Chip Roy

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, the amendment that I am offering here prohibits any of the funds in the Labor-HHS appropriations bill from being used to carry out President Biden's executive orders on climate change. Now, I have been offering this amendment to each of the appropriations bills. They have happily been accepted for virtually all of them, either by voice vote or on a roll call vote, and I think it is because particularly colleagues on my side of the aisle understand the absurdity of the President's orders and its impact on the American citizens, who are struggling to be able to make ends meet, be able to afford their cars, be able to afford their energy. In this instance, these executive orders were responsible for the creation of the Office of Climate Change and Health Equity within HHS. When we are sitting here with $2 trillion deficits each year and $34 trillion of debt, and we have created an Office of Climate Change and Health Equity within HHS, it just tells you the absurdity of this administration. In September of 2021, I sent a letter in opposition to the creation of this office highlighting how absurd it is, and among its responsibilities were ``regulatory efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and criteria air pollution throughout the health sector, including participating suppliers and providers.'' The vast majority of emissions in the healthcare sector stem from the hospital electricity consumption. It seems to follow that where this office would focus its regulatory efforts would be on that. Does this administration want to make hospitals dependent on intermittent wind and solar for their energy? Will it ban the backup generators they depend on which run on diesel and natural gas? On a windless, cloudy day, you still need to have a hospital function. That is the whole point. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to dismiss the whole notion of having reliable energy. Meanwhile, China has 1,100 coal-fired plants. America only has 250. China is building two coal- fired plants a week. We are building none. We are building no nuclear power, which would actually be reliable power so that we could actually have zero-emission reliable power, but FERC, the regulators, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to stand in the way of that. Here we are wanting wind and solar to be the unicorn power of the future, in which we can just live with hospitals not being able to function. That is the whole point. We are more concerned about ``health equity'' in an Office of Climate Change than ensuring that people don't die because hospitals don't have the power that they need. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman says ``come on'' to my assertions about the damage that this causes, but I would just say come on with respect to the family that has to choose between fuel and food this month because that is what is happening. It was the Secretary of Transportation who literally said earlier this year: The American people need to feel pain. Now, imagine if the Secretary of Transportation, allegedly in charge of making sure we have roads and the ability for people to move around this country, engage in commerce, take care of their families, have a strong economy for our national security, for our well-being, our prosperity, imagine if that Secretary says to all of the families out there: Oh, I am sorry. Come on. Looks at them and says: Well, too bad. You have got to experience some pain, don't you understand. Never mind the 1,100 coal-fired plants in China compared to our 250. Never mind they have two a week they keep adding. Never mind that if you eliminate the internal combustion engine, you are not going to dent CO2 production around the world. We are pursuing a radical agenda to the detriment of the American people, and they know it. They feel it. They see it every single day with the high price of gas, the high price of electricity, the increase in the cost of their homes, and the inability to buy goods and services that rely on that energy. They see it every day in a world destabilized around the globe because we are not pushing out American energy, liquefied natural gas. We are not building nuclear power. We are not doing all the things we could do to be significantly energy independent here using our resources to make sure that we are not buying into unicorn energy, undermining our national security and our prosperity. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, the amendment that I am offering would prohibit the District of Columbia from using Federal funding to require that elementary or secondary school students take the COVID-19 vaccine and all the boosters to attend school. In 2021, the D.C. City Council voted to create an unscientific mandate that D.C. students be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 including boosters. It was repeatedly delayed, as the parents of more than 40 percent of children over 12 in D.C. decided the COVID-19 vaccine was not worth the risks and declined to get vaccinated. Today, the mandate would keep 73 percent of all D.C. students between the ages of 12 and 17 out of classrooms. Now, the issue here, obviously, is twofold. One is whether Congress should have a role in impacting policy choices in the District of Columbia, which the Constitution clearly contemplates. In fact, the District of Columbia is not a State. It was not designed to be a State. It is not going to be a State because the District of Columbia was set up in our Constitution to be our National Capital, by design, very specifically. One of the things that we are able to do as a Congress is effect policy in the District of Columbia, whereas we are not supposed to intervene for the most part in the laboratories of democracy among the States. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle never find any limit to their ability to want to interject into the States. One of the things we can do in D.C. is try to impact policy here. Now, the fact is, these vaccine mandates were completely ineffective; and, in fact, they were destructive. The CDC's own website states that when cases have occurred, they have most frequently been seen in adolescent and young adult males. The Pfizer website states myocarditis and pericarditis have occurred in some people who have received the vaccine, more commonly in adolescent males. The FDA has placed a warning label on both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. I could go on and on with the evidence and the indication of the concerns these mandates have on freedom and, importantly, our children. Now, obviously, the rule for this was passed before yesterday when the D.C. City Council unanimously voted to repeal this unscientific mandate. There is not some vast Republican conspiracy afoot in D.C. The Department of Health, Office of State Superintendent of Education, and the Deputy Mayor of Education each testified in favor of repealing the vaccine mandate. What we are doing here in offering this is making clear that it is the position of the United States Congress who is constitutionally charged with ensuring that the District of Columbia is managed appropriately is no longer foisting upon the children who live in the Nation's Capital a, frankly, intrusive and harmful vaccine mandate, and it should not continue. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, the amendment that I am offering here prohibits any of the funding in the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act from being used to carry out President Biden's executive orders on climate change. This is something I have been offering in each of the appropriations bills because I believe that the implications of the President's executive orders on climate change are significant. They are undermining our well-being. They are undermining the prosperity of American citizens. They are harming the economy. They are driving up inflation. They are minimizing options for the people of this country to go about doing their jobs. They are driving up the price of energy. They are making cars more expensive. They are making homes more expensive. You wonder why we have high inflation? Look no further than the radical environmental policies of my Democratic colleagues. In September, the Department of the Treasury issued its ``Principles for Net-Zero Financing & Investment,'' which highlighted best practices for net-zero commitments and approaches to implementing them. The SEC has proposed rules to force all public companies to report on their emissions and all the emissions in their value chains. The bill defunds that. The IRS is implementing the vast majority of $1.2 trillion in climate subsidies included in the IRA--again, $1.2 trillion in climate subsidies included in the IRA. The goal is clear: Force divestment from oil and gas--one of our largest geopolitical assets, one of our strongest blessings from the good Lord that this country has to be able to stand independently, energy independent, and to be able to have a significant force in the world. These orders have directed the General Services Administration to overhaul the Federal building portfolio and vehicle fleet. Each agency's light-duty vehicle acquisitions shall be zero-emission vehicles by the end of fiscal year 2027. Each agency shall achieve net- zero emissions across its portfolio of buildings, campuses, and installations by 2045 and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent. This rapid overhaul of the Federal footprint should concern everyone. We are going to make our Federal vehicle fleet dependent on an EV supply chain that is 90 percent dominated by China. Eight of the ten largest solar equipment makers are headquartered in China, and 10 of the 15 largest wind equipment makers are Chinese. The fact of the matter is the implementation of the President's executive orders undermines our national security, empowers our enemies, and undermines our ability to have a prosperous economy. For that reason, I am glad it has been adopted in virtually every one of the appropriations bills that we have moved forward, and I hope that it will be here. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chairman, in March of this year President Biden signed legislation that we moved through this body overturning the criminal code revisions of the D.C. City Council that reduced the maximum penalties for burglary, carjacking, and robbery. Our own colleague, the gentleman from Texas, was carjacked at gunpoint nine blocks from where we are right here. The fact of the matter is D.C. needs continued oversight from this body. I am glad that we acted and passed that legislation and forced change to the code, and I am glad that President Biden signed it. What we are doing here is not just academic. I understand the D.C. City Council acted yesterday, but it is important for this body, for the House of Representatives, to make clear that the students in this country should not be subjected to mandatory vaccine mandates that undermine their health through pseudoscience. We have an obligation to ensure that we are ensuring that Nation's Capital is doing the right thing, and, frankly, we have the ability to influence that in ways we should not when interfering directly with the laboratories of democracy. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania offering the amendments that he has offered. I am offering here an amendment that I have offered to other appropriations bills affecting other agencies that would prohibit any of the funding in this bill, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bill, from being used to carry out President Biden's executive orders on climate change. We have had success in moving this amendment on previous appropriations bills because, frankly, it is fairly obvious to most people in the Chamber, certainly to most Americans, that these executive orders are out of step and out of touch with where the American people are. They are pushing a radical agenda that is completely devoid of recognition of what is happening in every American's life right now, that they can't afford to buy even the home they live in, much less the fuel they need for their cars, buy the car that they need, be able to afford to pursue any of the initiatives put forward in terms of solar panels and other things because we are driving up the price of energy, making it impossible for people to live their lives because we are pursuing a radical agenda. By the way, it is making us completely dependent on China at a time when we should be decoupling from China. It is at a time that is making it where we are not holding Iran accountable, and we are actually enriching Iran right now with our energy policies. We are not sanctioning Iran. We are allowing them to sell oil to China. We are advancing this agenda because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to put out this notion of climate change as being more important than the inflation that is wrecking the American family. I have had Members on the other side of the aisle testify to this in the Rules Committee. They literally have said that. They are prioritizing this agenda over the American family today who cannot afford an automobile, cannot afford the gasoline to put in the automobile, cannot afford the energy prices in their homes, electricity, and can't even afford the houses because of what this administration has done with their policies to drive up the price of energy with a radical agenda. In this case, Secretary Buttigieg is on a mission to overhaul the transportation sector saying, ``Transportation ought to be responsible for the biggest share of the solution.'' DOT has established a Climate Change Center with the goal of decarbonizing the transportation sector by 2050. In July of 2022, the Secretary said, ``The more pain we are all experiencing from the high price of gas, the more benefit there is for those who can access electric vehicles.'' Right there is the agenda of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Right there is the agenda of the Biden administration. They want the American people to feel pain. Those are the words of the Secretary of Transportation. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chairman, the problem is that if you listen to our Secretary, we saw that in 2 months after he made those comments, California asked EV owners to stop charging amid a heat wave. Secretary Granholm literally pushed aside a pregnant woman and her family from the ability to charge at a charging station in order to do a photo op. That is what we are doing. This is all about projecting an image. It is not about the real-life impact on American families. That is the truth. For example here, one of the Secretary's appointees to DOT's Advisory Committee on Transportation Equity--don't get me started on that--has said: ``All cars are bad.'' All cars are bad. This is about undermining the American way of life, and the fact of the matter is, if you eliminate the internal combustion engine--by the way, the internal combustion engine that is sitting in President Biden's 1967 Corvette--which I believe is a 327; I don't think he has the 427--doesn't get exactly a great deal of really good gas mileage and, in fact, is spewing out a whole lot more carbon than the average American's vehicle. By the way, I am totally fine with that because it is a great car, a great example of American awesomeness, to be clear. The fact is when you have got an appointee of the Committee on Transportation Equity saying, ``All cars are bad,'' that tells you exactly what the situation is. If you eliminate the internal combustion engine, that will do nothing when you know that China has 1,100 coal-fired plants. We have about 250, and China is building a couple coal-fired plants a week, and we think that we are going to impact CO2 production around the world? How about we develop nuclear power? How about we let the American people live their lives? How about we let the American people not have their lives get crushed with radical policies? That is why this amendment should be adopted. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for the time. With respect to the gentleman from Maryland, I understand the perspective with respect to free speech, and I certainly wish to always stand aside the protection of free speech in this country, but this goes well beyond that. We are not talking about restraining the gentlewoman from Michigan's ability to speak as an American citizen. We are not talking about punishing her and putting her in jail. What we are talking about is whether a Member of the House of Representatives, a Member of this body representing this Nation, is justified in putting forward a defense of the actions of Hamas terrorists that murdered innocent Israeli citizens and are holding United States citizens and Israelis hostage. In her own language, she was defending on October 8--a mere 24 hours into the brutal and barbaric attacks in which babies were beheaded, babies were placed into ovens, literally. Moms were raped in a house while their babies were put in an oven. This is a documented account, video evidence, and this is dismissed as resistance to an apartheid state. My problem is that the gentlewoman is also referring to Joe Biden supporting the genocide of the Palestinian people. The gentlewoman has put forward that by virtue of the United States of America funding, in solidarity the people of Israel in defense of their right to exist, that by virtue of our position as Americans standing in front of that flag in this Chamber representing 330 million Americans, that by funding and supporting Israel, we are somehow perpetuating the call for violence that we saw unfold right before our eyes on October 7 in the most brutal and heinous acts that some of us have ever seen. I do not doubt the gentlewoman's sincerity of her concern for her home people and concerns about the attacks on the people of Gaza. I had some people who called into question that I would put out my public support for my former colleague, Justin Amash, who lost cousins in a church, receiving missile fire into a building next to a church. I genuinely pray for the people of Israel, the people of Gaza, the people throughout the world that are now dealing with all of this. The gentlewoman cannot, as a Member of Congress, be standing up and telling the world that what we saw unfold in attacking Israel is justified. We can't. Free speech matters. I have grave concern right now about where this institution is going with respect to censures. I voted against the censure last week because I thought it had drafting problems and I thought it had significant concerns it raised. Mr. Speaker, I believe the work that was done by my friend from Georgia, he put forward a resolution that is worthy of support. I support the resolution and believe that we should pass it.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering here on the legislation we are considering would prohibit any of the funds in this appropriations bill from being used to carry out so-called environmental justice activities. This so-called environmental justice is nothing more, in the end, than a synthesis of divisive racial ideology and policies that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to promote with radical environmentalism. Basically, they are taking the radical environmental policies perpetuated in the EPA and Interior through this administration, doubling down on them, injecting divisive race policies, and now creating a larger problem for the American people. The entire ideology is based on the notion that Federal environmental funding should be allocated based on immutable characteristics. Let's think about that for a minute. Not only do we need to destroy the American economy with radical environmental policies, but we need to inject divisive race policies in the middle of it. That is where we are. People are running around, going to the gas station to get gasoline. They are trying to power their homes. They are wondering why we are having massive instability around the world. They wonder why China is on the rise. They wonder why Iran is able to enrich itself by selling oil to China. They wonder why they can't afford to live their own lives while inflation is destroying their well-being. Now, we are injecting race into the middle of it all. Biden's so-called Justice40 Initiative directs 40 percent of Federal clean energy and energy efficiency spending based on ethnicity, migrant status, and income status. You literally just can't make up this absurdity. Here are some of the examples. ``Developing a roadmap to dismantle environmental racism'' in Brunswick, Georgia. Ecology Action in Bloomington, Illinois, ``seeks to identify and develop mitigation strategies for disproportionate climate impacts . . . and increase tree equity.'' What in the hell is tree equity? Supporting summer high school environmental internships in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ``to build climate resilience and connect mainly young people of color to life skills and environmental sector career pathways.'' However, a recent study conducted by President Obama's former Energy Secretary found, on average, solar workers make $12,000 a year less than oil and gas workers. The fact of the matter is that we are destroying the American economy by chasing the climate agenda, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle fully acknowledge and admit is being driven by the climate agenda and that the American people must suffer higher inflation and higher costs--an inability to afford their own homes and their own cars to go about their own jobs and their own way of life--in order to pursue an agenda that everybody acknowledges that, even if we do everything my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say we should do, wouldn't dent CO2 production relative to what is happening in China, India, and countries around the world. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chairman, the fact is, I have not heard one constituent--not one constituent among the 750,000 people who I represent--come up to me and say: Do you know what I need, Congressman Roy? I need environmental justice funding. Calls to my office are just begging for environmental justice funding. Has anybody had a constituent do that, call up and say: Will you please solve the world's problems with environmental justice funding? No. Do you know what I have had? I have had phone calls to my office saying: I can't afford gas. I can't afford electricity. I have had calls from workers from a refinery in my district saying that they are going to drive us out of business and that they don't know what they are going to do. That is all a direct result of a radical agenda by Democrats in the White House, the administration, and my colleagues across the aisle in this Chamber and the other Chamber who are more interested in advancing a radical agenda than standing up for American citizens who simply want to live their lives. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a straightforward amendment. It would do what the American people want us to do, which is focus on our job here in this Chamber to deliver our constitutional duties and nothing more and not divide us by race while also destroying the American economy with radical environmentalism. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, before I talk about this amendment, the gentlewoman referred to the importance of having trees. No one disagrees with that. Yes, I live in the Texas Hill Country, where live oaks are something we try to figure out how to protect, especially, for example, when you have an ice storm like earlier this year. You are out there figuring out a way to go save your trees by cutting limbs and figuring out how to preserve the beauty that God gave us. Nobody disagrees with that. Nonetheless, the idea that a core responsibility of the Federal Government is tree equity is absurd. The State of Texas is the eighth largest economy in the world. We are perfectly capable of figuring out how to deal with trees. We don't have any money. We are $34 trillion in debt, $2 trillion a year in deficit spending, and we are talking about tree equity? What the hell are we doing? That is the question here. I love trees. I love live oak trees. I do everything I can to preserve and protect the environment in which I live because--this is a crazy idea--I live there. I actually like to fish, and I like to live in clean air and clean water. I like to have an environment that is great to be in for my kids and my family. We had a Clean Water Act and a Clean Air Act in Texas before the Environmental Protection Agency was even created here in this town. The fact of the matter is we can do what we need to do to protect our communities without this place spending money we don't have to interfere with this. Yes, there are interstate issues we must deal with, and we can deal with those things. Nevertheless, the fact is we can do these things. This amendment that I am offering prohibits any of the funding in the Interior-Environment appropriations bill from being used to carry out President Biden's executive orders on climate change. These executive orders direct the EPA to wage its regulatory war on the United States energy production and the internal combustion engine. The fact of the matter is there are ambitious efforts to convert our entire fleet of vehicles to have two-thirds of new vehicles be electric vehicles by 2032. Now, that might sound good in a little focus group in some Ivy League cabal in Boston, but the idea of what this is going to actually do to hardworking Americans is something we ought to actually flush out for the American public when the average EV is $16,000 more than a vehicle with an internal combustion engine. Maybe we should talk about the racial justice issues of cobalt miners around the world who are being exploited in the Congo so that we can empower China by buying all of their batteries rather than producing American oil and gas. If people think that all of this stuff is an accident of what we are seeing unfold in the Middle East and what we are seeing unfold in Ukraine while our prices are going up and while our national security strength is going down because we are pursuing this radical agenda, these things are all connected. So, yes, we should not be funding these radical executive orders that are destroying the American way of life and making it virtually impossible for people to figure out how to live their lives while we pursue unicorn energy theories that we are going to be able to somehow magically produce power without the use of reliable power. Texas has tons of wind and solar. That is great, but we also have a grid that is decreasingly reliable directly as a consequence of Federal regulatory impact on our ability to manage our grid. That is wrong, we shouldn't do it, and we shouldn't be funding a continuation of it. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is that, yes, this bill returns the funding to the ever-efficient model of effectiveness of the 2018 Federal Government. Yes, it does back up the funding levels. Frankly, we ought to be doing it for more of our agencies, and we are trying to take those steps forward. I will say that unapologetically because the American people are sick and tired of the Federal Government spending money we don't have to fund agencies that are directly at war with their way of life. That is the truth. That is why gasoline is $1 more than it was when Biden took office, despite the fact that the President has completely dumped our Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to try to preserve political benefits for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That is just the simple truth, and everybody knows it. Yet, we run around here ignoring the reality of what that means for the American people who are trying to get by every single day while the Federal Government is directly at odds with their ability to prosper, earn a living, pay their bills, pay for their energy, pay for their schools, buy cars, and do what they need to do. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday, October 30, 2023.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Military Working Dog Teams National Monument located at Joint Base San Antonio--Lackland. For the past ten years, the Military Working Dog Teams National Monument has served as a physical symbol of the loyal service and unconditional sacrifice that military working dogs have made alongside our men and women in uniform since WWII. It is a privilege and an honor to celebrate the anniversary of the Military Working Dog Teams National Monument. I hope this record serves as an acknowledgment of the immeasurable debt of gratitude owed to both soldiers and K-9s by the American people. On behalf of Texas' 21st Congressional District, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the extraordinary sacrifice of these individuals and animals.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt the floor staff is overjoyed to be returning to the floor and having business get back to normal. I will be sure to try to make sure I use the entirety of the 60 minutes and regale our fine staff. I do want to take a moment to thank the staff, as the Speaker did when he was voted into office and sworn in yesterday. We have great staff who work hard here on the floor and keep this institution functioning even when sometimes we are not functioning much as a body. I am grateful for the staff. As a former staffer, I know how hard they work, and I am deeply appreciative of it. We have had an interesting few weeks, and a lot of people around the country were asking questions about what we were doing in having a debate about the Speaker of the House. My response has largely been: We are doing our job. We are having a debate in this body about the future of the country, and that is actually what we are supposed to do. Choosing a Speaker of the House, following a Speaker of the House, removing a Speaker of the House, all of those are things that are part of our job to figure out what we need to do to make sure that we are doing the people's work in the people's House. All of this will be forgotten in a matter of hours, days, and certainly in history books. The only thing that is going to matter is what we do with our power in this institution, in the House of Representatives, to represent the people. That is all that is really going to matter in the end. All of the noise, all of the debate, all of the reporters scurrying around, all of the interviews and 24/7 news shows, none of that will matter. None of that will be remembered. None of our kids and none of our grandkids are going to be wandering around in 10 years or 40 years or 100 years saying, well, man, what about that interview on Sean Hannity or on MSNBC or something. They are not going to know anything about that. The only question that will matter is are they living in a free and strong country. That is the only thing that is going to matter. Are they able to carry out their God-given rights that are protected under our Constitution and under the laws of the United States or are they not? One of the things that I think is really important that I have observed throughout this process, as I sit here in a largely empty Chamber with two Members of Congress, a lot of my colleagues are catching their flights home after a few weeks of drama surrounding the Speaker. One of the things that I have observed in this debate about who should be the Speaker and what House Republicans want to do with the majority is that my Democrat colleagues are nowhere to be found on any of the issues that matter to the people I represent and the vast majority of the American people. That is the simple truth. With all due respect to my Democrat colleagues, some of whom I consider friends and I have worked to move legislation with, happy to have debates with, they are utterly missing in action when it comes to anything that matters to the people that I represent: $33.5 trillion in debt, $2 trillion a year in deficit spending, and my colleagues' objective other side of the aisle, and frankly, a decent number of my own colleagues on this side of the aisle, are completely missing in action when it comes to figuring out how to stop spending money we don't have. When it comes to open borders, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not only won't sit down and figure out solutions, they are actively working to thwart any possible path to doing what we need to do to secure the border of the United States. The American people, particularly the Texans that I represent, are looking with abject horror on the utter and complete failure that is this body and the Senate and the White House's response to wide open borders and in fact, their active engagement in creating the environment where our borders can be exploited. Again, just to be very specific, the American people that I talk to and my constituents that I represent, they want us to stop spending money we don't have and to stop racking up debt. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to do anything about it. The constituents I represent, the American people I talk to, want us to secure the border of the United States and stop the endless streaming of fentanyl into our communities, the empowerment of cartels, the empowerment of China, the destruction, the murder, the mayhem, the deaths of migrants, the deaths of our own citizens all from wide open borders that are directly contrary to law. The American people want us to stop it. My Democratic colleagues refuse, and in fact, are all too happy to participate in the human smuggling chain that is decimating Americans and migrants. That is the truth. It is generally, observably speaking, an undeniable truth. My Democratic colleagues will not respond to the constituents that I represent or the American people I talk to who are asking for our military to focus on its core mission rather than be turned into a social engineering experiment in a uniform. The American people don't want that. They don't want to destroy the culture of the military. They don't want to undermine the ability of the military to perform. They don't want recruiting to be in the basement. They want their military to be very good at killing people and destroying things when called into action to do so. They want it to be used sparingly. They don't want to be involved in endless wars. They don't want us to be engaged in foreign entanglements, to use the wording of President Washington, endlessly. They want us to stop that. My Democratic colleagues have no interest in ensuring that our national defense, that our military is focused on its mission rather than on funding transgender surgeries, funding offices of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion and chief diversity officers and all the things that divide us up by race, that divide us up instead of making us unified. All of the things that the people that I represent, all of those things: the weaponization of government against the people, concerns about an FBI targeting parents, concerns about an FBI that is politicized, an ATF that wants to undermine your ability to defend yourself in your communities even while my Democratic colleagues refuse to stand by law enforcement and ensure that our communities are safe. Even as I saw San Antonio police officers again last week shot on our streets with a Democrat district attorney, a Soros-funded district attorney, utterly incapable and refusing to do his job to ensure those criminals are locked up behind bars. Instead, they are out on the streets shooting our police officers. Everybody in this country knows the state of affairs. The communities are not safe because we allow criminals to roam them. They know that our border and our country is not safe because people affiliated with terrorist organizations and gangs and cartels are coming across our border. They know that fentanyl is streaming into our communities. They know that the Chinese are exploiting our border, working with cartels to do it. They know that we are catching people from Iran, from Lebanon, from Indonesia, from places all over the world at our border, people affiliated with dangerous organizations in Colombia and South America. They also know that there are hundreds of thousands, millions who are got-aways that get into our country. Again, I want to say this because it is really important--that our Democratic colleagues refuse to work with us on any of those issues, period. Full stop. I am happy to engage in any debate with any of my Democratic colleagues any time on any of these issues and have them bring forward any meaningful policies that will make a difference on any of those things. Now, why is that important? Why is it important to make very clear to the American people that my Democratic colleagues have no interest in working with us on any of the issues that deal with debt, deficit spending, open borders, a military that is not focused on its mission, crime on our streets, cutting spending to stop inflation so the American people are no longer suffering, why is it important to make that crystal clear? The American people are wondering why Washington is broken, and I will tell you. It has been decades of rot, decades of institutional powers that are making decisions in this town, and they don't like it if you change it. They don't like it if you are fighting back. That matters in the context of the debate over the Speaker of the House. The 221 Republicans in the House of Representatives, a thin majority, are having a full and open debate in front of the American people about the future of this country. I have strong disagreements with a number of my colleagues in the Republican Party, but the debate that is going on in the Republican Party is the debate that is going on across this country, but it is a debate being fully ignored by my Democratic colleagues. They are not a part of it. I listened to the minority leader speak from the rostrum before the newly elected Speaker of the House spoke yesterday. I heard Minority Leader Jeffries talking about all of the things the Democrats have done to save this country this year: how it was Democrats who stepped in, in his words, at the brink of a so-called default in June. It was Democrats who stepped in at the brink of a so- called shutdown in November. It was Democrats who stepped in in the Speaker's race, by the way. Keep in mind that my Democratic colleagues when they say they are saving things, they are driving the train for $4 trillion of increased national debt in a continuing resolution to keep this government going at a $2 trillion deficit. That is what my Democratic colleagues are championing as saving this country. Somebody explain that to me. Somebody explain to me how that is what the American people sent us here to do. For my Republican colleagues, what are we going to do to change it? Eight of my colleagues vacated the Chair. What that means is they called the question on the Speaker of the House. Lots of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, and many Republicans across the country, stood in violent disagreement with those eight. I didn't vote alongside those eight at that moment. I thought we should try to finish it out for another month or 2 under the structures we had put in place in January to change this institution, to put more conservatives on the Appropriations Committee, to put more conservatives on the Rules Committee, to have more engagement, all of which led to very good legislation. The strongest border security bill we have ever passed in H.R. 2, the strongest national defense authorization bill that we have ever passed that would repurpose and refocus the military on its mission rather than being woke and engaged in social engineering, a strong Limit, Save, Grow bill that would have modestly increased the debt while transforming spending in this town, we did that. We passed four appropriations bills. In a town that never passes appropriations bills any longer, we did that. Those eight stood up for a reason, and they should be proud that they stood up for that reason because those eight stood up for change. You see, the status quo in this town is going to destroy this country. The status quo continuing to do the same thing we have done over and over and over again is going to change this country and destroy it. I have a 14-year-old son. I have a 12-year-old daughter. I know my friend from Tennessee behind me and my friend from Arizona in the Chair, proud fathers, family men, a veteran, we want to save this country for our kids and our grandkids. My question for my colleagues on this side of the aisle as we elect a new Speaker--and we have 220 united behind that Speaker--is: Are you going to unite behind that Speaker to change this town and change this country; yes or no? Now is the time. I am tired of all the empty rhetoric about unity. I am tired of all the empty rhetoric about what we need to do and that whatever the majority of this conference says, goes. No. I didn't swear an allegiance to the Republican Party. I didn't swear an allegiance to a majority of my Republican colleagues. I took an oath to the Constitution of the United States under God in representing the people who sent me here to represent them. Nothing more. I have for my entire life--I am 51 years old--been watching a majority of this body and often a majority of this Republican Conference destroy this country day in, day out. A genuine question I ask of my colleagues to which I don't get much of a response, do you believe that the majority of the Republican House of Representatives, the Republican Conference, has done a good job over the last half century, in my 51 years? The majority of Republicans, have we stood up to cut spending, or have we instead increased spending and increased debt? Everyone knows the answer to that question. Have we increased the size and scope of the Federal Government, or have we decreased it? Everybody knows the answer to that question. Have we as Republicans, the majority, making decisions and selecting the Speaker and doing the same thing over and over and over again, have we led to open borders and an unsecure border, or have we created a secure and sovereign border? Have we sided with the Chamber of Commerce and cheap labor and all the lobbyists in town, or have we stood with the people to say that the border should be secure so that we are safe and, importantly, that the rule of law is being enforced? Everybody knows the answer to that question. Have we engaged constantly in putting ourselves in foreign entanglements endlessly without clear mission and without clear ends, or have we had a very specific and concrete mission that we use our military discretely, powerfully, limitedly, and come home? I think everybody who has eyes can see the answer to that question. The number of our own Members who are missing an eye, wearing a patch, a man without legs, a man without an arm--battle scars from generations of endless conflict as long as I have been alive. Are we a country that believes that we are supposed to declare war and have a Congress that stands behind that and gets in and out, or do we believe we should have endless conflict? Again I ask--a majority of Republicans have put those policies forward: more debt, open borders, a military that has lost its way, its focus, and engaged in endless conflict, expanded the Federal Government at exponential levels. Just today, trying to be a team player--many of us who strongly oppose continued funding of programs and agencies that we don't support because they are vastly out of their constitutional role, the Department of Energy and all sorts of programs--we voted for a bill to try to move the ball forward as a team, trying to cut spending and get appropriations bills so we can change this town. We were met with abject resistance from this side of the Conference saying, no, we are not going to keep cutting spending. We are going to oppose your amendments cutting programs and spending. We are not going to do the work that we said we would do to balance the budget, limit the size and scope of government. We meet resistance every day within our own party. So how, pray tell, can we save this country if half of the body has no interest in being sovereign, no interest in having a secure border, no interest in cutting spending, no interest in having a defense that is mission-focused instead of being woke and socially engineered? Half of the body is only slightly less. How can we do that? I will tell you the answer. The answer is that some of us are going to continue to force change in this town. When this Congress began there was a debate about the Speaker. We forced change through rules. We demanded that we get to read the bills. We demanded that we would have more representation on the committees. We demanded that there would be single-subject legislation. We demanded that we would get appropriations bills done. Only four times in my lifetime, in 50 years, have we passed all 12 appropriations bills, rather than letting deals get cut in smoke-filled rooms. It worked for a while and we made this place better. But, as usual, the powers that be circled, and so more change is needed. Now we have a new Speaker, and the question before us is what we will do with that. I believe we have to be very clear. I believe we need to tell the administration, Senate Democrats, House Democrats, Senate Republicans, and indeed some in our own Conference, we need to tell them very clearly that it is a new day and that it is time for the American people to be represented. It is time for this town to no longer roll over the American people for their own special interests or just sheer laziness. Specifically, House Republicans must stand to thwart the Biden administration and Senate Democrats with the help of Senate Republicans' objective to force through a massive supplemental bill for funding for Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, and allegedly the border, of some hundred billion dollars or any other number. Instead, House Republicans should send over a standalone Israel bill fully paid for. There is a novel concept--fully paying for something. Under no circumstances should the House Republican Conference allow legislation to get to the floor of this House that is not paid for and that is not focused entirely on Israel with respect to this package. We should stand by Israel; it is in our interest. But it is not in our interest or, frankly, Israel's, for us to continue to borrow money we don't have to fund it. We should pay for it. The second thing we should do is continue to move appropriations bills, but not for the sake of it. With all due respect to some of my colleagues who think it is an end unto itself to move appropriations bills, it is not. We must move appropriations bills that are responsible, that pull back on the abuses of this administration and, importantly, reduce spending. We are not there yet. We have more to do. Thirdly, when it comes to November 17, this House Republican Conference must not blink. The fact that funding expires in 3 weeks means we should get our job done to get appropriations bills passed and any stopgap spending measure should be short and focused on forcing the Senate and the White House to come to the table and cut spending. It cannot be that we are going to continue to do what we have always done, which is to kick the can down the road, spend money we don't have, rack up debt, and do the same old thing we have always done. Fourth, this is probably the most important thing that needs to be said. I don't care who is in charge. I don't care who the Speaker is. I don't care what this Republican Conference puts out or doesn't put out. We have an obligation as Republicans, who campaign on securing the border, who go on TV and do interviews, and go to our constituents and do mailers and do fundraisers talking about securing the border, to fully and completely secure the border. Under no circumstances should we allow a single dollar to even be considered for Ukraine, if at all, and certainly not without having done our job to secure the border, which means--let me be very clear for everyone in the Senate and all of my House colleagues, Democrat or Republican--a secure border starts with H.R. 2 and every component in it. I don't want to hear all of your excuses about what the Senate will take or not take. Otherwise, take your Ukraine funding and shove it. I am sick and tired of this place doing the same old thing. Again, it does not matter who is in the chair. It does not matter who is in the Senate. It does not matter who is in the White House. We have an obligation as Members of this body to do our job. As I said before, we are a massively divided country and a massively divided House of Representatives representing that divided country. There are people in this country who are suffering as a result. There are people in Texas who are taking it on the chin with tens of thousands of people pouring into our communities, hospital getting overrun, schools getting overrun, police losing their lives and getting overrun, cartels empowered, and fentanyl pouring into our communities. I am sick and tired of it. I am glad that some of my colleagues have finally awakened in New York and elsewhere because, oh, you got 100,000 people suddenly. Guess what, we have had millions pouring through Texas. My friend from Arizona in the chair has had millions pouring through Arizona. All we do is give lip service to it. We talk about securing the border. All of my colleagues are running around saying: Chip, come to me, tell me, what do you think the Democrats will actually take? That is what is wrong with this place. It is not about what they will take, it is about doing the right thing. I know the people that I represent, I know the people that my friend from Tennessee represents, I know that the people that my friend from Arizona represents are sick and tired of words. Yet, all we really have, as Members of Congress, are words and our vote. We use our vote the best way we know how to shape the direction of this country. Sometimes that is not easy. Sometimes you do have to compromise to figure out how to make it work in a legislative body. That is fine. But the words we use matter. When the Speaker of the House, my friend Mike Johnson, took the oath yesterday and then spoke to the American people from the rostrum, he spoke very eloquently about our motto ``In God We Trust.'' He spoke very eloquently about our constitutional principles and about what it means to be an American, about our founding. We have an obligation as Members of this body to fight for the American people who send us here. There are 330 million Americans who rely upon the 435 of us to fight for them, to fight to defend and uphold all of the values that are represented by the flag hanging behind my friend from Arizona. Whenever we come to the floor and whenever we give speeches--by the way, I am happy to yield to my friend from Tennessee if he would like any time--whenever we come to the floor and give speeches to an empty Chamber, you ask: What is the point? The point is actually to try to highlight that we are supposed to use this Chamber to debate and be deliberative. We set out to change this place almost a year ago and we have made some pretty good strides, but we are far from it. I would ask my friend from Tennessee and I would ask my friend who is in the chair: What are the great debates we have seen on the floor of the House? Where are the great engagements we have seen? Or is it rather that all we see are the rote procedures of coming down and standing at the mike and offering an amendment for 3 minutes and then 3 minutes and then back and then back and it is all set up, and the votes are all set up, and then we are done--or are we actually debating the future of the country? That is what is at stake. We can talk about debt commissions, we can talk about whatever things that we might do in the future one day, but the country is hurting while we are sitting here in this Chamber not getting it done. My main hope with having a new Speaker, my friend Mike Johnson, who is a man of faith, a family man, a father of five who gave a moving accounting of the loss of his father right before he became an elected representative--my hope is that the hand of God is at play with the current makeup of the leaders of this country in this body to have the courage to stand up and follow where the Lord is opening the door for us to go, if we will have the will to do it. I don't pretend to have all the right answers or know every right play or move on a spending bill or a piece of legislation. What I do know is that we cannot continue to do what we have been doing. What I do know is that if we have any single responsibility as Members of Congress, it is to follow the Constitution of the United States, defend the rule of law, and secure the blessings of liberty as we are called upon to do in the Constitution of the United States. We cannot do that if we continue the lie that we can print money and spend money we don't have to create programs that cannot be funded to drive up the cost of healthcare, to drive up the cost of housing, to drive up the cost of energy, to utterly fail to do our actual responsibilities to secure the Nation and to secure our communities. Those are the things that failed states do, and we are dangerously close to the cliff. The question becomes whether Republicans are going to do what they said they will do. I, for one, am ready to be here all day, every day, until we get this right. I think I have seen my wife, son, and daughter maybe 5 or 6 days over the last 45 days. We have an obligation to do our job. I have to say something to my colleagues, a couple of whom left today. They had some medical reasons, and that is all fine. But if I hear another one of my colleagues talk about needing to be home for Halloween, if I hear another one of my colleagues talking about, ``I need to fly out so I can get home to a fundraiser,'' or another one of my colleagues talking about needing to make it home, ``Oh, I have to see my newborn,'' all right, what do you think our men and women in uniform want to do when they are deployed for a year? If you run for Congress, mean it. If you run for Congress, come up here and be willing to work. I am sick and tired of my friends and colleagues who run around campaigning on doing the hard work of shrinking the government, cutting spending, securing the border, making our defense strong, and then abandoning duty, walking out. Fly in on Monday, fly out on Thursday at noon. What in the hell is that? We should come in next week, after Speaker Johnson has been able to get his office set up, and when we are in here next Wednesday, we should not leave. We should stay here. We should pass the appropriations bills. We should pass responsible legislation to support our friend Israel, but pay for it. We should pass legislation, if necessary, as a cut stopgap measure to deal with the appropriations process, but we shouldn't leave town. I cannot go home to the constituents I represent and look them in the eye and say we did our job when I have to meet another mother who lost her son or daughter to fentanyl, another spouse of a Border Patrol agent who lost their husband or wife in the line of duty, or the spouse of a police officer lost in the line of duty because we failed to do our job. The American people expect us to do ours. All of this drama about the Speaker is utter nonsense, a footnote in history. All that matters is what we do as a body. For the 220 Republicans who united around Speaker Johnson and voted for him yesterday, that is only as good as uniting to actually carry out conservative policies that the American people sent you here to carry out. That is it. Otherwise, it is all a show. Today, we did the opposite. We funded programs we campaign against. We spent more money that we don't have. My question for my Republican colleagues is, are we going to do what we said we were going to do? It is a pretty simple question, and I hope my colleagues will go back and look at what they campaign on and then actually do it. One final point I think merits observation. We have conflicts in Israel. Around this country, we have protests by a generation of Americans who don't have the first clue of what actual sacrifice looks like, don't have the first clue of what they are talking about with respect to what was wrought on the Israeli people by the barbaric acts of Hamas. In this country, we are enormously blessed, but we have foolishly funded an education system that allows for individuals to spend their time advancing radical, hateful, anti-Semitic, uninformed, ignorant nonsense in the name of free speech. Our friends in Israel were attacked violently and barbarically. The vast majority of Americans recognize that and proudly stand alongside Israel, but we have a problem in this country when there are people taking to the streets in support of a violent, terroristic organization, Hamas, in the false name of apartheid, in the false name of the supposed need for a two-state solution. The fact of the matter is, our friends in Israel, Israelis, our Jewish friends, have been on that land for millennia. I will not blink in standing alongside Israel. It is in our national security interest to do so. It is also the right thing to do. However, if my colleagues think that we are going to save this country through sheer force without recognizing the cultural rot eating away at our own children, whether it is through electronic devices or our own education system, then they are mistaken. We cannot continue to fund the destruction of our own country, yet that is what we do every single time we vote to perpetuate a broken education system and to fund the very programs that are funding the very rot that is destroying us from within. Some of our greatest leaders have observed that we will not be defeated by a foreign enemy, but we will be defeated from within. Our great calling, in my opinion, as Members of Congress today, this generation of leaders, is to stand up in defense of our core values, proudly in defense of our Western civilization values, of our belief in God, our Constitution, our belief in limited government, our belief in the rule of law, and not shudder, not walk away in fear, but to proudly stand up in defense of that and to stop perpetuating the very cultural rot that undermines it. It is the only way that we will save this last great hope for mankind. I am endlessly optimistic for the future of the country because of the people who love to live free, the Riley Gaineses of the world who dare to say no, the Scott Smiths of the world who dare to say no, the Chloe Coles of the world who dare to say no, the Mark Houcks of the world who dare to say no. The strength of this country is with the American people. It always has been and always will be. Our calling is to make sure that this government, that this government that represents them, empowers them and protects their liberties and nothing more. That is our calling. That is what I believe that our Speaker, Speaker Mike Johnson, will enable us to do because I know he believes in those principles, but the only way that Mike Johnson can be successful as Speaker is if 221 Republicans rally around him in defense of the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law and actually do what they campaigned on doing rather than coming here and doing the same old thing, advancing the status quo and everything in this town that has been destroying our country from within for as long as I have been alive. It is time for Republicans to stand up. It is time for Republicans to actually defend the Constitution of the United States. It is time for Republicans to cut spending. It is time for Republicans to secure the border. It is time for Republicans to stand up in defense of our military. It is time for Republicans to do their damn job. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ROY

Mr. ROY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have here fully defunds the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The FY23 omnibus gave this office $3.5 billion, and while the underlying bill and rule cut funding down to $2 billion, we believe we ought to defund it entirely. That is particularly true coming on the heels of the $1.2 trillion, if you believe the media accounting and reports on the impact of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. We believe this is additional spending that the American people do not need. Let the market do what the market is going to do. If people want to go out and get electronic vehicles, and people want to go out and spend their money on something, good for them, great. This office continues to be funded to continue to perpetuate this when the office's mission is ``to equitably transition America to net- zero greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide by no later than 2050,'' which is a fool's errand. We are undermining our own national security and undermining our own economy in the process, making us beholden to China and undermining our ability to actually have a serious policy in the Middle East, by the way. Right now, we don't even have sanctions in place. We are allowing Iran to make billions of dollars, upward of $30 billion to $60 billion, depending on what reports you look at, on exporting oil to China. We have totally blown it with Saudi Arabia, which has created the environment that we are now dealing with in the Middle East, all while this administration, by the way, dumped the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, all of this while pursuing this foolish energy policy, which is undermining our own national security and economy. Now, we are going to go ahead and say, sure, let's appropriate another, in this case, $2 billion for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. We don't need to be doing this. Let the American people go sort this out. We say that we are going to subsidize wind and solar because it is supposedly enhanced reliability. Tell that to the people of Texas. Texas has more wind than any other State in the country. Thumbs up. That is great. Say that to all the people who are wondering whether they are going to have power because the grid in Texas is getting dangerously close to not having the ability to sustain. The only reason we are able to sustain it is because Texas is trying to push and hold up the coal and the gas-fired plants that actually provide reliable energy. We are subsidizing the unreliable energy at the expense of the reliable energy. Instead of building nuclear power, instead of making sure a gas-fired plant is sitting there ready to roll--there is no investment in any of the projects going on into Texas' gas-fired plants. American, Texas gas that we should, by the way, be exporting around the world, including to Europe. Instead, we are undermining our very grid, our own reliable energy, and we are undermining our ability to compete in the world. I suggest that this money would be better spent, especially when, I don't know, the last time I checked we had $2 trillion in deficits. What are we spending our money on? Seriously, how are we actually going to balance our budget and eliminate deficits when we keep spending money on projects like this? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.