Putting pressure on employees to promote the Waters of the United States rule, maybe that's not a violation of law but it's certainly a violation of ethics.

I think it's clear that we'll have to start over from the beginning given the Supreme Court's ruling.

So are you suggesting that you are not going to withdraw the proposed ozone rule?

This has not been historical precedent. It's not the fact.

Imagine if President Bush during the war in Iraq said we need our agency--we need our Department of Defense employees to advocate for removing Saddam Hussein.

States and localities can lose transportation funds from the Department of Transportation.

There's two major concerns here. One is a potential violation of law with the Anti-Lobbying Act.

If your agency is using a newsletter telling people to sign up for Thunderclap and promote the Agency's proposal, would that not be an ethical violation?

I just want to reiterate the point I made earlier, which is the Department of Defense will be fully funded, and the President needs to sign that into law.

The goal here is to get off any Russian engines and to make sure we have assured access to space.

We don't want to send one more dollar to Russia that we don't absolutely have to send to them.

Laurence Tribe...recently referred to the method by which this rule was enacted as 'burning the Constitution.'

So we're talking about 90 gigawatts being taken, basically being shut down, and based on the implementation of current regulation and then this new rule?

We can't afford to high-jack economic growth by regulating affordable energy out of business.

Are you aware that the EPA believes that coal-fired power plants can improve efficiency by as much as six percent?

I am particularly concerned about how this regulation will affect access to affordable and reliable electricity.

When the President was asked in 2008 as he was campaigning... he said, no, I'm not going to shut down coal; I'm just going to make it so expensive that they won't be able to operate.

the total compliance costs of the rule could be as high as $366 billion by 2030.

This rule will impose tremendous costs on the American people with very few benefits.

This is a continuation of this administration's 'war on the poor.'

We have to make decisions in the best interest of our country, regardless of whether or not it was his war to begin with.

I have an amendment at the desk. The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Page 30, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by $25,000,000)''. Page 33, line 3, after the dollar amount…

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And congratulations on producing a very good bill that will provide the necessary funding to properly defend our Nation. And let me express my appreciation for providing $26 million in your bill to fund an Air…

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee for bringing this bill to the floor. The Bridenstine-Rogers-Turner-Poe amendment is not a reflection of concern with what is a good bill under the circumstances…

I would just argue that, while it is true that the other body has not acted on this yet, it is also true that this body has already acted in the Defense Authorization bill. It came through committee, and certainly it had overwhelming…