Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2024

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds from being used to provide for additional funding for national monument designations under the Antiquities Act. The Antiquities Act, passed in 1906, authorizes the President to singlehandedly designate any Federal public lands as national monuments. Its creation was motivated by the looting of Indian artifacts and archaeological sites dating back to the late 1800s.

While focusing on fixing a real issue of its day, the law was carefully crafted to protect private citizens from government overreach. The Antiquities Act designations should be done under, and I quote directly from the legislation, ``the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.'' Clearly, it was meant to be limited in scope.

Just like everything else, this administration and previous Democrat administrations make it impossible for us to have nice things. Think about this. In the 8 years that Joe Biden was Vice President under the Obama administration, the Antiquities Act was weaponized for 550 million acres of land. That is roughly a quarter of the land by acreage in the United States. That is a problem that goes beyond the scope and intent of this act.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague on one point, that it has been used, it has been overused, and it has been abused.

This is intended to protect historic sites that are being looted and being damaged by whatever force is in play. To control, to take from States and private citizens 550 million acres of land over an 8-year period is not the intent of this act. It is clear that it no longer serves its purpose and, quite frankly, if the President or Vice President identifies an antiquity or area of land that needs protection, they can come to Congress. If it is worthy of Congress' designation, we can work with the administration, Republican or Democrat.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I ask for adoption of this amendment. We are at a point in history that if any further monument needs designation, it should come before Congress and have congressional approval.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits funds to be used by the Environmental Protection Agency for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, or the USGCRP.

This program coordinates with 13 different Federal departments and agencies. Its focus as it relates to areas within EPA's jurisdiction is to conduct research on climate change.

I think it is fair to say that the climate is changing, and we have a role to play in it. However, there is a degree of climate alarmism in this country that has compelled smooth-talking bureaucrats and their grant-seeking associates in the private sector to grovel for more and more funding.

At its core, climate alarmism is immoral. It is impacting industry and business because people of power are telling Americans every day that they are going to die unless they adopt these policies, and I object.

I think more and more Americans are fed up with the subsidizing of this agenda, of this alarmism. At a time of inflation and at a time when the economy is struggling, it is time to stop.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, I think part of the problem in this country is that we tend to hold ourselves or the left tends to hold us to a standard that is really unattainable. Meanwhile, our partners, like China, are left to abuse the environment. They are the worst polluters in the world or one of the worst polluters in the world, and they are held to a different standard. This puts a burden on our industry.

It is climate alarmism, and this administration's agenda no longer allows us to be energy independent. We are now dependent on our enemies for precious metals and for gas and oil. We should be an energy- independent nation.

When we look at the crisis in this country with inflation and economy, the fact that the American Dream of homeownership is slipping away, it gets back to this alarmism. The fact that we are undermining our oil and gas industry with ESG, this alarmism has made us no longer energy independent.

If we are going to get out of this mess we are in with these deficits, we have to grow our way out of it. When you look at inflation, when you look at commodities, when you look at the price of oil and gas, we have to move away from this alarmism and get back to the facts.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, we may have had a hot summer, but I just went trick-or-treating with my kids and the low that evening was 29 degrees, so temperatures change. Temperatures have been changing for the millennia.

That being said, it is this alarmism, this agenda, that stands in the way of our energy independence.

If we were truly worried about the environment, if we truly wanted to be energy independent, we would have modular nuclear reactors being built all over this country. That is the future of electricity. That is the future of the environment. That is the future of us being energy independent. Meanwhile, this agenda blocks such types of projects.

It is time we admit the truth that they are making us more dependent on our enemies. This amendment is a good amendment.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chair, my amendment prohibits the funds appropriated by this act from being used to enforce any COVID-19 mask mandates. I was fortunate enough to introduce this amendment during the Energy- Water appropriations, and I am happy to do so again here.

Policy involving mandatory mask implementation is not about safety nor about science. It is about control. Let's be clear: Mask mandates are about control.

Tom Jefferson, a leading epidemiologist who coauthored what The New York Times Opinion section called ``the most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses, including COVID-19,'' found that there was no evidence that masks made any difference.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I go back to the study, and it found that wearing a mask in public places makes little to no difference in the number of infections.

For the folks on the other side who privately believe that masks work, it should be noted that mask mandates include any type of mask, even just your thin paper mask, but the study looked at N95 masks, the gold standard of masks. You know what they found? It didn't make any difference.

Even if you pair mask mandates with other preventative measures, such as washing hands and social distancing, it found that none of it made a difference.

Going on, Dr. Jefferson goes on to say that policymakers who imposed mask mandates on Americans were convinced by nonrandomized studies and flawed observations.

On the other hand, Dr. Jefferson and his colleagues analyzed 18 randomized control trials before reaching their conclusion. They looked at science, not fear. They looked at science to seek a better outcome, not seek control.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, to be clear, it was The New York Times. The study was examined or authored with coauthors but, in particular, Dr. Jefferson, and it looked at 18 different studies that used proper scientific controls. By the way, if you are going to cite the WHO, you are losing credibility with me.

Mr. Chairman, we have a choice between truth and science or fiction.

Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, the Environmental Financial Advisory Board, or the EFAB, was chartered under the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act. The EFAB boasts of making recommendations that would supposedly lower the cost of environmental protection.

Unfortunately, they are entirely beholden to the left's climate alarmism agenda. In a November 2022 meeting, the EFAB spent taxpayer resources gloating about the establishment of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund created from the so-called Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, a bill whose subsidies will cost the American taxpayers $1.2 trillion.

This de facto slush fund provides $27 billion to the EPA through September 2024. If the argument here is that we need the EFAB to expedite the rate at which the Biden administration can give out green subsidies to his donor base, I submit to my colleagues that perhaps the EFAB has outgrown its usefulness.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, let's take a look at the eligible recipients of this $27 billion boondoggle: State-sponsored green banks; nonprofit or quasi-government green banks--so much for the free market, Mr. Chairman--and nonprofit energy conservation funds and nonprofit social funds, just to name a few. In other words, slush funds, Mr. Chairman.

If you look at the EFAB's charter, you will find that they provide recommendations on ways the EPA can implement funding from the infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act to support environmental justice and to tackle the climate crisis, which is beyond their original intent.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption at a time of inflation, at a time when we are growing energy dependent on our enemies. It is time that we cull back this alarmism. It is time that we cull back these slush funds. It is time that we do the right thing and cut the budget. Cut this nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, at a time of, again, increased dependency on our enemies, my amendment addresses the royalty rates that were imposed by the Biden administration through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. We can see today that it did nothing to reduce inflation but in fact has increased inflation, taking away from many Americans their dream of owning a home.

In order to pay for what ended up being approximately $1.2 trillion in green subsidies, the Biden administration chose to raise the royalty rate of onshore oil and gas leases from 12.5 percent to 16.6 percent through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

Democrats also voted in unison to quintuple the minimum bid amount from $2 per acre to $10 per acre. They voted to increase the rental rate by a factor of 9, from $1.50 to $15 per acre.

At the time of the bill's passage, estimates indicated the bill would impose a $6.5 billion hike on oil and gas development.

Here is what I find to be one of the most remarkable things about the so-called Inflation Reduction Act of 2022: Nowhere in that bill did Democrats identify any government program worth cutting. Not one.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I will point out that a $6.5 billion hike on oil and gas development isn't going to decrease inflation. It increases underlying costs.

When you look at commodities across sectors, everything has gone up-- food, oil, et cetera--because of things like this. Instead of saving the American people money, this administration chose to surrender our energy independence.

Again, I go back to the underlying cost of everything. Everything in this room, everything in your kitchen, is dependent on oil, gas, diesel. Everything in this country moves by that mechanism, so this so- called business-friendly idea has done nothing more than cripple our oil and gas industry. It is contributing to inflation. The fact that it is called the Inflation Reduction Act is offensive because it did nothing.

They should admit their mistake and try to fix it. Instead, they go on increasing costs to an industry that is the backbone of our country. Again, for minerals, we are currently dependent on enemies. Oil and gas, we are dependent on enemies.

Mr. Chairman, right now, oil prices are trading around $90 a barrel. If the Hamas-instigated war against Israel continues or escalates, the American people will endure the consequences of once again depending on OPEC for our energy needs. Some estimates say that oil could go up to $150.

Again, at a time of great inflation, we have to be taking steps to roll back costs on our infrastructure, on oil and gas exploration.

I always make the comment in my townhalls that if you find oil and gas in my yard, drill, baby, drill, because we need it. We need it for our infrastructure. We need it for our independence. We need it for national security.

It is about time we acknowledge the fact the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022 was a scam that screwed America.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. OGLES. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for wishing that I find oil in my yard. I hope I do, but that being said, I joke.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that this is a step in the right direction to have a more responsible energy policy. It is lowering the cost on the producers as they explore and continue to explore for our energy independence.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source