some positivity back. I thank the chair, the gentle lady from Washington. I know you've been working on it all day, and it seems like we've come to an agreement here. And so I'm willing to accept it, and move forward and hopefully get on to the next amendment.
Well,
Speaker 1
The gentleman from New York, Mister Espiat, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 1
You know, the lady from Minnesota is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 10
Can't think of a better way to celebrate 250 years. I'm the daughter of a quilter, and it doesn't pass down to every generation. So but here's what comes to mind when I read this amendment. Going to too many quilt shows, helping to pick things out, not being the best stitcher my sister was. But the quilts are some of the most popular ones.
The Yankee quilt, the Ohio star, the Dolly Madison star, the Martha Washington star, the Texas star, Kansas trouble. There's a Daniel Boone pattern. The nine-patch is very popular. You're all familiar with the wedding batch. But my favorite to celebrate 02/1950 would be the log cabin.
I think this is a great idea. And you know what? We needed to end this committee on a high note. Thank you for offering the amendment. Thanks, mom.
Speaker 1
Are there other members willing to address the amendment? Gentlemen from Missouri.
Speaker 6
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not gonna draw this out. I know the night is long. Alright? I know you're asking.
What do you look at. I owe the miss president apology. When we first heard about this amendment at 10:00 in our little meeting, I said, this is stupid. Alright? I apologize for that.
There is so much negativity in this world, and everyone is glued to their iPhone or iPad. If you come to my office,
Speaker 6
You have, I have a picture there that I painted of my great-grandmother, Omi Spear, and she quilted.
Speaker 6
And I have one of those quilts in my office that I sleep with in my office. This is an opportunity to bring artwork to the capital to show the pride and heritage of Americana. And I appreciate it, Miss Perez. I love your quirky heart. You're a real stitch.
So thank you very much, and I'll yell.
Speaker 1
Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Need to handle this. Chair recognizes himself. First piece of unsolicited advice to my friend from Missouri. When you say something stupid and private, you don't have to confess it in public. But and, to my friend, the author of the amendment before I recognize her to close, this is a serious question.
If you hang these things out, can I do the Indian blankets? Because in my district, we wanna do Indian blankets. Okay? And if you see a suede feather blanket, it is the best in the world. Unbelievable.
With that, gentle lady is recognized for one minute.
Speaker 17
I'm profoundly encouraged and grateful to all of you for your, you know, extension of belief and criticism, and to mister Alephord for helping make this a much stronger amendment. I'm you're making a lot of quilters very happy, and I think this is exactly what we need in Congress right now. So I thank the ranking member and the chair for their support, our colleagues, thank you so much, sincerely, deeply.
Speaker 1
Thank the gentlelady. The question is now on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from Washington. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say no.
Speaker 1
The opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. I had the cranks from Nevada. So the amendment is adopted.
Speaker 1
Gentle lady from Washington, Miss Perez is recognized for the purpose of amendment.
Speaker 17
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Have an amendment at the desk, and I ask the amendment be read.
Speaker 21
Amendment offered by Miss Perez of Washington at the appropriate place in the report. Insert the following: clarity and acuity for constituent representation. The committee directs the office of congressional conduct to develop a standard for what constitutes conduct that does not reflect credibly upon the house, as it relates to a member of congress's ability to perform the duties of office unimpeded by significant irreversible cognitive impairment.
Speaker 1
Without objection, or excuse me. We this the gentle lady is recognized to explain her the matter.
Speaker 17
And I'm sorry to bring the tone down here. But this is persistently an issue that my constituents bring to me. This concern that Congress is not being run by the elected members but by their staff. And, you know, I humbly, you know, last time when we spoke about this amendment on cognitive decline, I wanna be clear that this amendment does not change how a member is removed. It doesn't grant the authority to removal.
It's just a place to start the discussion. We're asking the office of congressional conduct to develop a standard with which to evaluate. We are not adopting the standard. We are saying give us a starting point to discuss how to handle significant and irreversible cognitive decline, both of those things, and how it impacts a member's ability to execute the duties of their office, in accordance with the code of conduct we have established. I think it's important that we have this conversation, that we give ourselves a starting point to have this very difficult conversation about how to address significant and irreversible cognitive decline.
You know, citizens, elected representatives serve as their voice in Congress, but when I hear these concerns from my neighbors about unelected staff steering the ship, it is an impingement on all of us to not address this, and to start this conversation. You know, I appreciate the consideration of this. We've got to start this conversation at some point, and I think there is no time like the present. We will later go on to, you know, amend, debate, and perhaps adopt this standard. But let's find a starting point from which to discuss this.
And with that, I will yield back.
Speaker 1
I thank the gentlelady. Are there others wishing to address the amendment? Seeing none, the general, oh, I'm sorry. General lady from Texas is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 29
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'd like to thank my colleague for bringing this forward. I just wanna say a couple things about this, because I think this is an important discussion. I think we absolutely should have guardrails, and we should have parameters for Congress. And I think we should do a better job of policing ourselves on a number of fronts.
We shouldn't be trading stocks. There's a number of things we shouldn't be doing. And I think there are a lot of us who would like to engage on creating stronger parameters as a way to not just build public trust in Congress, but also, frankly, to help us ensure that we are adequately doing the job that is required of us. This amendment came up last year, and I actually was very interested in it last year. And just like our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have their premeetings, we have our premeetings as well.
And there were a number of questions about the amendment, really just the fundamentals, about process, basically, and definition, and which committee it should be housed in. And to be honest, I shared this with you, the responses were not, I felt, adequate for such a consequential decision. So I went with, I did not support the amendment. I also felt like this is a really important thing for us to be doing. Is an appropriations bill the best place for something like this?
An appropriations bill, which really is in effect for one year. I don't think this is the appropriate place for something of this nature, because it is important. It is consequential. It is something we should do. What was distressing to me, and this is why I rise today to say something, was the press coverage afterwards, which made it seem like we didn't pass this amendment because we don't want to police ourselves.
We've expelled members of congress, so we do police ourselves. Could we, should we do more? Yes. But I felt I had to say something because I was really disappointed in the way this was spun in the media last year after we didn't act. From my perspective, we should act.
I think this needs a little bit more vetting. I certainly have some more questions about it. I was looking forward to talking about it this morning at our pre-meeting, but we didn't have the opportunity to do that. But I'm happy to explore something like this because I do support guardrails, and I do support parameters. But I don't know if this fails, I don't want it to be spun as though we don't want to police ourselves.
So thank you for indulging. I yield back.
Speaker 1
Thanks, gentlelady, for the comments. The gentleman from Georgia, Mister Clyde, is recognized to address the amendment.
Speaker 22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. Within the constitution, there are three requirements to be a member of Congress. You have to be 25 years old, seven years a citizen, and be in and live in the state that elects you. Those are the requirements to be a member of Congress.
I think an appropriation bill is the wrong place for this particular amendment. It would need to go by itself to the floor because it requires a two thirds majority in order to become a part of the constitution, and it would have to be part of the constitution in order to apply to a member of congress. So with that, even though I certainly understand the lady's concern, but that's kind of the way it has to be. So I would vote no on this amendment, Nayel.
Speaker 1
I appreciate the gentleman's remark. Are there others wishing to address the amendment, gentlemen?
Speaker 34
Yeah. I'll be very brief. I don't usually disagree with my colleague from Georgia, but I disagree on this because very clearly, we do have the right to determine whether someone's behavior or abilities reflect poorly on the body. I think it's carefully worded. I think there are circumstances.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.