▶ 0:03:40Chair is authorized to declare recess at any time. Today, the rules committee is convening to consider four measures. H.r. 1897, h.r. 4690. H.r. 5587 and h. Res. 1182. H.r. 1897.
▶ 0:03:54The esa amendments of 2025 would implement a series of precise reforms to the endangered species act, esa, that would establish clear statutory definitions, focus on species recovery, and consolidate the esa permitting process.
▶ 0:04:17In addition, it would provide incentives for the recovery of listed species, promote accountability for agency actions, and create a backdrop against frivolous litigation. With these reforms, the esa can be augmented to effectively serve and support wildlife across america's vast and rich environments. H.r. 4690, the reliable federal infrastructure act. Mr.
▶ 0:04:46Legislation would strike archaic and onerous regulations that are not oriented to present day construction realities. Those on the left have always salivated over hyper aggressive green energy policies, so much so that when they create policy on the issue, they do everything they possibly can to overregulate everything in existence. What's the result?
▶ 0:05:12A serious lapse in common sense, increased cost burdens, mandates being used like edicts and arbitrary efficiency targets that are categorically insane.
▶ 0:05:29This legislation works to undo that madness by helping rein in inflated construction costs, boost the timelines of projects, unleash innovation and facilitate facilitate an overdue return to common sense in policy making. H.r. 5587.
▶ 0:05:54The harnessing energy at thermal sources act of 2026 hastens the production of geothermal energy development while lowering costs and cutting regulatory red tape. This legislation makes a series of clarifications that will help unbind the hands of geothermal operators, thereby accelerating the development of this important energy source.
▶ 0:06:23It would strike duplicative federal permitting requirements if a state issued permit has already been issued to the operator. Further, it would also allow geothermal projects to advance when the federal government does not have a controlling stake of the subsurface geothermal estate. And finally, we'll turn to h. Res.
▶ 0:06:471182, a resolution in support of the invaluable contributions made by rural communities across america and the policy progress that has been made in support of them. This important resolution will serve to bind congress to a commitment of delivering for rural america. We are utterly dependent on our rural communities for food, energy and american made products.
▶ 0:07:12And yet decades of federal policy have let these communities slip through the cracks. As this resolution lays out, the 119th congress has turned this dynamic around, and we must continue on that trajectory. With that, I look forward to the discussion that we'll have here today. And I now yield to the ranking member for any comments he wishes to make. >> well, thank you, madam chair.
▶ 0:07:40Um, so after republicans late night shenanigans last week, I think it's important to recap what happened so that the american people understand exactly what went on here. Republicans spent most of last week negotiating with themselves over fisa. The biggest point of contention has been whether to include a new requirement that a judicial warrant must be obtained before searching through previously collected data.
▶ 0:08:04If that search is an effort to obtain the communications of us persons, that's key. It's about searches of already collected data. Under current law, no warrant is required for that kind of search. Many of us on both sides of the aisle believe that should change. That is exactly what the biggs amendment we offered and voted on in this committee last week would have done. Unfortunately, my republican friends voted to not make that an order.
▶ 0:08:33But instead of having these debates out in the open, speaker johnson worked with a small handful of republican holdouts behind closed doors. The result? Rules committee republicans posted the text of a brand new bill at 1030 on thursday night, and then told us we would be on the floor debating it within the hour. No committee meetings, no markup. Only 30 minutes to review the text and get to the floor.
▶ 0:09:00One of the first things I saw when we got the text was the section starting with the title warrant requirement. For a moment, I thought they actually had done the right thing and included a real warrant requirement, but they had not. This so-called warrant requirement section simply restated existing law that the fbi can't unilaterally target U.S. persons when collecting surveillance. That's already illegal.
▶ 0:09:28Um, and not at all what the current policy debate is about. Even worse, the sloppy way they drafted this provision may have actually expanded warrantless surveillance in some cases, not eliminated it. So it became clear very quickly that republican leadership, both here and in the administration, were trying to pull one over on the entire membership of this house. They said a deal was reached. In reality, no deal existed.
▶ 0:09:55They claimed there was a new warrant requirement. There wasn't. Republicans apparently thought that if they slapped the warrant requirement on a section title and rushed it to the floor, members and the press would not notice that the text did no such thing. Luckily, we noticed it. We exposed it in real time on the floor. Uh. And the deeply flawed proposal went down.
▶ 0:10:18In the end, a bipartisan agreement was reached to clear a ten day pfizer extension by unanimous consent to allow more time for negotiations. And a part of that agreement was a commitment from republicans to post the final product text at at least 72 hours before any vote. And I hope that they honor that commitment, because the process we saw last week was an embarrassment.
▶ 0:10:47And it was sloppy, it was deceptive, and it was shameful. And it should never, ever be repeated. And also last week, republicans wasted time working on a do nothing resolution to wait for it, pat themselves on the back for passing their one big, ugly bill into law. Mr. neguse even asked republicans, I wonder what they're going to do next week. Are you going to introduce a different commemorative resolution? You know, that was a joke, right?
▶ 0:11:14I mean, we did not expect you guys to to take that literally. And yet here we are with another do nothing resolution, this time recognizing the work of the house of representatives. For rural communities. Let me repeat that. Not a bill that does anything to actually help rural communities. No, republicans are passing a resolution congratulating themselves for their own bills. I mean, you can't make this stuff up.
▶ 0:11:42They were literally giving themselves a participation trophy. Meanwhile, families are struggling to pay for groceries, to pay for gas, to pay for housing and to pay for healthcare. And this, in light of all of that, is what republicans think congress should be doing. Another self-congratulatory resolution that helps nobody. This resolution does nothing. And if it passes, and if it passes nothing, nothing will change. But that is the story of this majority.
▶ 0:12:12At a time when people want congress to lower costs and make life a little easier. Republicans keep using their power to reward the powerful and waste everyone else's time. I wish they stopped with the meeting. I wish they they stopped with that meaningless resolution because it only gets worse as you go down the list of today's agenda. Look at the rest of their bills. More giveaways to corporate interests. More favors for polluters.
▶ 0:12:38More bills written to make life easier for big companies and harder for regular people and local communities. The common theme here, though, is that republicans are choosing corporate corruption over the public interest. They are choosing fossil fuel companies and well-connected lobbyists over families back home trying to stay afloat. And now we hear the farm bill may come up next week, apparently for the first time since january.
▶ 0:13:05Republicans have remembered that they can call for amendments. Let me repeat that they have not asked members for an amendment to a bill in over 100 days since january. For months, this majority has shut down debate, blocked all submitted amendments from coming to the floor and tried to turn the house into a rubber stamp for donald trump. And now I bet you expect applause for allowing a little bit of the process.
▶ 0:13:33You have all spent months trying, trying to destroy. But let's be clear, regardless of the process, this farm bill is a disaster. It's awful. It's terrible. It's beyond words. It is a giveaway to big ag and chemical companies. There's actually liability protection in this bill for people who make pesticides. Like who thinks like that.
▶ 0:13:58It protects a broken food system and it will drive up hunger even further and worsen the trump affordability crisis by locking in close to $200 billion in cuts to snap enacted as part of their big, ugly bill. This bill does nothing to reverse those cuts, nothing to address those cuts. And in fact, we're hearing that more cuts in snap are coming in the reconciliation bill.
▶ 0:14:22And forgive me if I don't have faith that republicans are seriously interested in making anything better through the amendment process. So whether it's these absurd messaging resolutions, giving yourselves gold stars, these corporate giveaway bills, or the farm bill coming next week, which is a big wet kiss to the chemical companies, um, and it screws over a lot of small and medium sized farms all throughout this country and makes hunger worse. Uh, the story is the same.
▶ 0:14:51This majority is not serious. It is not meeting the moment and it is not working for ordinary people. The american people need a congress that will fight to lower costs and actually help them live with some dignity. Instead, republicans are helping the polluters, helping the corporations, and helping themselves. I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern.
▶ 0:15:15Without objection, any prepared statement that our witnesses may have will be included in the record. I now welcome our first panel chairman guthrie, ranking member pallone, from the committee on energy and commerce. They sent the big guns today.
▶ 0:15:34Your full statement will be submitted for the record, and we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes and that you address all legislation under your committee's jurisdiction in your five minutes. Chairman guthrie, I welcome your testimony. >> thank you. Good afternoon, chair, chairwoman and ranking member mcgovern.
▶ 0:15:55I'm pleased to be here to discuss a bill and a resolution that today the demonstrate how the energy and commerce committee continues to work to improve the lives of americans. First, I'm pleased to speak in support of h.r. 4690, the reliable federal infrastructure act, led by my friend and your colleague on this committee, congressman langworthy. This legislation would repeal a ban on fossil fuels for new and renovated federal buildings.
▶ 0:16:21Current law requires the department of energy to revise federal energy efficiency standards to eliminate the use of fossil fuels in new and renovated federal buildings by 2030. Unfortunately, renewable energy cannot be expected to perform. Take this past january, when winter storm fern, when coal and natural gas significantly increased their output to meet demand while new england burning trash contributed. And while in new england, burning trash contributed more energy than wind and solar combined.
▶ 0:16:52This legislation does not say federal buildings cannot use renewable energy. The bill simply reverses a top down mandate that eliminates energy choice. If an energy source can contribute to the electricity mix without a parallel, reliable backup like natural gas, then there's nothing prohibiting its consideration based on experience. However, when in solar have not been able to keep up.
▶ 0:17:13Republicans in congress has fought for consumer choice, allowing americans to make the best decisions for themselves when it comes to their appliances, vehicles, and how they power their homes. That's why I'm also here today. Support a house resolution 1182, which highlights several additional ways in which the house republicans have sought to strengthen rural communities. This congress.
▶ 0:17:34For example, we have enacted legislation to unleash domestic energy production, such as reversing the department of energy's restrictions on lng and requiring ferc approval that grid policies will preserve electricity and reliability. House republicans have worked to enhance health care quality and access. We've also bolstered health resources for rural communities. We have also enacted the support act and the halt act to provide crucial resources to rural communities devastated by the opioid crisis.
▶ 0:18:05The energy and commerce committee and the house republican conference have worked hard and continue to work hard this congress to accelerate economic growth and opportunity for the american people. I look forward to your questions, and I yield back. >> Mr. guthrie ranking member pallone, you're recognized. >> thank you, chairman fox, and I'll submit the full statement for the record and try to summarize it. That's okay.
▶ 0:18:27Um, obviously, there are two bills, one bill and one resolution within the jurisdiction of the energy and commerce committee that we're considering today. But on the first one, uh, the resolution, uh, with regard to rural areas, I have to say that I completely agree with, uh, with what Mr. our ranking member mcgovern said. I mean, it's kind of like, I don't know, my, my mother would always say self-praise stinks. And I think that's what you're getting here.
▶ 0:18:56In other words, it's not actually accomplishing anything. It's just basically trying to pat yourself on the back and say, oh, the republicans did all these wonderful things for rural areas. So let's just acknowledge that. But you're acknowledging it for yourself, which I think is a little, a little crazy. Uh, the bottom line is, if you add up all the things that are mentioned as to why you're congratulating yourself, they don't really add up to much.
▶ 0:19:17Um, rural areas basically face the same problems that everybody else faces with higher prices, inflation, um, you know, health care that, that, uh, that, uh, is also not only going up in terms of cost of premiums, but also increasingly not accessible. Uh, I would argue that actually these things are probably even worse for rural areas. And, um, I don't see anything in here.
▶ 0:19:44Even if it were accurate, that would change any of that. I mean, well, I hear all the time, I don't have any rural areas, but in my district, but we have a lot in new jersey. And when I go there, I hear the same thing, which is, you know, the I'm using the affordable care act and my premiums are doubled or tripled because, uh, the house republicans and the president didn't extend the tax credits or the subsidies.
▶ 0:20:10Um, my gas prices are going through the roof. I mean, they're well over a $4 and most of the state of new jersey right now. And that's impacting fertilizers and the ability for me to, you know, produce, uh, vegetables, you know, where the garden states are, we still produce a lot of vegetables and those prices are going up. So it just doesn't matter.
▶ 0:20:32I mean, the bottom line is that whatever you're, you say you're doing in this resolution, um, doesn't address the real problems that rural areas today face and the rest of the country faces, frankly. So to me, it's just a nothing resolution self, again, praising yourself, which you know, you really shouldn't be doing. That's not what we're here for in congress to talk about how wonderful we are.
▶ 0:20:55Um, but the other bill, the, the reliable federal infrastructure act, is just another handout to the fossil fuel industry. It repeals a, a, a, a fossil fuel phase out that was set up in a bipartisan manner under president bush.
▶ 0:21:11In other words, the idea was, and I was here was that we were trying to have the federal government kind of lead the path away from fossil fuels, because we knew that clean energy was cheaper, we wanted more efficiency, we wanted electrification, uh, because we knew that ultimately that was going to lower prices and be more reliable. I completely disagree with chairman guthrie that this is less reliable. I think it's more reliable.
▶ 0:21:39And the bottom line is whoever is envisioning what the situation might be a few years down the road from when this bill passed bipartisan, all the things that we're concerned about are more true today than ever, because the price of gasoline, the price of oil products, all of that is going up. So right now, gas is up more than a dollar per gallon. Diesel prices are over $5 per gallon. Residential natural gas prices have increased by 13% since president trump took office.
▶ 0:22:09Uh, and so the prices are surging thanks to trump's reckless war, uh, in iran. And rather than focusing on that and saying, hey, this is a good idea to try to phase out fossil fuels and serve as a lesson for everybody else because of what we're facing now with this gas crisis and petroleum crisis. You say, oh, no, no, let's just double down and and we'll rely more on fossil fuels than ever.
▶ 0:22:37I mean, it may it made no sense when this bill was passed a few years ago under president bush. It certainly makes no sense now when things are going through the roof in terms of oil and gas. So I just don't understand, um, what this is all about.
▶ 0:22:51The idea, uh, when this was passed years ago, was to create more efficient federal buildings, more modern technology with electrification, uh, and to scale up and become and use as an example, not do what, uh, what the republicans are trying to do now. So, um, again, I don't want to keep, uh, saying the same thing over and over again, but this makes absolutely no sense.
▶ 0:23:19It made, it made sense at the time to phase out fossil fuels. It makes sense when this was passed. It makes sense even more now. And not to repeal it makes no sense at all. So with that, I yield back. Madam chair. >> thank you very much. Um, I'm going to defer my questions to a little later. Um, miss fischbach, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. And thank you, Mr. chairman and the ranking member for being here.
▶ 0:23:47And I just wanted to say, I know the ranking member is so excited to be here. We we walked over together and and he had a little spring in his step. He was so excited to come to rule. So but, um, but I do have a question for the chair regarding, um, the, uh, the section 433 issue.
▶ 0:24:06And, um, you know, it, it may have good intentions, but I think that, um, that it has been a concern before under other administrations. And I'm wondering if maybe you can talk a little bit about that because this isn't something new we're trying to address. >> well, thanks. Yes. As, as. >> my friend the ranking member mentioned, this is 2007. And in starting in. So the fossil fuels are supposed to be ramping down starting in 2010.
▶ 0:24:35And it's just been difficult for every administrator. We've not met the goals. It started in 2010 to completely be eliminated by 2030 in our federal buildings. And in 2007, you know, that was before the shale revolution. That was before, uh, the permian basin of west texas was considered. They knew they were not out of oil, but they knew they didn't have the gas, but they didn't have the technology to get it. We now have that.
▶ 0:25:01And so, uh, to say that it's cheaper to have wind and solar, just I don't think it's accurate to say it's reliable. We quote what happened in, uh, did an opening statement with, uh, storm fern. So, but, but you're, but what you're saying is previous administrations have difficulty doing a republican and democrat administration starting in 2010.
▶ 0:25:23And so what we're saying is it's just it, it's one of those things in 2007, let's say in 25 years where everything's going to be clean, energy free, and let's pass the bill to mandate that. And the technology just has a reliable technology, hasn't kept up with it. It hasn't been able to be implemented. No administration has met the targets. And what we're seeing is just just take it off the books because it's something that can't happen and it's difficult to it's not going to happen by 2030. That's that's for sure.
▶ 0:25:50And it is something that we have the, with the, with the american energy production, I will admit, american people are hurting today because of what's going on in iran to prevent from iran from having a nuclear weapon. And hopefully that is short term.
▶ 0:26:04You got to know that the policies that we put in place, a lot of it through the one big, beautiful bill, but others had the barrel of oil down to about $60 a barrel, where people in texas are saying that it's difficult to to even produce oil at $60 a barrel because it was so cheap. And so that's the structure we set up. We now have, uh, an issue that is causing real concern for the american people. I'm not going to dismiss that. But in the end, we're going to have a nuclear free iraq.
▶ 0:26:31And I think we'll get back to the place where our policies took us, which was closer to $60 a barrel of oil. >> and, Mr. chairman, I think it's fair to say, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't stop anyone from using wind or solar or whatever. But what it does is truly, truly create the options so that they can look at all of the sources instead of trying to meet some kind of artificial, um, artificial standard in law. >> exactly.
▶ 0:26:58I mean, there are some states that, that mandate and I can hold a chart up to show which states mandate it more than others and which one has the blue being more expensive energy, the red being less expensive energy. And so states can still I mean, well, this would be federal government making decisions, but you can make the same decisions. You just aren't mandated to go full, uh, wind and solar.
▶ 0:27:22>> well, you can actually make an informed decision and take a look at everything and decide which option fits that fits that building better. >> it's been consistent with Mr. langworthy. Here is he has several bills in this area. Let areas have choice. Let areas make choices on what's the best for their community and what fits them the best. And if some states, as you look here, have put uh, as I showed, had chose to have higher prices because they want different types of energy, that's their decision as a state. Um, but, uh, it's not affordable and it's certainly not sustainable.
▶ 0:27:51And it's not a good, not a good decision for the american taxpayer. >> well, thank you for being here today. And thank you, Mr. langworthy, for bringing the bill forward. And I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. fischbach. Mr. mcgovern, you're recognized. >> thank you. Um, yeah. I just can't quite get this. H. Res. 1182. Um, with all that's going on, uh, that this is what you bring to the floor. And I come from a district, um, that has close to 1900 firearms.
▶ 0:28:21Uh, I tore those, I tore firearms. Every year I meet with hundreds of farmers every year. And I gotta tell you, not one of them has ever said, you know what we need? We need a non-binding resolution for you to tell us that you care about farmers and the and rural america. I mean, they, they actually want they're hurting right now because of the policies of this administration and because of the policies of the republicans in this congress. And I'm looking at. H.r. H. Res. 1182.
▶ 0:28:52It's a non-binding resolution. Uh, basically, um, patting yourself on the back for, for a bunch of stuff that, uh, that you passed, most of which, by the way, has never become law. You control the house, you control the senate, you control the white house. And most of these things that you're patting yourself on the back for never became law. Um, I don't know if democrats controlled all three branches of government. I'd like to think that, uh, a lot of what we were trying to champion would actually become law.
▶ 0:29:19Uh, but all of this is, you know, you know, praising you for all kinds of stuff that, uh, you know, again, um, most of it is, has done nothing to help anybody. I mean, actions speak louder than words. I mean, this is, this resolution is five pages of words with literally zero action, five pages of words with literally zero action. I get 20 of its 27 clauses. Are just republican republicans congratulating ourselves for bills.
▶ 0:29:47You've already passed. And as I mentioned, most of which have not become law. Um, I mean, the resolution can't become law, uh, only says it supports rural america. And the title, I mean, I'm looking for the actual text and it basically just pats house republicans on the back for strengthening rural communities. I mean, I'm trying to understand what the goal of this bill is.
▶ 0:30:10Uh, chairman guthrie, maybe you can explain to me like, like of all the things going on right now with all the challenges that rural communities and our agricultural communities are facing right now. Like why, why is, why is this a priority? >> well, I think it's important to to show and there's there's always a sense of congress and different resolutions that that we pass and that the work of this congress has been to support rural communities.
▶ 0:30:33And I can go through the list of where, as is in the bills that that, um, for, for example, the support act, which helps people with recovery, uh, which is devastating, not just rural america, but all, all of america with, with drug, um, and substance use disorder. I can go through the list if you want, but the idea is to, to say that we are working to help rural. >> america, but, but none of, none of this in this bill does this bill does nothing to address anything.
▶ 0:31:03You know, the resolution passed republicans on the back for, quote, historic investments in rural health care. And you do that at a time when over 338 rural hospitals are at risk of closure, conversion or service reduction from substantial health care cuts. And the republicans big, ugly bill, by the way, including 35 hospitals in kentucky. Um, you know. >> that's a that's a list from our governor. That's not an accurate list, actually.
▶ 0:31:26Well, I visited some of them, several of those hospitals in my district, and I went to them and they said they don't know why they're on the list. They're not looking closely. And all they did was scare their employees. >> well, you have $1 trillion in medicaid cuts coming, plus a whole bunch of other wonderful things that have yet to kick in. Um, you know, be prepared to have your phone ringing off the hook. You know. >> I think massachusetts getting 162 million. >> on food insecurity and poverty. They're higher.
▶ 0:31:53They're higher in rural areas because of your policies and they're getting worse. But you guys, you cut snap benefits for every person who relies on this program with your big ugly bill. Um, and you've already kicked 2.5 million americans off of snap, snap and all the cuts in the in the big ugly bill, they haven't even been implemented yet. And now we're hearing that in the in your next budget resolution reconciliation bill, you're talking about even deeper cuts in snap.
▶ 0:32:21You know, just just so people on this committee understand because I think sometimes you don't. But the average snap benefit is about $2 per person per meal, you know, and that's the benefit you're going after. Um, and again, already people are losing their benefit. Hunger is getting worse in this country. Food insecurity is getting worse in this country. It is also a health care issue, which means more costs for our medical institutions.
▶ 0:32:47So nothing in this at all addresses any of that. And I and I'm just trying to look, you know, um, I mean, I mean, usa today says 70% of farmers can't afford fertilizer, one third of the global fertilizer fertilizer trade passes through the straits of hormuz, according to the un.
▶ 0:33:06Um, I mean, I don't think my farmers can go with this bill and go in and purchase fertilizer at a cheaper rate, because passing a sense of congress resolution that does nothing. I mean, they're out there, they're out of their minds about how they're going to be able to make ends meet and be able to stay in business. There's a farm bureau study, uh, that says 6 in 10 farms say, you know, uh, farming is getting worse in this country.
▶ 0:33:35It's becoming more difficult. And people are beginning to think that they can't make a living farming in this country. And there are all kinds of national security implications to that as well. I mean, I want a robust agricultural system in this country, so we don't have to import everything from halfway around the world that we can rely on local producers to provide the food that we need to feed our to feed our population.
▶ 0:34:00And we also have surveys that increasingly farmers, the people who grow our food, are saying they can't afford to put food on the table for their families. I mean, this is the the reality. And I just, I point all this out is because I'm sick and we did this last week, but I'm sick and tired of this kind of stuff being brought to the floor when we ought to be figuring out ways to help people get by during these difficult times. If you guys want a war with iran, you can have it.
▶ 0:34:29That's your choice. Uh, understanding. But we've already spent over $50 billion on that war. None of it paid for. But all of you deficit hawks and people who care about the debt when it comes to war, it's no big problem. But already, how many, how many? How much could we have helped farms in this country with that money? How many hospitals could we have built? How many, you know, how many, uh, schools could we have built? How many roads and bridges could we have fixed?
▶ 0:34:57And, and again, you know, nothing here addresses any of the challenges people in our rural communities don't want our sympathy. They don't want us to say, oh, we feel bad for you. They want our help. They want us to do something. And I don't care. You, you guys are not doing a damn thing and people are getting fed up with it. People are angry. And this kind of proves my point. This is much ado about nothing.
▶ 0:35:26Um, we should be bringing substantive legislation to. >> the. >> floor that actually will improve the lives of our rural communities and of our farmers in particular. And that's not what we're doing. So I, I, yeah, I'm, I'm kind of fed up with all this. I don't have any more patience for resolutions to pat ourselves on the back, pat, pat congress on the back for basically making people's lives more miserable. We ought to be more serious and more focused in how we're spending our time here.
▶ 0:35:54Because, by the way, we're not doing much while we're here in session. We're not spending very much time doing substantive things. And I predict that when we get toward the end of july, you guys aren't going to want to come back. Um, because you're going to be busy trying to save your seats. Um, in various congressional districts across the country. But this is just frustrating. Um, and I thank you both for being here, but I wish you were here on something else. I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Mr. scott, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair.
▶ 0:36:24And, um, I represent rural america. I represent about 30 counties, as a matter of fact. And and our hospitals are in trouble. They're in trouble because of a piece of legislation called the affordable care act that gave a select group of monopolies total control over the finances of the health care system. And I can tell you, my hometown hospital has millions of dollars in outstanding claims. Um, I believe it is united health care.
▶ 0:36:52I believe it is united health care that the ceo told me, uh, owes them the millions of dollars. And it is, uh. An issue again of the insurance carriers not being willing to pay their claims. And this is, I think, particularly harsh.
▶ 0:37:10The insurers are particularly harsh through their medicare advantage plans towards especially our rural hospitals, who obviously have cash flow issues and the legal fees to fight these, uh. Guerrillas of insurance companies, uh, is much harder on the smaller ones. But, but the, the way they got those monopolies is through the affordable care act.
▶ 0:37:33So if you want to talk about the problems that exist with finance and health care, finance and hospital finance, I'll tell you, I think you're right about the challenges out there. Uh, but but you can't ignore the fact that when you effectively took competition out of the market and, and supersize the select few health insurance companies that have control of the pharmacy benefit managers, uh, and are answerable to nobody,
▶ 0:38:04Uh, including state insurance commissioners. That's, that's where the problem when I meet with my hospital administrators in georgia, tell me the problem is it's in the insurance carriers not paying the claims. So we can we, we agree that there are problems there. We have we have disagreements over what caused those problems, but they're definitely problems. Uh, and, and I think it gets back to the insurance carriers not paying their claims. Uh, the other thing I want to say is this about, about the american farmer, the american, the farm economy in this country has been in trouble.
▶ 0:38:33It was in trouble long before president trump took office, long before. And, uh, certainly, uh, farmers spend a lot of money on diesel. And so, and so, uh, when diesel prices go up, it hurts the american farmer. Uh, I will tell you, I'm thankful that I have a president in the white house and a secretary of agriculture, uh, that has made it very clear that they intend to help the american farmer.
▶ 0:39:00And I look forward to those proposals to help the american farmer, because I do believe that having a strong, vibrant agricultural economy so that we're not dependent on foreign sources of fuel or food, um, is important to america. And I'm thankful that we've got a president that believes in, in energy and food independence from, from other parts of the world.
▶ 0:39:22So, so that said, uh, I wish we could pass more meaningful legislation, but as you know, uh, when every democrat walks out there and simply votes no on the floor of the house of representatives on the procedural votes, and we have one or 2 or 3 republicans that vote with them, then all of a sudden it becomes very difficult or impossible to pass any legislation. So. So, Mr. chairman, would would you like to speak to some of the issues that have been raised here?
▶ 0:39:53>> yeah. >> I certainly trust you. And I know you're a good man. >> thank you. And and I, and I appreciate I know the passion of my my good friend from massachusetts and I, and I appreciate. But since the the bill passed, we've had a lot of the, your, the things that you've raised, the press raises the concerns. And sometimes we, we want to come to the floor and just break through the noise. And for instance, uh, the it's, it does say here, rural transformation, historic investments in rural health care and massachusetts got $162 million.
▶ 0:40:21And, and from the massachusetts plan, it says the rural. Through the rural health transformation program will catalyze transformative investments that strengthen rural emmaa. I guess it's my medicare advantage. Massachusetts, massachusetts communities, enabling them to thrive and sustain improved health care for generations. That will one, uh, ensure rural residents can readily access health care services, generate opportunities to to improve health and wellbeing of rural residents and three scale systems and policies, investments to meet unique needs of rural communities.
▶ 0:40:51So the money did flow to massachusetts 162 million. They say it's an investment into over a billion over five years. And to transform rural health care in massachusetts. >> so and this and this is the rural hospital fund, where that you're talking about is. >> the rural transformation fund. >> right. And. And that is where we get the money to the, to the actual health care provider instead of to the insurance company. Is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and, and that is the difference.
▶ 0:41:19We want to get the money actually to the provider where, uh, again, I think these, these, the monopoly in the insurance industry is the reason that the health care providers are not being paid. And, and the demand that we give these super sized insurance companies that had tripled over over $1 trillion in revenue, that if we had given them, I think it was 30. Was it 30 billion, Mr. chairman?
▶ 0:41:48More that the democrats were demanding and subsidies to a group of carriers that had 1.4 trillion in revenue, that somehow that was going to save the system? >> yeah. >> that we gave the money. >> I know that number was more ways and means, but I think it's it's close to that, that number. I believe that's. >> we believe that the money should go to the provider, not to the insurance industry. And with that, madam chair, I yield. >> thank you very much, Mr. scott. Miss scanlon, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. I yield first to Mr. mcgovern. >> yeah. So, Mr.
▶ 0:42:18Scott, you said a whole bunch of stuff that I just feel I need to respond to some of it first, he said, basically blaming democrats for not bringing more substantive legislation to the floor. I thought I heard everything. The bottom line is you control everything. Um, and and we vote against the rules because you give us nothing to vote for. I'm the one every week in this committee trying to offer bipartisan amendments to bring to the floor so we can debate them and we could vote on them. And every week you all vote against them.
▶ 0:42:47So if you want democratic support on process, maybe work with us and make a few things in order. Uh, the idea that we should just go along to get along and get nothing in terms of what we care about. I mean, that's ridiculous. And in terms of big insurance companies, hey, I'm one of the biggest critics of big insurance companies around here. I'm, I have no if we were bringing a bill to go after big insurance, I'd be happy to join with you.
▶ 0:43:13Uh, I hope we would have a bill that I could be happy to join with you on, but there's not a damn thing in here that talks about going after big insurance companies. So to complain about, you know, oh, you know, the problem with, you know, the cost of rural healthcare is these big insurance companies. You know, when again, there's you bring nothing to, to fix it. It just rings hollow.
▶ 0:43:37And then the other thing is, chairman guthrie, I mean, talking about the money that was sent to massachusetts, that that whole program is a pittance to respond to the deep cuts in every other healthcare program that exists, including $1 trillion cut to medicaid. You know, I mean, our states all across the country are going to be have an impossible task of trying to fill in the holes to make sure people don't fall through the cracks.
▶ 0:44:05You created this mess, you know, and to throw a few dollars here or a few dollars there and say, oh, you should all be happy. You know, you got all this. I mean, talk to your governors, you know, talk to the people who run the healthcare agencies in your states. They are panicked. Um, and by the way, you know, talk to your farmers, the price of fertilizer, the price of diesel going through the roof. And this is what we bring to the floor.
▶ 0:44:34You know, a bill that expresses our the sense of congress that we're good to we care about our rural communities. I mean, people have had enough. I thank the gentleman for yielding. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. Look, I was hoping that since apparently there's nothing urgent and.
▶ 0:44:53And there's some time on the floor this week that maybe the speaker would see fit to schedule a vote on the bill that passed the senate unanimously to fund dhs, with the exception of ice and cbp. But apparently funding the government is not a priority for this, speaker. So here we are. Instead, we have h. Res. 1182 expressing support for rural communities.
▶ 0:45:18And I'm really struggling to understand what this non-binding resolution is supposed to do or what it's supposed to accomplish. It has no funding. It doesn't make new law. It doesn't repeal old laws. It doesn't help the family farms that can't buy fertilizer because of the shortages that trump's war has caused. It doesn't help them buy diesel, the price of which has gone up because of trump's war against iran.
▶ 0:45:46It it doesn't bring back the markets like soybeans in the midwest that have been destroyed because of trump's tariffs. It doesn't help farm families who can no longer afford health care because congress refused to extend the premium tax credits under the aca doesn't help rural hospitals that are closing because republicans cut nearly $1 trillion in their big, ugly bill and trying to rename and rebrand that bill with a non-binding resolution doesn't make it any more palatable to
▶ 0:46:18The american people who've seen that bill, the big, ugly bill for what it is, and they hate it. Americans want to see real action. They want to see solutions to the cost of living crisis that is eating their checkbooks. They they don't want to see us squander billions of dollars on unnecessary wars.
▶ 0:46:35And with all the crises facing our country right now, a non-binding resolution saying, hey, republicans did a good job passing a lot of bills that didn't become law, um, doesn't seem like the way to go. Ranking member pallone, is there anything you would like to add? >> well, I mean, I as I said before, I totally agree with you, Mr. mcgovern, about this resolution. It doesn't do anything.
▶ 0:47:01Uh, and it certainly, even if everything that they claim to have done, uh, is true or had passed, which is you, as Mr. mcgovern pointed out, most of it hasn't passed, um, isn't going to make any difference because prices, fertilizer, oil, gas, everything keeps going up. And it doesn't matter whether in rural america or in, uh, or in the rest of the country. Um, you know, the affordability crisis is real and this isn't doing anything with the republicans aren't doing anything to address it.
▶ 0:47:29I just wanted if I could respond on the second bill about the federal buildings. Um, and I guess I'm responding to chairman guthrie. You know, he, he kept saying, well, if you don't, if you eliminate this mandate that federal buildings move towards away from fossil fuels, towards electrification, towards more efficiency, they can still be efficient. They can still, uh, electrify or use clean energy.
▶ 0:47:56But that's I mean, that's not going to happen under the trump administration, right? In other words, if you don't, if you eliminate the mandate, then the trump administration, which is so focused on fossil fuels, is going to move totally away from exactly what we were trying to accomplish there. You know, they're determined to just use oil and gas and and not do anything that creates more efficiency. And we've seen that with the other bills that have come before the house in terms of what what the republicans are trying to do.
▶ 0:48:25So to suggest that, you know, that somehow this is going to happen on its own without the mandate. It's just totally not not the case. But in addition to that, I just want everyone to understand that the reason that this was done on a bipartisan basis a few years ago under under president bush was because we realized that, um, we wanted to set an example with federal buildings. We know that we would save money. I mean, it's estimated that we would save about $3 million per year for federal buildings.
▶ 0:48:53Uh, if, if we move in this direction away from fossil fuels. And that probably was true, is even more true today because price of oil and gas keeps going up because of the iran war. But beyond that, the the whole idea was to encourage more efficiency and to look at new technology. And chairman guthrie said, oh, well, that doesn't work. We haven't been able to keep up with the reliability. And, you know, with the new technology. Well, it's that first of all, I don't think that's true.
▶ 0:49:22But if you eliminate the mandate, you're certainly not going to keep up with it. You're certainly not going to encourage new technology or or more efficiency. And the last thing I would say in that respect is if anything that has happened with this iran war, uh, has taught me a lesson and I think everyone should understand. Look at the example of china. We don't hear much about china anymore around here, maybe because, you know, the chinese, uh, negotiated the, uh, the ceasefire, right.
▶ 0:49:51And, you know, because the trump administration couldn't, so china negotiated it. Right. But the one thing we know is that china spent time over the last ten, 20 years moving towards clean energy, trying to diversify so that they weren't as relying on oil and gas. And that has now borne fruit, because now they realize that that was a smart thing to do. And instead we do the opposite, right? We double down and say, we're going to use fossil fuels.
▶ 0:50:18We're not going to move towards clean energy, and we're just falling further and further behind in this competition, if you will, with china. And I don't hear much anymore about, you know, uh, any of the republicans saying, oh, we're in competition with china, we're going to beat china. They don't say that because they realize, in my opinion, that china is making the right decisions when it comes to their economy and the way that they fuel their economy in terms of their energy use.
▶ 0:50:44And to now say that the federal government shouldn't try to move in that direction towards more clean energy is, uh, or that somehow is going to happen on its own because, you know, the trump administration is going to do it. It's just, it's not true. So I just that's all I appreciate the opportunity to be able to express my opinion on that. >> I share your concern.
▶ 0:51:04And it's not just that the trump administration is doubling down on its preference for, um, fossil fuels, but it's paying people not to develop alternative energy sources.
▶ 0:51:19I mean, we have breaking news this week that the trump administration is paying $1 billion to a french energy company to pay them off for the fact that it canceled their leases to build offshore wind, and instead it wants them to, um, invest in lng or something. But so we're actually actively paying people not to invest in sustainable energy sources. It is madness.
▶ 0:51:45It is, um, it's a waste of taxpayer dollars and it just has no eye on the future. So absolutely. You're bringing that up. >> thank you. And I yield back. >> thank you, miss scanlon. Uh, Mr. langworthy, you're recognized. >> well, thank you very much, madam chair. I want to focus on my legislation within the rule. H.r.
▶ 0:52:064690, the reliable federal infrastructure act, because when you strip this down, it's it's really about something simple, whether the federal government and federal agencies are allowed to build infrastructure based on what actually works or whether they're forced to follow a one size fits all mandate coming out of washington.
▶ 0:52:23Uh, right now, we're dealing with federal standard that requires agencies to meet aggressive fossil fuel reduction targets without always taking into account cost reliability, or what energy source makes the most sense in a given region. Chairman guthrie, when these kinds of mandates are in place, what does that mean for the overall cost of building federal facilities? And are we seeing projects become more expensive because of that?
▶ 0:52:51>> well, they do become more expensive because the argument is if you take away the mandate that you won't develop these other sources of energy, you only don't develop them if they're not as efficient, if they're cheaper and the market will go where the right price is. And that so the argument that it's going to be more expensive if you take away the mandates just doesn't doesn't fit. You know, our area I have fort knox and the geography of geology or geography, geology of kentucky as a natural a lot of natural gas.
▶ 0:53:19So fort knox actually is can go off the grid and sustain itself. But you couldn't build a new building after 2030 at fort knox unless we got rid of our ability to to not sustain itself. So, uh, that's, uh, there's a lot of these and it goes back to you can't, you know, so this calls for president trump's in office. Now, this goes back to 2010 when there's not been a target met because we just haven't. It was a, a lofty goal. But, you know, it's in statute. That's when you put these things in statute.
▶ 0:53:48Like we did repeal the every two thirds of every american car had to be electric by 2032, which is just impossible to do. And I even got secretary granholm to admit in a hearing that it was impossible to do. But you put these out. You put them in statute, and when you can't reach them, you either got to say, is it possible? Is it even possible to do what this law says? I think it's even possible to do it. But if it was possible, is it the right thing to do? Would you want to shut down fort knox energy independence so it can run off reliable, clean energy?
▶ 0:54:18Um, that's not reliable. I don't think that's a good, good suggestion. >> yeah, I think that's a problem that new york's faced right now with, uh, really adopting what they call the clcpa, which basically the green new deal, and now they're trying to figure out how to get out of it because they violated their own law, because they haven't met the standards. Um, it's not practical. It's certainly not reliable. And it's, it's far more expensive on the pocketbooks of our constituents. Uh, but they can't seem to wiggle out of things politically.
▶ 0:54:49>> I ask you, I mean, I know you're asking me, can I, can I ask, I know, um, I went to college in new york and a lot of people might think of new york as new york city, but it's extremely rural state up the once you get up the hudson river and so do those, I would assume that those mandates that new york has put in has affected farmers more than anything, their electricity rates. Because when you look at the blue states, I mean, most of these blue states, california, illinois are massive farm states. But look at where you see the expense. It's had to affect your farmers.
▶ 0:55:21>> my district is massively rural and it certainly, um, uh, hurting, you know, these arbitrary standards have hurt across the board, including our farmers. I mean, the amount of demand, uh, needing to come out of our grid that can't meet that, um, is, uh, really hitting people in the pocketbook. Now, as the mandates come onto the utilities to build out the grid. Um, let me ask you this, chairman guthrie, do these requirements make it harder for agencies to choose the most practical and reliable energy option when they're planning and building facilities?
▶ 0:55:52>> well, if you assume the agency's going to choose the, the, the the most efficient in the best design, and you limit them to one design, then it does take away their ability to find the best, most practical design. Now, I'm not saying in some areas that being clean energy wouldn't be the most practical. I'd have to think hard to think of an example. But if you take away their options, it's necessarily going to limit their ability to be more practical, right? >> yeah, because the standard goes far beyond, you know, putting led light bulbs in.
▶ 0:56:22I mean, we're talking about, you know, fully electrified buildings in a place where electric might not be plentiful and might not be as practical as natural gas or other, uh, more traditional energy sources there. Thank you very much.
▶ 0:56:37Uh, if an agency is operating in a part of the country where certain energy sources, like natural gas is clearly the most reliable and cost effective option, it seems like common sense that they should be able to use it, but instead, we've put a framework in place that can steer away from that even when it drives up the cost or complicates the project. Now, taxpayers should not be on the hook for policies that drive up the cost of constructing federal infrastructure while making it less reliable.
▶ 0:57:04At the same time, uh, agencies should be able to tailor building design and construction to their actual needs instead of chasing arbitrary targets set in washington that have never been met in the first place. Uh, my legislation helps rein in those inflated costs, speed up project timelines, and allow for more innovation in removing rigid top down mandates. And it's about bringing a little bit of common sense back to how the federal government builds and operates. And I look forward to its passage.
▶ 0:57:33And I yield back, madam chair. >> thank you, Mr. langworthy. Mr. neguse, you're recognized. >> thank you. Thank you, madam chair. Uh, good afternoon, chairman and ranking member. Appreciate you both being here. I know, I believe that the ranking member, uh, perhaps expressed some thoughts early on during the course of the hearing. It is my understanding that reflected some of the comments that I made in the last hearing that we held when we were here a week ago.
▶ 0:58:01So just by way of background, so that the chairman and ranking member, you both can have full context for some of my questions I posed what I thought was a authentic and candid question to my colleagues last week, but apparently it's been more of a rhetorical question, which was, are we going to continue entertaining these commemorative resolutions?
▶ 0:58:24Do republicans intend to to spend every week here into perpetuity, or at least the remainder of the 109th congress in the republican majority, uh, spending their time doing commemorative resolutions? Lo and behold, we're back and we're doing the same thing again. Uh, h. Res. 1182.
▶ 0:58:41Um, chairman guthrie, the resolution here, I'm going to quote this resolution says expressing support for rural communities across the united states. Right.
▶ 0:58:56And then I'm just going to jump a little bit says, quote, and recognizing the work of the house of representatives in the 119th congress, what does that mean to you, what you say, recognizing the work, what is the purpose of this resolution? It's to recognize your work. >> the work the house of representatives has done for rural communities. We talked about the rural. But why do we need to fund. Why do we need.
▶ 0:59:25>> why do we need to recognize you? >> what do we recognize me working the work. >> that's what this resolution is doing. >> well, work of the house representative. >> we need to recognize the republicans. >> as as you've heard, there's been a lot of rhetoric here even today about you're always my good friend. I heard the big ugly bill always says that. And we all say they're good things. They were really good things that were done in the bill. Why do we need to. I just did roundtables with people in my district getting $3,000 back to work for tips. >> I guess what I'm saying is you have a position. >> but it's an opportunity.
▶ 0:59:56>> hold on. Let me just. Okay. You believe that the republican majority has pursued policies that have benefited the american people? The ranking member disagrees with that. Why do we need to pass a resolution saying, quote, recognizing the work of the house of representatives? We are. Why do you need that recognition? >> we need to pass. >> the pat on the back.
▶ 1:00:22>> I think we need to pass a resolution to cut through a lot of the noise that's been out there to say that we have worked hard for the rules. >> so this is a press release that basically. >> this is a it's a resolution. >> well, no, I, I understand that it's a technical resolution, but I guess my point is it functions as a press release because it doesn't ♪achieve anything. It's essentially a tool that the republican majority is using to recognize. >> it's a statement of our chairman. You voted for resolutions before in your. >> predecessor, the person who not your predecessor.
▶ 1:00:48Excuse me, the, uh, the ranking member who is excuse me, the chairman who was here last week presenting on the other commemorative resolution that we did, uh, at least that resolution did not say at the top. And in the conclusion that the whole purpose was to recognize yourselves. I mean, that that, that I think is very. >> recognize all of us, some of the things that some of the things in this bill, we all voted for the support act. A lot of us voted for the support act. I mean, we didn't.
▶ 1:01:19>> vote for the the big ugly bill. >> we voted. A lot of you voted for the fall, hit the fault halt fentanyl act that helped rural communities, the support act that helped people that are suffering from sudden. Matter of fact, your colleague from colorado was the co-sponsor of the legislation. And so it's not just listing what the republicans did, it's listing what congress did. >> my humble request would be, uh, because I don't well, I don't want to speculate, but I suspect this is not your brainchild, this resolution. Did you come up with this resolution?
▶ 1:01:49>> I worked on the support act with, uh, with, with congresswoman patterson from your area. So there are things that we've done that. >> that I'm saying this resolution, this isn't your you didn't draft this. >> I wasn't I'm not the sponsor. >> you're not the sponsor. >> I'm not the sponsor. >> I don't think I mean, I, I take you to be a very serious legislator, Mr. chairman. I want you, you all you work on a lot. >> I'm not dismissing this. This is not being serious, but I'm not the sponsor of. >> I hear you and I'm. I'm not. I'm just suggesting to you.
▶ 1:02:17And maybe I'm making a humble request. Mhm. The same request I made to the chairman last week. Can we just stop with these commemorative resolutions, recognizing the republican majority or recognizing the house of representatives? Let's just be done with recognizing the house. Let's work on policies. That's all I'm saying. I don't I don't really understand this obsession that the republican majority has developed in the last few weeks with passing resolutions, recognizing the house. Like, we get it.
▶ 1:02:45We understand that you are proud of the work you did. And so let's move on and let's. >> do and I want to clarify, not everything in here is bipartisan. I'm not saying what's best, but there were some things in there that I want to. I didn't want to use someone's name and say they endorsed it all. I'm not. I want to make sure that's clear. Yeah. No. Yeah. There were things in here that are bipartisan.
▶ 1:03:06>> I'm just suggesting to you, um, and of course, I mean, we could test out some of these warehouse clauses, which are awfully broad, awfully vague, and without much empirical evidence, at least as best as I can tell. But in any event, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Maybe we'll have a debate on the floor on that front. I want to talk about h.r. 4690. Mr. langworthy's bill that you all were just discussing previously. This is the reliable federal infrastructure act.
▶ 1:03:30Now, as I understand it, this legislation essentially repeals the requirements that existed previously that were originally enacted in 1976. Is that. >> I think 2007 is what I know. >> the original law was passed in 1976, and then it was amended in 2000, 2007. >> correct, 1976. >> right. The original law signed, signed by a republican, right, by gerald. >> ford would have been gerald ford in 76, correct? Yeah.
▶ 1:04:02>> and then in 2007, this bill passes signed by president george w bush. >> correct. >> republican. Right, right. >> right, correct. >> okay. I went back and looked do you know how many house republicans voted for this mandate that you're now trying to eliminate? >> I don't know, I don't have the answer to that. >> 95 republicans, 95 republicans, a lot of them are still here. In fact, some of them are on your committee. Uh, Mr.
▶ 1:04:31Bill, I don't want to pronounce this right. Bill. Chris, is that bill rockets? The rockets. >> 2007 was here in 2000. He was his father was here too. So I don't know if it was him or. Oh, maybe this. >> is is this his son? >> I don't know. >> his father was in congress. Alright, well, I'm not sure I'll have to. >> I'm not sure he could have been here. I don't know which one that would have. >> been his dad. Regardless, there are 95 republicans who voted for that bill. I will say, uh, to her, you know, the madam chairwoman did not vote for it.
▶ 1:05:01I went back and looked and she she was against these, uh, you know, this mandate in 2007. And I take it as against them. >> I'm sorry. My colleague was here in 2007. I think he was. I was here so he would. Correct. But his father, he he followed his father. >> that's okay. In any event, we can go through his family legacy later. The point is this. 95 republicans supported this. Thought this was a good idea. Thought it was a prudent thing to do. George w bush agreed. >> mhm.
▶ 1:05:28>> this republican party that you're a member of very different than I think the republicans that most of the country has been accustomed to in the past. This, to me, is a very deep and extreme departure from what was a bipartisan consensus that we ought to. Well, I you know, I hope we'll see the 95 republicans, or at least those who are still here, uh, who voted, uh, in a way that was very different than the chairwoman's.
▶ 1:05:57But I, I don't have the same feelings as you could probably imagine that the chairwoman does. I, I think that we all should have deep regret at the fact that what used to be a bipartisan consensus has now is no longer the case. And ranking member pallone, I don't know if you care to expound upon on this. I don't know if you were here when we when you were here, of course. >> you were here.
▶ 1:06:22>> you remember this well, but I just I guess what I'm getting at is it's remarkable to me that there was a time when trying to, you know, achieve consensus on issues like this was something that was valued and revered. And now that's no longer the case and you're, you're under you're unwinding mandates, not democratic mandates. These are republican mandates, republican requirements. Don't lay it at the feet of democrats. This was a bill that 95 republicans. >> voted in 2007.
▶ 1:06:48This bill passed when democrats were in the majority. >> and who was the president, madam chair? >> uh, well, you just said george w bush, but this was a bill brought forward by democrats. >> yes. Okay. So just to be clear, so the record is crystal clear. I want to make sure the chairwoman is right. And I, of course, want to make sure that we're very exacting in our language.
▶ 1:07:11The original legislation signed by republican president gerald ford, amended 35 years later with the support of 95 house republicans and a wide bipartisan margin in the united states senate and signed into law by republican president george w bush. This is the requirement, ranking member, that your chairman and his colleagues find to be repugnant and odious and over overwhelming in scope and scale. Your thoughts?
▶ 1:07:42>> well, I'm just repeating, I mean, I, I, I know that the reason it passed and the reason it was signed by president bush, because it was seen as something that was good for the future. In other words, the idea would be that federal buildings would set a standard of efficiency of, um, you know, looking at new ways of doing things that would be more reliable.
▶ 1:08:06Um, and, um, and if you think about it today, that sort of looking at the future is even more accurate because now we know with the iraq war brought on by the president and supported by the republicans, it's, uh, the price of oil and gas is at an all time high. Well, maybe not all time for at least for the recent past.
▶ 1:08:29And so they were trying to come up with ways at the time on a bipartisan basis to, uh, to make things more efficient and not rely so much on oil and gas in the future, because they knew we had to diversify. Um, and, um, I, the, the understanding that was there on a bipartisan basis, more true today than ever. >> yeah. I couldn't agree more ranking member. And I know we're going to have a fulsome, robust debate on the floor.
▶ 1:08:57So I hope I have a chance to debate my republican colleagues, uh, who were so effusive in support of this 20 years ago, who apparently have changed their tune. One question. One final question for the chairman. I know the chairwoman will indulge me here, um, given our colloquy previously. So I just want to go back to h. Res. 1182. This is the celebratory resolution extolling the virtues of, uh, the work that's been done by the republicans in the 113th congress.
▶ 1:09:23I assume this applies to I mean, it's a lot of the policies you're listing here were bills that were passed last year, right? Last fall, last winter, last spring. >> this winter, some this winter. Okay. Yeah. >> and you said you're not the sponsor of this bill. Correct? >> not the sponsor of the bill. >> who's the sponsor of the resolution? >> uh, congressman fuller, the new member. >> is Mr. fuller. Been in congress. >> he was sworn in last week. >> so five days. >> I don't know that. Can't count the days. Yeah. Last week.
▶ 1:09:50>> kind of fascinating that somebody who's been here for six days is the author of a resolution applauding the house republican conference and all the work that it's done for the last 14 months. I suppose that's not from personal knowledge, maybe that it's it's from reading the press releases from, uh, from the house republican caucus, perhaps. Anyway, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. chairman. Thank you.
▶ 1:10:15>> passingly interesting that, um, for something that you all think is doesn't do anything. You're spending so much time discussing it. Mr. roy. You're recognized. >> dave min time. I don't tend to use my entire five minutes or whatever our allotment is, but I do just want to ask the chairman.
▶ 1:10:36Um, we've had a whole lot of time in here talking about a resolution, um, which, uh, is striking, is it not the case at the end of the day that the point remains like many things that the house of representatives have been passing on behalf of the american people, for example, the save america act, to try to ensure that we have only american citizens voting in american elections.
▶ 1:10:56We have voter identification, for example, the legislation we're talking about here in terms of ways in which we can have energy that is available, that is affordable, that is reliable, that drives down prices for the american people, etc. That at virtually every turn that legislation hits a what I call fake filibuster threshold in the united states senate of 60 votes. And that therefore, part of this is, of course, a messaging operation. And that's part of what we do.
▶ 1:11:22And there's a bill here to message that we've, in fact, passed those things. The american people should know it, and that rural communities that want to have affordable energy, that are being denied that by virtue of the regulatory state, the ridiculous mandates, uh, the absurdity to suggest that so-called green energy is in fact green when it is, and that it is cheaper when it is in fact massively subsidized and therefore not cheaper. It is only cheaper for some people at certain times by virtue of the subsidy.
▶ 1:11:47That is making it more expensive, by the fact that we're racking up federal debt and costing people more money on the back end and driving interest rates up and making housing more unaffordable, etc. Etc. Is that roughly correct? >> that's uh, that's correct, absolutely correct. >> um, I think, and I think that merits observation. So like resolutions, not resolutions. I don't love them. I don't like post office namings. I don't like about 90% of the crap that we do in congress generally. Like everybody knows that. Uh, and that's, that's a bipartisan statement that is not a nonpartisan statement.
▶ 1:12:17Uh, the fact of the matter is that the purpose of this action is to recognize an actual threshold question. The united states senate is operating a fake threshold, which one of their key strategists is out publicly saying they want to blow up immediately upon getting the majority in order to pack the court with 13 judges and four left leaning judges, uh, make D.C. a state and other things, right. They're actively talking about that reality.
▶ 1:12:41Meanwhile, what we're trying to do is say, wait a minute, maybe the senate should actually have to do their job. Maybe they should actually have to filibuster, actually go to the floor, do debates, do the things that the founding fathers meant in terms of cooling saucer and then let it play out? If we can pass the save america act, great. If somebody wants to put on the floor in the united states senate turning dc into a state, I violently oppose that. But, you know, look, fine, put it on there, but have to debate it out. Cook the clock, use two weeks, three weeks, four weeks on the floor.
▶ 1:13:10The civil rights act of 1964 took, I think it was upwards of 90 days, 80 days or something like that, uh, being on the floor of the senate. And, and I think it's important that, again, this resolution is a part of that, right? It's a recognition that we're trying to pass stuff and it's hitting a wall in the senate. And thus it has been the senate has been used as a leverage spot at 60 votes in both directions. And you usually just continue the status quo. American people want to know why we're $39 trillion in debt. That's it.
▶ 1:13:39That's why we're $39 trillion in debt. We never actually have to have enforce a vote. We never actually have to have a serious debate and force the issue. Instead, we end up in exactly the situation where it's leveraged against each other in order to force some compromise bill that everybody can get on the same page and watch it happen on fisa. Right? That's what's going to happen.
▶ 1:13:59The the, the powers that be and the freaking intelligence state are going to come together and say, we must pass clean pfizer or people will die, and we're not going to have a robust debate about it, because the powers that be in the senate and the powers that be in the house and the administration, just like happened last time when I had a very liberal member of the house who voted with biden on the floor of the house on fisa, instead of passing the protections of warrants, he chose not to to side with biden. And now he's on the other side of that argument. Okay, fine.
▶ 1:14:28I'm not even naming him because I'm not trying to make it personal. What I'm saying is that's what's happening and it's happening on every issue under under the sun. So I do not fault putting a resolution on the floor in order to make the case that we're trying to make. Um, I think that's, uh, the reality, the, the bill though, that, that, that you guys are here talking about the design of that legislation, right?
▶ 1:14:48Is to say, look, we're going to, uh, repeal those mandates because we're looking at trying to get it back saying, well, you can't have these federal buildings have 90% requirements with respect to green energy, because frankly, it's a fraud anyway, because it's all being subsidized. And then you're having to rely on reliable power in order to have power up in those buildings in the first place.
▶ 1:15:11And nobody talks about all the green negative impacts of the freaking windmill parts getting buried all over, you know, the country, the extent to which we're now having to have inefficient energy because they're not up when solar and wind, when you have a cloudy, windless day. And I just wonder if the ranking member has anything to say about that and then I'll yield back. >> I'm just saying. So we the dates that that, uh, Mr. noguchi brought up. So 1976, I was 12 years old. I guess it was. I remember waiting in gas lines.
▶ 1:15:38I remember, I remember waiting in gas lines with my father in 2007. If you're it's stuff that that you do, some people do here. It's like frustrating thing here. And 25 years. So it's 26. I get the math. But 25 years from now, 2030, that was a convenient day to pick. All federal buildings are going to be 100% clean energy. And in 2007, that was before the permian basin, before the shale revolution for all the other things. So just to say that that that republicans have changed their tune since 2007, the whole energy nature of america has changed since 2007.
▶ 1:16:07We're energy independent. Uh, I will tell you when I in 1976, if what was if the strait of hormuz was closed down? Yeah. We wouldn't be paying $4 for gas. We wouldn't have it. Now it is a problem and it's something we need to get. Hopefully we get addressed soon. Now, not having a nuclear iran is worth it to me. But but what what my point is, is that energy, it has changed over 25 years.
▶ 1:16:34If you had a set back in 2007, look the way europe's going, america and europe had the same size economy in 2008. We're almost twice the size of economy. Could you imagine if america had a half the economy now half the economy? Because we made decisions like europe to overregulate over tax and go green, like at the level that they went. I'm all for clean, I'm all for clean energy. But at the level. Do you imagine if our economy was half the size that it was?
▶ 1:17:00And so think about what decisions europe made in 2007 and eight. We. Luckily, I don't know what happened. I wasn't here in 2007. I know that speaker pelosi was just freshly minted speaker, and I know the environment was a big agenda item for hers. And so in the end, probably from cap and trade to all right, let's just do federal buildings. But imagine if we'd have gone the whole economy towards the federal like they did federal buildings in 2007, like europe did. They have half the economy we have. Could you imagine the america at half the economy?
▶ 1:17:31>> I appreciate the chairman. I'll yield back my time. There's a lot of ways in which we should not follow europe. That is one of them, I yield back. >> I agree with you, and I. I will say, I'm sorry Mr. joe neguse is not here, but I remember very well meeting with president bush and his saying it about the time that this bill was passed, probably that within ten years, everything in this country would be being run by batteries, and we're not
▶ 1:18:02Anywhere near that. Miss fernandez, you're recognized. >> thank you very much, madam chair. And I think that our colleague chip roy asked a very interesting question. Is, americans want to know why we have the debt now, uh, Mr. chairman, can you tell me your big, beautiful bill, uh, what it did to the national debt? How much? >> well, I know that we did, uh, have entitlement reform. Unless. Well, it depends on the number you pick for the growth.
▶ 1:18:30So what cbo said I don't have the actual number off the top of my head, but I think they did like 1.6% economic growth. >> 7 trillion. >> but but but if you go with the real growth that we have, you're not going to see that same issue, right? >> so cbo, cbo said $4.7 trillion. So $4.7 trillion is a lot.
▶ 1:18:52And when you add that to the other tax cuts of the trump administration, the, uh, trump one, so $4.7 trillion, that's what they said. And that's what we are starting to see because not only are we not getting four point. >> that's if we go under 2%. >> oh my god. But we're not getting that growth, are we? >> oh, that's. >> above it actually. >> because of the tariffs because of the war. America is not seeing the growth that we're going.
▶ 1:19:19And the other thing that we're not seeing is we aren't. What we're not seeing is that wind and solar. And I'm going to say this over and over again, because you all come in here and say, wind and solar is so expensive, the subsidies, guess what? Wind and solar energy are cheaper than electricity from fossil fuel plants. Even without subsidies, renewable energy is staying competitive. And I think that that's important because this is data.
▶ 1:19:49This is based on data as reported in the scientific american, uh, ranking member. Isn't that true? That wind and solar, even without the subsidies, are the cheapest and fastest energy we can bring on board? >> absolutely. And again, that's one of the reasons that you see china, for example, moving ahead with all of it, because they know that that's the energy of the future. They know that it is cheaper, and they know that we can't rely on oil and gas forever.
▶ 1:20:19>> well, and the idea that we would. >> not hold ourselves and say we should, we're the federal government. We spend so much money. Let's let's make sure we use ourselves as an example. Let's hold ourselves up to higher standards on all kinds of things. We need to hold congress and the american government up to higher standards. But the other piece about it, guess who benefits from wind and solar? It is rural america. Rural america benefits from wind, solar. I'm very upset, Mr. chairman.
▶ 1:20:49You said the permian basin and you talked about texas. Guess who has the guess who represents the permian basin? >> really? Right. You should be upset. New mexico. I've been to the nuclear plant with a nuclear. Well, I know, I know, but it's right north of the permian. I've been there. So you're right, you're right. Permian basin also straddles new mexico as well. >> not only that, we are the second largest oil producers in the country, but guess what else we are? We have the second.
▶ 1:21:18At one point we had the largest wind farm in the country. Now, the great thing is it's no longer because other people are doing that. And you know who that wind farm benefited, not just the people in the permian basin, but ranchers and rural counties who are getting the tax front of you. And I've gone to the schools that train, uh, the students who are going to work on those wind farms. And Mr. fuller, did you say Mr. fuller brought this bill? >> yes.
▶ 1:21:48>> now. And where is he from? >> georgia. >> now, did you know that in georgia with the with the, uh, ira, uh, they they had 19 large projects, $10 billion in wages. And these are wages being paid. These are funds, these are payrolls in, say, rural america.
▶ 1:22:13And so if we're going to celebrate, pat yourself on the back, you should also say, now we're really sorry that we are sort of attacking the kinds of energy that's good for rural america, because that's what you're doing here. >> well, we're just saying, let people choose the energy. We're not saying you can't do wind and solar. We're just saying to choose the most efficient energy. >> that's not what's happening when you make. >> well, that's what our bill we're discussing before the rules.
▶ 1:22:39>> but when when this administration makes it harder and sues and stops and freezes renewable energy projects, which is about, uh, all forms of energy when they start prioritizing and all you guys do is bring bills that benefit fossil fuels and you are constantly beating up on renewable energies, and you are misstating the facts about what. >> this bill just says. You can't ban fossil fuels. But it doesn't say you have to use fossil fuels. You can't ban it.
▶ 1:23:10>> you guys do. Ranking member. >> this is what it says. >> our bills have. They brought forward since they've been. >> well, the point of the matter is yeah the nun and and you know, the on the energy and commerce committee, the republicans keep saying, oh, we're for all of the above energy, but that's. But they don't do that. No bills. Absolutely.
▶ 1:23:29But beyond that, it also would say that, as I said before, that if you eliminate, uh, the legislation that was passed in 2007 that mandates that you move towards renewables, they're they're not going to consider renewables at all because that's the legacy of the trump administration. They just want to get out of this so that they can then say that everything, every federal building has to be powered with oil and gas. That's what they're up to.
▶ 1:23:53>> do you remember how much when the oil and gas companies went and met with, uh, candidate trump, how much he asked him for his campaign? >> I have no idea. I've never heard. >> $1 billion. >> I have no idea. >> $1 billion. And then he said, you'd really do well by then. Uh, they didn't quite make the billion, but they, they have they have done pretty good by him and he has been well by them.
▶ 1:24:16>> I will tell you, I've, I've heard from all people that they didn't like $6, $60 barrel of oil, which our policies brought about, and that has made it cheaper for american people. >> well, you know, now he's really doing a good job of raising those gas that that per barrel price, which will be good for new mexico because we're going to get more income. But you know who it's really bad for? >> well, I think it'd be good for the world for iran not to have a nuclear weapon. You know. >> high gas prices. >> what's bad for people driving, everybody driving. >> how about rural america?
▶ 1:24:46>> it's absolutely because they have to drive further. I'm not dismissing that whatsoever. >> it takes 11 hours to go from one corner of my district to another 11 hours. >> it's a beautiful state, a big, beautiful state, big beautiful state. Isn't it beautiful? Yeah, it is a beautiful. >> they don't like they don't like the fact that their tractors, 100 gallon tractor, diesel, it's much more they're having to pay. >> it is more expensive today than. But I, I hopefully not having a nuclear iran will be important, but it is expensive. I'm not dismissing. >> that there was a treaty.
▶ 1:25:16I think that we were involved in that. New mexico. I represent los alamos national lab. And, you know, we have the nuclear nonproliferation tools that we would have been able to use if we were to just stayed in that treaty. That would have reduced that because there was a choice.
▶ 1:25:35And if you're going to talk about patting yourself on the back for everything you've done for rural america, how about arguing and standing firm against this war, which is hurting world farmers? You heard that poll was done by the farm bureau association. 70% of farmers don't think they can make it now because of the cost of the war. And then let's talk about the tariffs.
▶ 1:26:04You haven't sort of said everything you've done on tariffs. But because you've done nothing to help on the tariffs what has happened with the soybean farmers. Do you have an idea of what's happened with the soybean farmers. >> well china hasn't just recently made a commitment to buy more soybeans. So hopefully that will come to pass. >> right. And they because they destroyed their export market thanks to trump's tariffs, you have to acknowledge that. >> well, we do trade a lot.
▶ 1:26:29One third of every kentucky soybean does go overseas, not always in china but does go overseas. And china's commitment to buy has been something the president's focused on. And we do need to get trade and agriculture moving again. >> um, it's I mean, that's the thing is that we keep hearing we keep hearing, uh, congresspeople, republicans talk about that, how they're doing good by rural america and they pass a bill that is look at all these pages.
▶ 1:26:58Oh my god, how many do you know how many whereases you have in here? >> uh, I don't know the number. >> oh my god. There's all kinds of. >> I can count them if. >> you like any of these whereases lower the cost of gas of diesel for that tractor. A ranking member. >> to do any of these. >> are you talking to me? The. No, I mean, it has no, it's just a commemorative. As you said from the beginning, it doesn't actually do anything. >> yeah.
▶ 1:27:28And I think that the the other issue that is really hurting rural america, uh, is the fact that there are two kinds of cuts that our hospitals are going to hurt for them. And it's that there are the medicaid cuts, one in four individuals living in rural america relies on medicaid, and then the affordable care act cuts are really going to hurt.
▶ 1:27:57And what happens is when those hospitals, which have such small margins, when people show up and they can't pay the bill, then that hospital suffers. And the little amount that was sent for rural hospitals, is that enough ranking member to make up for the cuts in medicaid, to make up for the cuts, uh, to make up for the elimination of the a c a, uh, tax credit, uh,
▶ 1:28:29Premiums. >> absolutely not. I'm glad you brought that up because, um, the chairman guthrie talked about that rural fund, rural health fund, and it's a pittance compared to the losses from medicaid, the losses to hospitals with what they're doing with the provider tax. Uh, and that's why you're seeing all these comments about the number of hospitals that may close. I think he he dismissed what the governor of kentucky said, uh, that there might be 30 some hospitals in kentucky.
▶ 1:29:00Uh, we the list just came out the other day, new jersey, 15 possible hospitals. And we actually had percentage wise, the best, uh, amount of money that came from that rural fund. Uh, and when I talk to the hospital administrators, they drop in the bucket. I mean, it's, I don't even think it's like even 20, not even like 5% of the losses that the hospitals are. Right. >> it's not enough.
▶ 1:29:27And I have visited every, you know, almost, I think almost every single one of the hospitals in my district that's at risk. And they're very honest. And they tell you why and why those numbers don't work.
▶ 1:29:39And, uh, the big beautiful bill, I understand why the republicans wouldn't have wanted to try to, uh, rename it and rebrand it, but you can't rebrand the kind of hurt that our world, uh, hospitals are going to suffer because of republicans bills that actually do something. But what they're doing is hurting rural america. And with that, madam chair, I yield back. >> thank you, miss lesnar. Fernandez.
▶ 1:30:06Um, seeing no further persons to ask you any questions, I thank our panel for coming today and, um, tell you that you are excused. Thank you.
▶ 1:30:21I now welcome our second panel, representative hagerman and representative stansberry from the committee on natural resources. Your full statement will be submitted for the record. And we ask you summarize your statement in five minutes. We ask you to address all legislation under your committee's jurisdiction.
▶ 1:30:51In your five minutes, we, um. Representative hagerman, I welcome your testimony. Representative stansberry. >> thank you for having me today.
▶ 1:31:58>> of the esa grizzlies were listed as threatened in 1975. The recovery goal was 500 bears. The population is now over 1100 bears. And they have expanded well beyond their critical habitat interior into areas that are not part of the historical range. They have been recovered.
▶ 1:32:19They have met the recovery goals for almost three decades, and wyoming has invested over $50 million in grizzly bear recovery. But serial litigants and activist judges have rejected the scientific consensus. And my constituents are the ones that bear the costs. Rarely a week goes by without a new story of a grizzly bear attack.
▶ 1:32:42Whether it's grizzlies in wyoming, a rancher who has lost over half of their cattle to wolves listed under the esa, a water district facing potential costs exceeding $300 million. Mitigation for non resident fish species or recreational and commercial fishermen whose livelihoods are at risk due to harsh restrictions on their industries. Esa's reach and its impact is significant.
▶ 1:33:06While the esa has had some successes recovering species from the brink of extinction, they are few and far between. The esa's current recovery rate of roughly 3% is not something we should be proud of, and nor should we accept this as the best that our nation can do. What this also is, is a reflection of the fact that the esa is no longer about species recovery and protection, but instead has become a powerful tool used to control land and water use.
▶ 1:33:35Regardless of whether a species is thriving, it is a fundraising mechanism for the wealthiest ngos in the country. H.r. 89, 1897, prioritizes recovery of listed species by incentivizing private landowners and wildlife managers. It pairs objective and incremental recovery goals with regulatory relief. Currently, regulated parties see no direct benefit from a species overall health.
▶ 1:34:02When a species overall health improves, only continued regulatory burdens. Under this bill, as a species improves, so does the regulatory environment. This creates positive incentives to invest in species recovery and clear pathways to species delisting. H.r. 1897 also furthers the house's work to streamline the federal permitting process.
▶ 1:34:25It ensures section seven consultations are based on the effects of the action itself and effects that are reasonably certain to occur, not worst case scenarios dreamt up by federal bureaucrats. The bill also codifies the environmental baseline to include existing infrastructure, ensuring federal agencies focus on the effects of inaction in today's terms, not on hypothetical effects from decades or even centuries ago. The last time congress reauthorized and amended the esa was in 1988.
▶ 1:34:54In the nearly four decades that have passed, the region, impacts of the esa have grown exponentially. Now is the time for congress to act in a bipartisan way to improve outcomes for both the listed species and our constituents affected by them. Next, we have h.r. 5587, the heats act sponsored by representative kim, which would reduce duplicative permitting requirements for geothermal projects operating on state and private lands.
▶ 1:35:21Currently, geothermal geothermal operators on nonfederal land are required to undergo full federal permitting under the national environmental policy act, endangered species act and the national historic preservation act.
▶ 1:35:34If they intersect any quantity of federal subsurface resources, even if the federal minerals being produced are minuscule, the process creates unnecessary delays for developers who must already comply with rigorous state level permitting requirements, hr 5587 would address this issue by relieving the bureau of land management of the obligation to permit geothermal well geothermal wells on state and private lands, where the federal government holds less than 50% of the geothermal
▶ 1:36:05Estate. Crucially, this bill upholds strong environmental standards by stipulating that federal requirements may be waived only if operators obtain drilling permits and comply with state level historic preservation laws. These common sense, common sense reforms will streamline the permitting process for geothermal energy projects and reduce agency workloads, allowing blm to focus on projects with a majority federal nexus by cutting red tape and streamlining development on state and private land.
▶ 1:36:34This legislation will help unleash the heat beneath our feet and provide abundant, clean, baseload geothermal power for decades to come. I urge the committee to report an appropriate rule so these bills can be considered by the house. Thank you and I yield back. >> thank you very much, miss hageman. Miss stansbury, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. It is always an honor to be here in front of the rules committee.
▶ 1:37:01But unfortunately, tonight it is under the circumstance of having to defend some of our most bedrock environmental laws, including the endangered species act and the national environmental policy act. Two weeks ago, an american crew circled the moon in a historic mission that reminded us that american science and innovation can do great things, and reminded us of the fragileness of our home here on planet earth.
▶ 1:37:26And it seems particularly ironic that on the week that we are celebrating earth day, the republican majority is bringing several bills to the floor that seek to gut some of the most successful environmental protections in american history and on the face of planet earth, including one of the most successful conservation bills to protect endangered species.
▶ 1:37:48In fact, the esa has not only been one of our most successful, it has helped to save iconic species like whooping cranes, peregrine falcons, gray wolves, and the very symbol of america itself, the bald eagle. But what is particularly stunning is that these attacks come to some of the most bipartisan bills in the history of this country.
▶ 1:38:11In fact, the esa was signed into law in 1973 by richard nixon, of course, a republican, and passed unanimously in the senate and 400 to 12 to four here in the house. It was championed, in fact, by a republican senator from new mexico named harrison schmitt, who you might recognize as an astronaut who was the only geologist ever stepped foot on the moon.
▶ 1:38:36The passage of the esa followed the passage of nepa three years earlier, also signed by nixon, and also passed unanimously in the senate. Why? Because 50 years ago, republicans in this body believe that saving wildlife, protecting the planet, and investing in science was not a partizan issue, but a patriotic duty.
▶ 1:38:58It is noteworthy that even then, under immense pressure from the very same industries that are lobbying to pass these bills here today oil and gas, mining, logging and real estate development, they still pass unanimously in the senate and with overwhelming bipartisan support.
▶ 1:39:15This is, of course, in stark contrast to what we see before us today, as we see those same industries pushing these bills 50 years later, but with support from our colleagues across the aisle, h.r. 1897 would gut core provisions of the esa and threaten countless endangered species.
▶ 1:39:36It would lead to premature delisting of species, gutting protections for critical habitat, opening the door to junk science, expanding the use of the god squad, limiting the ability of tribes, communities and those most affected to stop bad actors in the courts and prioritize corporate profits over our people and our environment.
▶ 1:39:57Hr 5587, or the heats act, is, in truth, a wolf in sheep's clothing which hasn't been able to be passed out of congress because it bypasses and guts the national environmental policy act.
▶ 1:40:12It allows corporations to drill under public and private lands, potentially for miles, without consideration for public safety, drinking water, cultural resources, and in reality represents a back door to permitting that our oil and gas industries have sought for years. And all of this represents years of influence by special interests and big money in politics.
▶ 1:40:35In fact, the coordination between those special interests, lobbyists and conservative think tanks, culminating in project 2025, which these bills are seeking to deliver on. In fact, project 2025 specifically calls for the changes that are in these bills. So if you have any question about where they came from, I think it's very clear that this is all about corporate giveaways. But the peculiar thing above all. Else is that no one asked for this.
▶ 1:41:05No american people asked for this. In fact, the esa is widely supported by americans. 75 to 90% of americans across the ideological spectrum support species recovery. Americans are not asking you to gut protections for the red fox or the right whale, or sea turtles or manatees. Oil and gas lobbyists are.
▶ 1:41:28And we know that they're all big campaign donors, which maybe explains why we're sitting here today. So let's call these bills what they are corporate giveaways to a system that the american people know is deeply corrupt under the guise of energy and minerals dominance, and something that they have argued for a half century to do.
▶ 1:41:50But, madam chair, let's get back to the business of the american people, to protecting our public lands, protecting our wildlife, lowering costs, stopping these illegal wars, and representing our communities, and stop the corporate giveaways on the backs of the american people and the places that we care so deeply about, including our planet, which we are reminded this week of all weeks on earth day. It is our fundamental moral imperative to protect.
▶ 1:42:20And with that, I yield back. >> thank you, representative stansbury. Um, I'm going to defer my questions again and allow, um, congresswoman fischbach to begin. I have some questions and I'll come back to them a little bit. >> thank you, madam chair. And I just want to say, wow, there was so much that was going on in that testimony that you gave miss stansbury.
▶ 1:42:49And, uh, and I will tell you, you say nobody's asked my cattlemen in my district who's whose cattle are being killed by gray wolf? They asked. They asked us to do something they've been asking for years and years and years. And I have an incredible frustration for folks in my district, have an incredible frustration regarding the gray wolf population because they have recovered.
▶ 1:43:17And the only reason that they won't do anything about it is because the politics of it, to make sure that that recovery is not public is not something they acknowledge scientifically, but they have recovered and they are they're they're killing animals. I mean, there's I don't know how many photos I've seen. They can take down a, a huge animal, a cat, a steer.
▶ 1:43:47They take dogs. They've killed dogs. They kill they family dogs tied up in the front yard in these. So, so when you say that nobody asked. My folks have been asking us to do something about this in particular, and so I. I know there was a lot going on in your testimony, but I, you really, um, we have to help these folks and these animals.
▶ 1:44:09The gray wolf has recovered and I, I just wanted to give you, um, congresswoman hagerman, the opportunity to respond to some of that because there was so much going on, so many accusations. >> well, I think that you were exactly correct. And I think that the hysteria itself is indicative of the misinformation that was provided to this committee in relation to the endangered species act.
▶ 1:44:35The reality is, is that the endangered species act, as I have pointed out, is no longer so much about species recovery or protection. It is the zoning ordinance. It has become a mechanism by which very wealthy ngos can control large swaths of land and water resources, and, ah, they're endangered and threatened species in the united states. There absolutely are. And everybody, everybody on this side of the aisle wants to invest the money and the resources to protect those.
▶ 1:45:04The whooping crane is a perfect example of that. But when we spend the kind of money that we do on the gray wolf in minnesota or wisconsin to keep it on the list, when we spend the money and the resources that we do to keep the grizzly bear on the list in wyoming, in the greater yellowstone ecosystem, we are no longer able to spend those funds where they are needed, such as on whooping crane recovery.
▶ 1:45:27One of the things that strikes me as so odd in washington, dc is nobody seems to have ever heard of the concept of opportunity costs. They act as though we can continue to spend unlimited amounts of money and resources on something that is fully recovered by every single definition. The grizzly bear has recovered. Both democrat and republican administrations have stated that the grizzly. The greater yellowstone ecosystem. Grizzly bear is recovered.
▶ 1:45:56Yet there is a judge in montana that the enviros run to. They. They shop for the jurisdiction. They venue, shop. They run to him every time, and as soon as the agency. The. The people with the so-called expertise move to delist. They run to that judge and he lists the grizzly bears. They used to do the same thing with the gray wolf. I filed my first lawsuit in 2002 over the recovery of the gray wolf in the state of wyoming. We met the recovery goals by 2002.
▶ 1:46:25Within seven years, we met the recovery goals after they were introduced into my state from canada. Not reintroduced, introduced, brought in an apex predator, brought in and shoved down the throats of our cattle producers, our sportsmen, uh, our outfitters and guides. Within seven years, wyoming's efforts, we had fully recovered that species.
▶ 1:46:47It took me 15 years of litigation to finally get a circuit court of appeals here in washington, dc to approve the wyoming wolf management plan, because it was perfectly robust enough to protect that recovered species. In 2017, they were finally delisted in the state of wyoming, and we have done a fantastic job. The state of wyoming has done a fantastic job of managing and protecting the recovered gray wolf population.
▶ 1:47:16But what they're also able to do is manage and protect other species as well, not just our livestock producers, not oil and gas producers, but to protect our other species as well. Our elk population, our moose population, our deer, wild turkey, our dogs, all of that. We are able to do it all. And that's why this this hysteria of having this idea that only the federal government is able to manage these species has been belied by everything that has happened since the endangered species act was adopted in 1972.
▶ 1:47:46What this modernization does, what these policies do, is actually make sure that there is much more of a partnership between the federal agency, our state agencies and the landowners who are the ones that are responsible for protecting these species, not the people sitting in washington, dc. Those are the ones that actually protect these species. Those are the ones that pay the cost.
▶ 1:48:11When you have the bureaucrats and the judges and the very wealthy environmental ngos that refuse to allow for reasonable, uh, management of these species. I've been to minnesota. They call it the north. There's no deer left. The wolves have killed them. It is a dead area because of the gray wolf in minnesota. So it's easy for us to sit here and act holier than thou and talk about going to the moon.
▶ 1:48:39When there are people in minnesota who just went broke because they can't raise sheep anymore because of the gray wolf population. >> absolutely. And I appreciate that input because it really is. It's very frustrating. And I want to see that partnership. I want to see it addressed. They they have recovered, and we absolutely need to help the folks out that are dealing with this, living with this every day that they are.
▶ 1:49:06And I, when I say they come into the front yard and eat dogs, they do they family pet and uh, that's those are not, they are not, um, tame animals. These are dangerous animals that are, that are in people's yards and so, and, and taking cattle down. And we absolutely need to be able to regulate, we need to be able to do something about it.
▶ 1:49:31I appreciate the, the, the fact that we were able to, um, to grow them and, and they were able to recover, but now we have to deal with the result and we have to address it. And I thank you for bringing the bill forward. And with that, I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. fischbach. Miss scanlon, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. Uh, look, all year, house republicans have been prioritizing bills that attack our nation's protected lands and our endangered species.
▶ 1:49:59And today, we have a bill that would end the endangered species act as we know it. House republicans are proposing to make it harder for animals to be listed as endangered, easier for animals to be taken off the list. And they want to block americans from challenging those decisions in court. In practice, the trump administration's pro polluter department of interior is already aggressively de-listing animals from the endangered species list.
▶ 1:50:28The administration has already turned the entire federal government into a giant pay to play scheme, so it doesn't require too much imagination to see how this bill would be used. If this bill becomes law, I guarantee that you will see lobbyists pitching clients that for the right price, we can get whatever animal you want off the list. And who do you think that will benefit most? The mining industry, the oil and gas industry?
▶ 1:50:56It's definitely not everyday americans or the environment. As representative stansbury related americans support these environmental laws and republicans used to. But with the flood of dark money that the citizens united decision has allowed into our politics every week, it's the same thing. We're seeing more republican bills to gut environmental regulations so polluters can pocket more profits.
▶ 1:51:25And it's politics at its worst. Representative stansbury, is there anything you want to add in response to what we've been hearing? >> thank you, congresswoman scanlon. You know, I, I actually do want to just respond briefly about minnesota, because I'm really glad, actually, the recovery of wolves in minnesota was brought into this conversation because there are three states which are ranked in the top tier for species recovery.
▶ 1:51:53Minnesota is one of them because they have one of the most successful state recovery programs, and it's because they rely on the best available science that is real science, not junk science. It's because they make sustained, steady investments in staffing and in species recovery. And it's because they have one of the the most successful wildlife management programs in the country. And so actually, the congresswoman made my point.
▶ 1:52:22This very bill actually guts the fundamental federal programs that minnesota has succeeded in species recovery around because they have a strong state program that actually is coupled with the federal program that many states don't have a strong state program like minnesota does. And the whole point of having federal legislation is to make sure that all places are protected.
▶ 1:52:47Now, I also want to just note that even though I appreciate the impassioned, um, arguments today for folks who've been impacted by reintroduction, especially predators, this 66 page bill that's in front of you doesn't mention either wolves or bears even once. It's not actually in this bill. What this bill does do is it guts the definition of critical habitat. It gets the definition of science. It gets data standards.
▶ 1:53:17It redefines what the baseline for species recovery is. It gets funding for the federal government. It prioritizes what species can actually be prioritized and allows that to be a political decision. It guts mitigation, and it changes the very definition of jeopardy, which is the foundation for making sure that species don't go extinct.
▶ 1:53:39And so while I completely understand, especially coming from a state where, um, predator reintroduction has impacted our farmers and ranchers and we're working hand in hand with them, that's not what this bill is about. This bill is actually about gutting fundamental programs that have saved countless species in america. >> thank you for that clarification, and I yield back. >> thank you, miss cannon. Mr. scott, you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair.
▶ 1:54:08And I won't speak for everybody on my side, but I can tell you from my standpoint, the problem I have with the esa is that it's no longer about the species. It's it's become a way for, uh, radicals, uh, to stop people from doing things. And sometimes it's construction and sometimes it's recreation. And I just, you know, the right whale, I think is the perfect example of that.
▶ 1:54:35And so, um, there are approximately three prop strikes a year, um, with regard to the right whales and under the biden administration, the proposed radical solution to the prop strikes on the right whales was to eliminate the ability to fish offshore for the whole eastern seaboard.
▶ 1:54:59Now, now, granted, you could fish offshore, but only if you agreed not to travel above ten knots, which is about 12mph. So it it it's not. If it were about the species, you wouldn't exempt your your donors and the wind and solar business from the responsibility of killing the whales. And instead, what do you do? You attack the american family who simply wants to take his kid fishing.
▶ 1:55:29And so, you know, there are a lot of emotional arguments, uh, that I hear from the other side. But what about the stupidity of the rules and regulations that you propose that are flat out attack on the american way of life? Like taking simply taking their kids fishing?
▶ 1:55:46So I, I, I mean, I, I like the bill, um, if you have anything you'd like else you'd like to add to it, miss hagerman, I mean, I, I, I think that the stupidity of the proposal under the biden administration that effectively eliminated offshore fishing on the east coast over the right whale and getting rid of a lot of military training in certain areas because of the right whale, when there have been documented three prop strikes a
▶ 1:56:17Year on average, while you exempt your wind and solar donors is just proof to me that the you know, the endangered species act is no longer about the endangered species. And if you want to talk about the the bald eagle who I love, there are a few in my area now, and I'm very glad to see them. Uh, the fact of the matter is, you know, there are people that obtain permits to kill bald eagles, and I wish we would do away with that. So, um, I I'll turn it over to you, miss hagerman. If you got anything else to say other than that, I'll yield my time.
▶ 1:56:48>> well, first of all, just to address the final issue that you stated about the bald eagles, uh, there are other reasons as to why the bald eagle has recovered. And that is one of the things when when the left talks about the science and the best available science, they then ignore it when it does not fit their their purpose or their narrative. And I think the bald eagle is really the perfect example of that.
▶ 1:57:11And I think going to the point that you have made, wind farms have been absolutely devastating to the bald eagle population, absolutely devastating. Yet that is really the most sacred cow to the democrats that I think that there is, is wind farms, uh, trying to convince us. I was listening with great interest to the previous panel, trying to convince us that wind and solar provides more affordable energy. Tell that to the people in europe. Tell that to the people in australia that are trying to get to net zero.
▶ 1:57:43Their energy bills are astronomically higher than ours are because of the absurd energy policies that they are pursuing. And again, I'll go back to what I stated earlier about opportunity costs. Uh, when you increase the cost of the very basics, such as being able to heat or cool your home, uh, then it is, it's going to have a dramatic impact on everyone. Um, when the, when the wind farms, they, they actually, uh, they're getting by, if you will, for killing the bald eagles.
▶ 1:58:11Going back to the absurdity of the endangered species act and what the biden administration did, uh, the last administration's vessel speed rule on the atlantic coast just really identifies and demonstrates the weaponization of the esa. Noaa relied on an obscure procedural provision in the esa to put vessel traffic along the atlantic coast into a stranglehold.
▶ 1:58:35This was a textbook, textbook example of executive overreach and an overreliance on worst case scenario fabrications that would have harmed public safety and decimated coastal economies. Passing this bill is a recognition that fictional precautionary assumptions are unscientific and should not be used to justify draconian restrictions on the american people. Uh, I, I would also say what this bill really does is it focuses back on the experts, uh, in species management.
▶ 1:59:04Um, I'm not aware of states that don't have the game and don't have game and fish departments. I've, I've looked at some of the work that the game and fish department of minnesota has done on the gray wolves. And I think it's, it is just absolutely malpractice the way that the game and fish department in minnesota has managed gray wolves and addressed them. But in the.
▶ 1:59:26In those states that actually believe that the endangered species act should work as it was intended, I think that you find a lot of great success stories like in wyoming. Wyoming game and fish department is absolutely second to none when it comes to species management, no matter what it is in terms of protecting wildlife corridors, in using and relying upon the science that has been developed. There are nine people in the game and fish department that are dedicated to grizzly recovery and protection.
▶ 1:59:56As I indicated, we've invested $50 million, and one of the things that I think is the most important part of this legislation, after having practiced in this area for many years before I came to congress, is creating that much stronger partnership and providing the mechanism and the leeway for providing that partnership or creating that partnership between the state agencies, the federal agencies, but most importantly, the landowners themselves.
▶ 2:00:21One of the things that the endangered species act, and I do believe the enviros that this is this was actually intended by many of them, has has created a situation where they they view the landowner as the enemy rather than the folks that can actually protect these species. I've always said introducing gray wolves in wyoming was one of the greatest real estate moves that was possible.
▶ 2:00:44And talk about fragmentation of beautiful ranches, uh, because the devastation wrought by that apex predator on their cattle herds and their sheep herds incentivize them to sell out to developers because of the impact. So, uh, when you ignore the landowner and ignore the impact on the landowner and ignore the fact that you are destroying their, their economy and their economic wherewithal to survive, what you've done is pushed them into selling and developing.
▶ 2:01:13So I think that those are some of. I used to think they might be unintended consequences. I now think they're intended. With that, I yield back. >> I agree with you there. Intentional. >> thank you, Mr. scott. Mr. mcgovern. >> well, there's so much I want to say. Um, but, um, I won't um, I'm not surprised that republicans are bringing this bill to the floor, and I'm not surprised at the rationale for bringing it to the floor.
▶ 2:01:40I would just simply say that I strongly disagree with this legislation. I will associate myself with the remarks of miss scanlon. Um, and, um, and since everything that possibly can be said has been said, but not everybody has said it, I will just leave it at that and yield back. >> um, I'm still going to defer my questions. Miss leslie fernandez, you're recognized. >> thank you. Thank you very much, chairman.
▶ 2:02:08And thank you to both of you for coming before us so that we could have this spirited debate. I did note that there was something that representative hagerman, uh, said that I wanted to speak to, and that was what we should be spending our money on. Uh, and, and I think that that's really important that because representative hagerman talked about prioritizing what we spend our money on, and these are choices that we make.
▶ 2:02:35Uh, as the federal government, I love, uh, speaker pelosi, what I always say, a budget your values, right? And, and I think that's very key. Our problem is that trump's values with regards to rural america are to cut the programs that hurt rural america.
▶ 2:03:03Uh, I'd like to enter into the record, madam chair. An article from the saint louis public radio, uh, radio dated april 20th, 2026 titled trump's nearly 5 billion proposed cuts to usda could hurt rural america. >> without objection. >> uh, you know, it's it's a 20% budget cut, uh, that he is proposing for the usda. And these are cuts to the communities we are talking about us.
▶ 2:03:33And then the other thing they do is your farmers face new era of trade deficits as global markets shift. This administration has done more to hurt rural america than any other that I could think of. And, you know, I, I don't know whether representative hagerman's district is larger than mine. Uh, but but your whole state, right.
▶ 2:04:00Uh, and you travel the way I do, uh, 11 hours, uh, corner to corner. We know this. We meet with our ranchers, we meet with our farmers. I come from a ranching family. I come from rural america. And I think that the choices we are making are hurting rural america. The choices republicans are making are hurting rural america.
▶ 2:04:25And with regards to the bill on endangered species, we also know that when you allow the local entities to work together on coming up with solutions, it makes sense when you make sure that tribes are involved in that process, that ranchers, that the original conservationist, uh, representative hagerman, when you refer to enviros, sort of.
▶ 2:04:55I always think that the ranchers and farmers in my district are some of the original environmentalists, because they have concerned themselves with conservation like no other, because their life depends on it. Their life depends on an ecosystem that honors everybody.
▶ 2:05:10And there is this saying, uh, that, uh, ralphy hill, who passed away unfortunately recently, uh, he said un poquito para vos un poquito para un poquito para las gracias de dios. A little bit for us, a little bit for god and a little bit for the creatures of god. And I think that the virus that I know are trying to honor that prayer.
▶ 2:05:42Once again, I think I am the last democrat. So if there's is there anything else you'd like to add to this, representative stansbury? >> well, I think as the ranking member said, and thank you, congresswoman fernandez. Um, a lot could be said and certainly lots of different species have been named. But what I'll just say is that the science is very clear.
▶ 2:06:07Species recovery fundamentally requires a landscape level view of how we manage our lands, and that requires coordination, collaboration with private landowners, ranchers. And that's why the previous administration put into place a public lands rule that created a landscape level view. It's why we pass climate resilience legislation. It's why we made historic investments in, uh, public lands, private lands, private and public waters.
▶ 2:06:37And it's why all of us support state coordination, tribal coordination. But I guess I think where I would leave things is that while those are all great and concept, we're here to discuss 66 pages of a bill that guts the fundamental definitions that have protected 99% of american species from going extinct.
▶ 2:07:00And I think especially at this moment as we're facing climate change, especially in the west, historic drought, this is not a time to be gutting those protections. Now is a time to be collaborating and working to save our species from extinction. And as you mentioned, this isn't just an economic imperative. This is really a moral imperative. What do we want to leave behind for our children? Do we want our children to know the wonder of a right whale >> existing on planet earth.
▶ 2:07:30Do we want to know? Do we want to know that our grandchildren will have sea turtles? Do we want to know that our grandchildren will experience the joy of seeing a manatee in florida? All those all those species are being protected by this law and its current state. And that's as much a moral and spiritual imperative as it is an economic imperative. So I thank you for bringing that. >> a little bit for the creatures of god.
▶ 2:07:56And with that, madam chair, uh, I, uh, will oppose this bill because I think we do need the laws that protect the creatures of god. And, um, I yield back. >> thank you, miss leger fernandez. Miss, how do you have any questions? >> yes, thank you, madam chair. Before I go into my commentary on the bill, I just like to ask, um, or on on a particular bill.
▶ 2:08:22Uh, I'd like to ask, uh, representative hagerman, if there's any any response to anything that you'd like to make remarks on before I go into my, my comments and questions. >> so I grew up in an ag family. Most of my family are still ranchers in wyoming. And, uh, they are the original environmentalists. They're the ones that actually protect the resources.
▶ 2:08:43Um, and that is why the endangered species act has been so damaging because it is, uh, it has been very destructive to our ag industry, to our cattle producers, our sheep producers, uh, to others, uh, in terms of just, uh, you can go across the board.
▶ 2:09:01That's what you see in wyoming, but it, it, uh, that's why I think that it is so important with the changes that we're making in this legislation to provide more of that collaborative relationship between those that are actually on the ground, providing the resources for the species and those that are making the decisions. So other than that, I'm just happy to answer your questions. >> thank you. Um, I want to thank my friend, chairman westerman, for his work on these bills.
▶ 2:09:31Um, especially the ones that allow geothermal energy production to flourish and to streamline the permitting process. I want to use my time to focus on the harnessing energy at thermal sources act. Geothermal represents a critical source of reliable, around the clock baseload power that can strengthen our domestic energy supply while lowering costs and improving grid stability for communities and manufacturers alike.
▶ 2:09:57Um, I've seen the effective use of geothermal systems firsthand in my district, margaret mary hospital in batesville, indiana, installed a geothermal energy system that will save the hospital, uh, $220,000 in utility savings within five years. Uh, in fact, I was amazed at the technology, uh, and how it can be so cost effective for heating and cooling in particular.
▶ 2:10:24Um, and, uh, very impressed with margaret mary leading the way on this project. Uh, under current law, developers can be forced to navigate duplicate duplicative permitting processes simply because of a small federal minimal interest mineral interest.
▶ 2:10:42That means navigating multiple layers of environmental review, sometimes up to six separate reviews, which drives up costs, increases uncertainty, and delays projects that could otherwise deliver reliable domestic energy. Uh, congresswoman hageman, for districts like mine, where it's heavy in manufacturing for the local economy, um, affordable and reliable energy isn't an option. It's essential.
▶ 2:11:09How would this bill help, um, manufacturers and business owners and, and hospitals and school systems in my district access reliable and affordable energy under this geothermal bill. >> well, the heat will help build abundant diversified baseload power on the nation's grid. Manufacturing depends on reliable and low cost energy. And that's exactly what geothermal can provide.
▶ 2:11:33By increasing available power, this bill will help to ease the strain on the nation's electricity grid and ensure that consumers have access to affordable energy. While most high quality geothermal resources are concentrated in the west. New technologies are making geothermal power economical, previously considered unsuitable.
▶ 2:11:54>> by streamlining the permitting process, we can encourage investment in these innovations and significantly expand the number of regions across the country that are viable for geothermal development. >> I would encourage anyone who has not visited a geothermal project to do so. Um, really incredible technology that I'm, I'm grateful to have in indiana's ninth district. Thank you, congresswoman. And I yield back, madam chair.
▶ 2:12:25>> thank you very much. I'm going to yield myself some time. Um, first I want to say that I, I, I believe that congresswoman hageman, congressman fernandez, and I all agree that those who live on the land are the best stewards of the land. Um, uh, having grown up farming and, uh, farmed as an adult and with my husband, I know that.
▶ 2:12:50And I've always resented the fact that the government thought that it could run my land better than I could run my land. Um, and I resent many of the rules and regulations that exist around our owning our own property and what we do with it, as long as we're not doing any damage to that property.
▶ 2:13:12So I appreciate the comments that you've made and even, uh, congressman congresswoman fernandez, representative hageman, does the heats act eliminate environmental reviews and opportunities for the public to provide input? >> uh, no, it does not.
▶ 2:13:32The heats act eliminates duplicative reviews in cases where states are already completing permitting processes for geothermal projects, and states have a rigorous review process for these kinds of projects, sometimes more vigorous, vigorous, actually, than the federal government. Opportunities for public input aren't eliminated either. My home state of wyoming has a robust public input process built into its regulations, and other states have similar frameworks.
▶ 2:14:00Also, when compared to unelected bureaucrats all the way in dc, it would be much easier for communities to hold their local regulators accountable for the permitting decisions that they make. And one other thing about the heats act is that if a state does not have a state historical preservation program in place, then they have to go through the national historical preservation program. They still have to go through that processing.
▶ 2:14:26But in the state of wyoming, we have what's called the office, the state historical preservation office, and they're the ones that actually do the on the ground work. And so what this would do in wyoming is if it's less than 50% federally owned resource, then we would go through the state permitting process. But we take care of all of the historical preservation issues in wyoming. It's a very robust office.
▶ 2:14:50>> it is certainly, I think, more in the interest of the people of wyoming than it is for the entire country to care about what's happening there. Mhm. Um, I see, uh, is there anyone else seeking to testify on today's agenda? Seeing none, this closes the hearing portion of our meeting, and I thank you. The witnesses are excused. >> thank you, thank you.
▶ 2:15:17Thank you.
▶ 2:16:03>> the chair will be in receipt of a motion from the gentleman from texas, Mr. roy. >> madam chair, I move the committee grant h.r. 4690, the reliable federal infrastructure act, closed. Rule rule all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment, in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce, now printed. The bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule is all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended.
▶ 2:16:31The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of h. Res. 1182 expressing support for rural communities across the united states as stewards of the environment, major suppliers of the united states energy resources, critical providers of food production and manufacturing capacity, and drivers of national economic stability, and recognize the work of the house of representatives. 109th congress in support of those vital communities under a closed rule.
▶ 2:17:00The rule provides that upon adoption of the resolution, shall be in order, without intervention of any point of order to consider h. Res. 1182 rule provides that the resolution shall be considered as read. Provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by that by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce or their respective designees. The rule further provides for consideration of h.r. 1897, the esa amendments act of 2025. Under a closed rule, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.
▶ 2:17:27Rule provides that in lieu of the amendment, in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources now printed the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee. Print 119-23 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources or their respective designees. The rule provides one motion to recommit. The rule further provides for consideration of h.r.
▶ 2:17:575587, the harnessing energy at thermal sources act of 2026. Under a closed rule, the rule waves all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides that the amendment. The nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources now printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as. Read the rule. The rule waives all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended. The rule provides one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources or their respective designees.
▶ 2:18:26Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit. >> thank you very much. You've heard the motion. Is there any discussion or amendment to the rule? >> well, madam chair, there's not a lot to say. I mean, again, for more completely closed rules and I know amendments were offered, but these are all closed. I guess that's the new republican mantra. Everything is no debate, no amendments. Just shut everything down. But I do have an amendment to the rule.
▶ 2:18:52I move the committee, add a section to the rule to provide for the immediate consideration of the senate's amendment to hr 7147 funding. Lawful department of homeland security agencies debatable for one hour. Equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees. Madam chair, madam chair, this is a this is the deal. You know it. And the people at dhs not getting paid. No, it. The senate is now passed twice, unanimously.
▶ 2:19:21This compromise legislation that would fund all the law abiding agencies under the department of homeland security. Not a single senator objected. The senate majority leader offered the motion. Elizabeth warren and ted cruz both did not object. They both agreed that this should move forward. So stop standing in the way of funding these agencies and put this bipartisan bill on the floor. And this republican dhs shutdown.
▶ 2:19:48I urge a yes vote on my motion, and I yield back my time. >> and is there further discussion on the amendment from Mr. mcgovern? Miss scanlon, you're recognized. >> as I suggested earlier, I would strongly support this amendment, and we should be voting on this. There is no rational reason to hold up funding for dhs other than the two contested agencies within it. Um, the entire senate agreed to it.
▶ 2:20:15Uh, the house would have an overwhelming majority. Um, it's being by an extremist minority. Speaker should put the bill on the floor. Thank you. I yield back. >> thank you, miss scanlon. Further discussion? Miss leger fernandez, you're recognized. >> yes.
▶ 2:20:33I think it is much more important to fund, uh, the department of homeland security and the way that the senate has unanimously agreed to fund it, uh, rather than, uh, passing resolutions that congratulate republicans and do nothing for rural america. So thank you for bringing the motion. Representative mcgovern. >> further discussion on the amendment? Mr.
▶ 2:21:02Roy, you recognize. >> yeah. I'll just simply add that this is not the department of homeland security. It funds portions of the department of homeland security very specifically does not fund ice and border patrol, both of which and both of whom are working on behalf of the american people and deserve funding. That's the point. And that is the problem.
▶ 2:21:17And the fact of the matter is, uh, we should not be isolating, uh, those, uh, great americans who are serving the people of this country, uh, and to try to stop, uh, people from being harmed by people who are not supposed to be here. Um, and we should, uh, we should be figuring out how to fund all of the department of homeland security. Yield back. >> thank you. Further discussion? >> I just say, madam chair, this my way or the highway attitude, especially when there's a unanimous senate that is recommended.
▶ 2:21:46We do this and take the time to work out the other remaining issues. Um, again, is why people hate congress because you get nothing done around here. Nothing gets ever nothing ever happens that's good for this country because of that attitude. And again, we have a here's the deal. If every republican wants to vote no on this in the house, then vote no on it. You know, that's fine. But I think we ought to be funding fema. I think we ought to be funding tsa. I think we ought to be funding the coast guard.
▶ 2:22:16I think we ought to stop this. And by the way, the big, ugly bill funded ice and cbp, uh, to an exorbitant amount. Um, if you want to fund more, but let's bring that to the floor separately. Aw. He's a he's a better idea. Maybe sit down and negotiate in good faith and try to get a bipartisan product. With that, I yield back, madam. >> madam chair. >> Mr. scott.
▶ 2:22:40>> on early friday morning, the house used the tool of unanimous consent to adopt a piece of legislation. The difference in what we did and what the senate did is there were hundreds of members of the house of representatives on the floor when we agreed to unanimous consent. Each and every time the senate has agreed to it, there have been less than a handful of members on the floor of the united states senate.
▶ 2:23:07So I will tell you that if if if the senate wants to do a u. C as a lawmaking exercise, then they should do it when they have a significant percentage of the united states senate on the floor of the senate, just like we did, just like we did on the house the other day. There were hundreds of members of the us house of representatives on the floor the other day when we agreed to the ucc.
▶ 2:23:33The other thing I want to point out is that customs and border protection, they do a tremendous amount of work, good work to protect us. The atlanta airport is one of the largest ports of entry in the world. And, um, the work they do there to make sure that harmful ag products don't come into the united states of america and contaminate our seed supply and other things.
▶ 2:24:01And our food supply in this country is extremely important. So I'm not comfortable funding, uh, parts of dhs and leaving out customs and border protection. They do a tremendous amount of good work and they need to be funded as well as immigration and customs enforcement. And with that, I yield back. >> madam chair. >> Mr. mcgovern. >> I can't believe I'm going to defend ted cruz and mike lee and john kennedy. But the notion that they had no clue that this was coming up not once but twice. Um.
▶ 2:24:31>> were they on the floor? >> yeah. It doesn't matter. >> were they on the floor? >> they were hardly they weren't hundreds of people on the floor. >> yes. There were, you were on the floor. I was on. >> the floor. And by the way, they all admitted that they knew about it in advance. They all knew about in advance. This is such this is so ridiculous. The american people see through this. I can't wait till november comes because we need to stop this nonsense once and for all. I yield back. >> thank you, Mr. mcgovern. I really take offense at your saying that we should.
▶ 2:24:59We have funded the law abiding agencies. Um, our the agencies that are not being funded are law abiding agencies. They're there to do a job. And if they if there are people in those agencies that are not law abiding, they will be taken out. But to call two agencies of the federal government no. Non law abiding really offends me.
▶ 2:25:29So I just want to say, and I think Mr. scott is correct in what he's saying. >> a judge said that not I'm saying what a judge said so. Well you're offended. But the bottom line is a compromise was reached in the senate. We should take it and then we should fight about the differences. Um, with regard to the two agencies, by the way, that are that are funded through the big ugly bill. >> well, we're not a unicameral legislature. We're a bicameral legislature. >> I just want us to be a functioning legislature.
▶ 2:26:00>> is there any further discussion on the amendment? Hearing none. The questions on the amendment, all those in favor signify by saying aye, aye. Those opposed say no. No, the chair of the nos have it. The amendment is not agreed to. Uh, Mr. mcgovern, request a roll call. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach. Mrs. fischbach. No, Mr. norman. Mr. roy, no! Mr. roy, no! Mrs. Mrs. hawkins. Mr. langworthy. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. No. Mr. griffin. Mr. jack. No. Mr. jack. No. Mr. mcgovern. Mr.
▶ 2:26:29Mcgovern, miss. Scanlon, miss. Scanlon, Mr. neguse, miss. Leger. Fernandez. Mr. fernandez, I. Madam chair. >> no. >> madam chair. No. >> the clerk will report the total. >> 3a6 nays. >> the amendment is not agreed to. Is there further discussion on the motion from the gentleman from texas hearing? No further discussion. The questions on the motion from the gentleman from texas.
▶ 2:26:58All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed say no, no. Any opinion? Chair. The ayes have it. The motion is agreed to. >> ask for roll call. And for those roles. >> Mr. mcgovern asked for a roll call vote. A recorded vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll. >> Mrs. fischbach, Mrs. fischbach, I. Mr. norman, Mr. roy aye. Mr. roy I. Mrs. horton. Mrs. horton, I. Mr. langworthy. Mr. scott. Mr. scott. I. Mr.
▶ 2:27:28Griffith. Mr. jack. Mr. jack. I. Mr. mcgovern. Mr. mcgovern. No. Miss. Scanlon. Miss. Scanlon. No. Mr. joe neguse. Miss. Fernandez. Mr. fernandez. No. Madam chair, I. Madam chair, I. >> the clerk will report the total. >> 63 nays. >> the ayes have it. The motion to report is agreed to. Representative roy will be managing this rule for the majority. >> and representing the goose for the democrats. Okay. >> without objection, the committee is adjourned.