Bruce Westerman

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from West Virginia.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Grijalva and all the cosponsors of this bill and the great bipartisan work that has gone into making this happen. What a fitting tribute to Mr. Williams to name this bill after him. I think back about a codel we made this past summer down to the country of Palau. We went out to a small island called Peleliu where one of the most bitter battles of World War II was fought. On that small island, really in a very hard place to get to, there stands a small monument to commemorate eight U.S. servicemembers who received the Medal of Honor in one battle. As we were there, I thought not many Americans are ever going to get to see this small monument, and it made me realize how important it is that we do this monument here in Washington, D.C., to recognize not just Mr. Williams but all those who have served, to honor their memory, to remember their legacy, and to stand unwavering in our commitment to upholding the principles for which they fought so valiantly. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2717) to authorize the National Medal of Honor Museum Foundation to establish a commemorative work on the National Mall to honor the extraordinary acts of valor, selfless service, and sacrifice displayed by Medal of Honor recipients, as amended.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1318) to authorize the location of a monument on the National Mall to commemorate and honor the women's suffrage movement and the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, and for other purposes.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1318, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this year marks the 175th anniversary of the beginning of the women's suffrage movement in 1848. For the first 144 years of our Nation's history, women were not afforded the right to vote. During the 19th century, the women's suffrage movement emerged with the goal of securing this important constitutional right for women across the Nation. It took years of hard work and dedication. Securing this important change took over 40 years to accomplish. Finally, in 1920, the 19th amendment was formally ratified, and women were finally given the right to vote in our Nation's elections. Now, 175 years after this important movement began, we are coming to the House floor to ensure that the monument honoring this movement is placed in the most prominent location in our Nation's capital--on The National Mall. I think it is significant to note that out of the 40 monuments and memorials on the Reserve, zero are dedicated to women's history. The Women's Suffrage National Monument would be the first. That is why I support H.R. 1318, the Women's Suffrage National Monument Location Act. This is a worthy cause and will enhance the interpretation of The National Mall, which is visited by millions of Americans annually. This monument, which was originally authorized by legislation signed by President Trump in 2020, would not use any Federal funds. In fact, the foundation supporting the monument even has plans to address the multimillion dollar deferred maintenance backlog in Constitution Gardens, the preferred location of the women's suffrage monument. This is a true win-win and a great model for future commemorative works. I would be remiss if I didn't mention my disappointment with the Biden administration, which testified against this legislation earlier this year. The administration argued that The National Mall is already complete and there would be no space for this monument. I find this hard to believe, considering that the preferred location for this monument is currently occupied by food trucks. This is a good, bipartisan and bicameral bill, and I thank Representatives Lesko and Neguse for leading this effort. I support the bill and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Mrs. Gonzalez-Colon).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Again, I thank Representatives Lesko and Neguse and all the Members in the House who have come together to support this bill. I thank my colleague Ranking Member Grijalva for his support and for working together on this and also the Senate for their bipartisan support. It has bipartisan support because it is a good bill that will provide a place of prominence on our National Mall for the Women's Suffrage Monument. It will forever enshrine the dedication and sacrifice of countless women who worked toward the goal of women's suffrage. For those reasons, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1607, as amended.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of my colleague and friend from New York, Congresswoman Stefanik's legislation, the American Battlefield Protection Program Enhancement Act of 2023. Our Nation's battlefields are hallowed sites that showcase the trials and triumphs that shaped our great Nation. From the American Revolution to the Civil War, battlefield sites now serve as outdoor classrooms that ensure future generations can learn about the conflicts that forged our great Nation. Battlefields remind us of our storied, complex history. They also provide a way to honor those who fought and whose lives were lost. As we approach Veterans Day this Friday, I think it is important and appropriate that we reflect on the best ways that we can protect our Nation's military history for future generations. Unfortunately, despite the rich history of these locations, many of these hallowed grounds have been lost or destroyed throughout the past centuries. In fact, the American Battlefield Trust estimates that 1 acre of hallowed ground is lost every hour on average. To address the loss of sacred battlefield sites, Congress created the American Battlefield Protection Program in 1996. The program provides grants to protect sites related to the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, and the Civil War. Since its conception, the American Battlefield Protection Program has helped protect more than 100 battlefields in 42 States and protect battlefield lands at 110 battlefield sites in 19 States. Unfortunately, not all battlefields are covered by this program. One of those battlefields is Jenkins' Ferry State Park, in my home district. Representative Stefanik's legislation would expand this program so battlefields like Jenkins' Ferry can receive restoration and interpretation assistance. Jenkins' Ferry is one of three battlefields in south central Arkansas that make up the Red River Campaign National Historic Landmark. In 1864 Confederate soldiers attacked the Union Army during the Battle of Jenkins' Ferry. Union soldiers were able to retreat using a ferry site that still exists within the park today. Jenkins' Ferry State Park also features many interpretive sites and memorials to soldiers who lost their lives during the Battle of Jenkins' Ferry. This is an important economic driver for my community and also an important recreation area. I am thankful this legislation will help improve this State park for generations to come. H.R. 3448 would also allow educational institutions, nonprofit organizations, and Tribes to receive grants directly. The American Battlefield Protection Program is a shining example of public-private partnerships and expanding the eligible list of nonFederal partners is a commonsense solution for these organizations and local communities. Lastly, the bill directs regular updates of battlefield reports conducted by the National Park Service and focuses resources on the highest priority battlefield locations. As technology changes and advances, these updates will be crucial in identifying new battlefield areas that served as pivotal points of conflict or need additional protections. This bipartisan bill, which is cosponsored by 50 bipartisan Members, will enhance conservation, promote recreation, spur economic growth, and help protect our Nation's history. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I thank Representative Stefanik for her leadership, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3448, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3448) to amend chapter 3081 of title 54, United States Code, to enhance the protection and preservation of America's battlefields, as amended.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1722, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. WESTERMAN

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

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, the Ocean Policy Committee should focus on addressing the issues that it was actually created to address--most importantly, streamlining Federal coordination. This administration's push of this ocean justice strategy is just another example of unchecked bureaucrats forcing their agenda on Americans and increasing red tape. My amendment stops them from moving forward. Our ocean economy is as diverse as the ocean itself, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to managing it. The problem we have with Federal programs is they take a different course from how Congress intended for them to go. This isn't cutting funds from the Ocean Policy Committee. It is just forcing the Ocean Policy Committee to do the job that they were established to do without adding unnecessary burdens to their work. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I commend my colleague from Idaho (Mr. Simpson) for the great work that he and his committee did in giving us this appropriation bill. I also commend the minority and everyone who spent so much time on the floor working through these amendments. Everybody will be glad to know that this is the last one. It is a great one, and I hope everybody will support my amendment. Mr. Chair, I obviously support my amendment, which prohibits funds from being used to implement the Biden administration's ocean justice strategy, which undermines the intent of the Ocean Policy Committee by forcing so-called environmental justice principles into the Federal Government's role in ocean economic activities. In 2018, then-President Trump signed Executive Order No. 13840, which established the Ocean Policy Committee. The Ocean Policy Committee, co- chaired by CEQ and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, was created to focus on growing the ocean economy, prioritizing scientific research, coordinating resources and data sharing, and engaging with stakeholders. The committee was codified into law through the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021. The Ocean Policy Committee should be working on important issues, such as leveraging resources and expertise to maximize the effectiveness of Federal investments in ocean research. Unfortunately, this administration has chosen to advance a misguided agenda that is not focused on the founding tenets of the Ocean Policy Committee to grow the ocean economy. Instead, it is pushing concepts like the ocean justice strategy, which forces environmental justice principles into the Federal Government's ocean activities. Ocean justice or environmental justice should not be used to hijack legitimate work that benefits the American people. It cannot and should not become a driving force and detrimental tool to impede our Federal resources management. For those reasons, I support and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN

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

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would say the only thing slowing down and providing blockades for projects across the country is CEQ and the influence they are having across other organizations. They are unresponsive to Congress. We should stand up for our Article I rights as Members of Congress, cut their funding, and make them more responsive. Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I will start by thanking the chair of the subcommittee for the great work that they did on this bill and for working with us on so many issues. I have one little adjustment I would make that would make the bill even better. I rise in support of my amendment, which would reduce funding for the Council on Environmental Quality from the 2023 level of $3,750,000 to its currently authorized level of $1 million for fiscal year 2024. While I do, again, appreciate the Appropriations Committee's efforts to reduce funding for this account by $926,000 from fiscal year 2023 levels, as well as rescind the $62.5 million of funds made available to CEQ by the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, it is my belief that Congress must go further to hold CEQ accountable for their actions. I am deeply concerned by CEQ's lack of accountability to congressional oversight and their unwillingness to answer basic questions or even answer a letter in a timely manner. Congressional hearings and letters of inquiry are important tools that elected Representatives use to engage directly with administration officials to conduct oversight on policy objectives, openly debate legislation, and spotlight waste, fraud, and abuse occurring in government. These officials have an obligation to be responsive to Congress, engage in the oversight process, and be accountable to the American people. However, on three separate occasions just this year, CEQ Chair Brenda Mallory has refused to testify before the Committee on Natural Resources. In addition, Chair Mallory's staff, in written emails from just a few months ago, actually questioned the precedent and need for congressional oversight hearings. CEQ has also failed to respond to basic document production letters, most recently missing yet another deadline on Monday, October 31, for a second request for the production of documents. I will note for the record that we are not the only committee experiencing frustration with CEQ, and the specific issues we have been seeking answers on since June--well, let's just say that we are not alone in this endeavor. This type of behavior from political appointees in the executive branch is unacceptable and must not be allowed to continue. Mr. Chairman, I come before you today to provide solutions. Working hand in hand with the Appropriations Committee and through the appropriations process, Republicans and Democrats alike should support a reduction in funding to agencies and agency heads that refuse to comply with congressional oversight. One of the hearings where Chair Mallory refused to appear focused on CEQ's proposed changes to NEPA. These proposed changes have far- reaching impacts and affect countless stakeholders, which would make one think that oversight and transparency would be a high priority for CEQ. To make matters worse, the changes CEQ is proposing to NEPA stand to increase permitting timelines for all kinds of projects, including energy and infrastructure, and ignore significant changes to the NEPA statute made in the bipartisan Fiscal Responsibility Act. Some of my colleagues here today might be concerned about the level of funding that is provided by my amendment to CEQ for staffing at the $1 million level. However, the Council is well equipped to function on a much smaller budget, as they have the authority under statute not only to work with outside NGOs but also to detail employees across government to their staff without impacting their budget. To further emphasize this point, CEQ's governing statute actually encourages the Council to work with public organizations, meaning Federal, State, and local governments, as well as nonprofits, to save money on employees. So why don't we adhere to what the law says? To recap, my amendment holds up Congress' end of the bargain by providing CEQ with its authorized amount for operations of $1 million for fiscal year 2024 and not $1 more. Should the Council wish to discuss this matter with Congress, it would be my suggestion that Chair Mallory and her staff become more responsive to our questions and requests for routine oversight. My amendment would send a clear message to the administration that disregard for congressional oversight and the American people is unacceptable. Mr. Chair, for this reason, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I will again point out that this funding is for the administrative part of the Bureau of Reclamation. It has nothing to do with functions that are chargeable directly to a specific project or program. The Bureau of Reclamation does oversee many important programs. We want to see those programs function properly, and we also want accountability from the executive branch. The executive branch's clear pattern of disregard for congressional oversight indicates an entitled leadership that lacks accountability to the American taxpayer. It is not my goal to have to come to the floor and cut the budget of an agency because they refuse to respond to Congress, but what tools do we have when they will not even come to a hearing that is directly related to the work that they do and when they just act like congressional oversight is an annoyance to them and is nothing serious? My amendment will send a clear message to the executive branch that blatant disregard for congressional oversight is unacceptable. Mr. Chair, I hope this is a bipartisan sentiment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I commend Chairman Fleischmann for the hard work in the Appropriations Committee and this particular subcommittee and the good product that they put out. I do have a slight adjustment I would like to make to it, even though the subcommittee was very generous in working with the Natural Resources Committee and other committees in getting the base text. I rise in support of Westerman amendment No. 14. It is an amendment that I would describe as an intentionally punitive amendment, but with a just cause: to protect the integrity of the legislative branch and, more specifically, the House of Representatives. My amendment reduces funding for the Bureau of Reclamation's policy and administration account to fiscal year 2022 levels. At the Bureau of Reclamation, the policy and administration account finances the agency's centralized management and administrative functions that are not chargeable directly to a specific project or program. This includes the Office of the Commissioner, the administration's political leadership of the agency. You may be asking why the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources is here asking for an administrative funding cut to an agency under our jurisdiction. One of Congress' most vital responsibilities is oversight of the executive branch, making sure they are accountable to the American people. Congressional hearings are an important tool that we use to engage directly with administration officials and to conduct oversight on policy objectives, openly debate legislation, and spotlight waste, fraud, and abuse occurring in agencies. These officials have an obligation to be responsive to Congress, engage in the oversight process, and be accountable to the American people. However, this administration, like many others from the past, on both sides of the aisle, chose to blatantly disregard this responsibility when they specifically refused to participate in a congressional hearing earlier this year. There, we considered H.R. 215, Congressman Valadao's WATER for California Act. This legislation addresses the operation of the Central Valley Project, which is a Federal water project owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation. This legislation is critical not only to the Central Valley but to our entire country's food supply. The legislation was important enough that it was included in the base text of this bill. However, even with ample notification with an invitation sent 2 weeks prior to the hearing, the Bureau of Reclamation failed to appear at the hearing. The Bureau of Reclamation employs roughly 5,000 employees, so they clearly have the ability to send a representative. While written testimony was submitted the day before the hearing, this was a poor substitute for engaging with the committee members. Non-Federal witnesses who appeared at the hearing repeatedly mentioned the Bureau of Reclamation, which daylighted the missed opportunities for dialogue between the agency and the people they serve. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Selah, s-e-l-a-h, selah. This unique word, scattered throughout the Psalms, signals to the reader to pause, reflect, consider, and maybe take a deep breath before moving on. Psalmists use selah to emphasize the significance of a statement. For example, King David wrote: ``Blessed be the Lord, who daily bears our burden, the God who is our salvation. Selah.'' That is a profound statement with huge implications. It deserves more than a cursory consideration. Within the next hour, this House will vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' to vacate the Speaker's chair, a profound action with huge implications. This was last tried in 1910. Joseph Cannon won the vote. One hundred thirteen years later, my office is in the Cannon Office Building, and Uncle Joe Cannon's statue sits just outside this Chamber. No living human has taken the vote we are about to take. It deserves that we pause and reflect, that we consider deeply the ramification of our actions. To my fellow Republicans who would consider voting ``yes'' to removing our Republican Speaker, please pause and ask yourself two questions: Will your ``yes'' vote make America stronger? Will your ``yes'' vote strengthen conservative policies? If you believe ``yes'' is the right vote, please stand before this body and the American people and articulate your plan--not your grievances or your wishes, your plan. Convince the vast majority of the Republican Conference that strongly disagrees with you to follow you. If you cannot do that, which you have failed to do so far, then voting ``yes'' is, at the least, a disruptive overreaction. In reality, it is selfish, bad for conservative policies, and bad for America. That is why I strongly support Speaker Kevin McCarthy and why, without hesitation or reservation, I will vote ``no'' on this disastrous resolution.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard that life is about making choices. Serving in Congress requires making big choices on a big stage that are forever chronicled in our votes. Take out all the rhetoric and all the policy disagreements and, at the end of this debate, every Member of the House will have a choice to make and a vote to cast. Making choices is about setting priorities. House Republicans have made it clear that cutting spending, securing the border, and keeping the government open while we finish the yearlong spending bills are our priorities. It is no secret, based on previous actions, that my friends across the aisle prioritize out-of-control spending and an open border. I anticipate their priorities will outweigh their desire to keep the government open. That is their choice. Since President Biden took office, our debt has skyrocketed, inflation is strangling our citizens, and thousands of pounds of fentanyl and millions of illegal immigrants, including more than 150 on the terrorist watch list, have poured over our southern border and into our communities. This immigration crisis is so bad that the Biden administration has resorted to building migrant shelters in our national parks and waiving environmental laws to do it. This has to stop. The choices are clear. The conservative solution will avoid a government shutdown, secure our borders, and keep us on track to restore fiscal sanity. Let me be clear that a vote against this bill is a vote to continue down the path of out-of-control spending, to keep our borders open, and to shut down the government. Mr. Speaker, I have made my choice to vote ``yes,'' and I encourage others to do the same.