Endangered Species Recovery Transparency Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy) for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for that information.

As the gentleman knows full well, we have 3\1/2\ days next week. We have, I guess, 9 full days and 3 half days scheduled in September and the first couple of weeks in October, assuming that we meet in that last week of September.

There have been some rumors. My Members have been asking me about whether or not there is serious consideration being given to not using the last week scheduled in September. Does that have any credence?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman.

In any event, as the gentleman knows, in the very short period of time that we have left before the election--and there is a lot of very substantive work that, in my view, still needs to be done and that we feel very strongly about on this side of the aisle--the gentleman posits that we have four endangered species bills on the floor. Frankly, they probably could all be done by suspension on Monday, but I understand it is going to be under a rule.

In addition to that, we have legislation which is designed to authorize a suit against the President of the United States for trying to do things when we can't get the Congress to act on them, so that there can be some movement forward on behalf of the American people.

Does the gentleman believe there is any possibility of bringing up comprehensive immigration reform--either a comprehensive immigration reform bill that the majority supports, individual bills which are passed out of committee, border security which is passed out on a bipartisan way out of your committee here on this side of the House--on this side of the Capitol, or legislation which we believe would have had a direct effect on the crisis to which the gentleman refers may be addressed next week?

It is not scheduled. I understand that the majority leader's party is divided on the issue of what ought to be done to meet this crisis, but there is no doubt, Mr. Leader, that there are going to be additional resources necessary to meet the challenge that we are confronting now.

The administration has requested, as the gentleman knows, some $3.7 billion. The Senate, as I understand it, is suggesting $2.7 billion. Part of that, of course, is to meet the needs of fighting wildfires. In the Senate bill, there is also money for Iron Dome--to beef up Iron Dome in Israel, but we don't have any language, if language is contemplated.

So I am hopeful that language will not be included in any effort that is made next week on meeting this. You referred to it as a crisis. Whether you refer to it as crisis, challenge, whatever, we know that resources are needed. Everybody seems to agree on that.

Unfortunately, we have not had that bill on the floor now, so we can get it over to the Senate and get it to the President before we leave. We are at risk, in my view, Mr. Leader, of leaving here without addressing this issue.

Furthermore, last week, as the gentleman knows, I suggested that if we included legislative language on that bill, it would be almost impossible to get to the administration the resources it needs to comply with the law and to meet the challenge that has been presented.

Does the gentleman have any expectation that we will consider a comprehensive immigration bill that has resources and will be Senate- passed? We have a bill here, as the gentleman knows, that we introduced many, many months ago, which is a bipartisan bill. All the provisions have been supported in a bipartisan fashion--some in the Senate, some here in the House committee--unanimously.

Does the gentleman have any belief that we will consider next week a clean funding bill at such level as is necessary, at least until the end of the fiscal year, and/or some comprehensive immigration bills which will meet the issue and establish a process, the lack of which clearly is causing people to take actions which we do not approve of and not agree with, but are manifesting the frustration of a broken system remaining broken?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his response.

Does the gentleman contemplate that that bill will include substantive changes in law or will it simply be restricted to additional resources necessary to meet the crisis that confronts this country?

I yield to my friend.

I understand the process will come from the Rules Committee. There is no text, Mr. Leader. We have seen no text to apparently amend legislation which was adopted overwhelmingly by this House and signed by President Bush.

We need resources today--and we will certainly need them next week-- and we are going to go on a 5-week recess work period, at which point in time we will come back here and meet for a very brief period of time, and we don't have any text in this very substantive, very consequential area of the law, which obviously was adopted overwhelmingly, and we have no text.

I understand the process in the Rules Committee. There have been no hearings, no debate in committee, no subcommittee, no full committee hearings on any legislation.

As I suggested to you last week, Mr. Majority Leader, if you put legislation out there, you and I both know that inevitably that legislation will not be able to pass within the timeframe necessary to meet the crisis.

So the responsible thing, I suggest to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, is to provide the resources necessary to meet the challenge right now. And then, if hearings show substantive changes in the law are needed or further show what substantive changes ought to be made and can be considered in a thoughtful, effective fashion, we can then move forward at some point in time, perhaps as soon as September, on that legislation. But to do otherwise will put at great risk the ability of the administration and this country to respond consistent with the law that we passed and that was signed by President Bush.

I yield to my friend if he wants to comment further.

I thank, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader for that information, and I am glad that he brought up the processes that are going to be followed.

I want to quote to him something Speaker Boehner said on January 5, 2011, when he took the gavel:

But you will always have the right to robust debate in an

open process that allows you to represent your constituents,

to make your case, offer alternatives and be heard.

The gentleman has told me now three times that the Rules Committee hearing is going to be open and they will decide the process under which a bill is going to be considered. Apparently, I am presuming the gentleman does not know what the substance of that process will be. I don't know the substance. I don't know any language that is being proposed. No Member on our side of the aisle knows what language is being proposed. Maybe Members on your side of the aisle know.

So what you are apparently telling me is that we will have the Rules Committee solely for the purpose of learning what substantive changes are suggested in the law. And I suggest to the majority leader, Mr. Speaker, that if that is the case, we will not be able to thoughtfully debate it, we will not be able to have a process that is open, and we will not have a process which allows us to make our case, offer alternatives, or be heard.

I would predict, as has happened 67 times to date, this is going to be a closed rule. One of my staffers, by the way, suggested that perhaps open rules ought to be included in the endangered species bills that we are considering. We are doing so many closed rules, open rules seem to be an endangered species.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the leader to please report if we are going to consider, as I think we should, a supplemental next week that gives our country the resources to meet the crisis to which you referred?

It is our responsibility to consider it. It is our responsibility to give the resources. We passed the law, which is being implemented by the administration. We passed it overwhelmingly. It was sponsored by a gentleman who just spoke on this floor a short time ago to try to prevent and ameliorate human trafficking.

A number of bills we passed this week on human trafficking were passed unanimously. That bill that passed overwhelmingly was also about human trafficking. And I tell my friend, we need the resources. It is the responsibility of the majority party and the minority party to join together to give the administration the necessary resources to respond to carrying out the law that we passed.

If we want to change that law, that is also our responsibility. But I tell my friend it cannot be done in the timeframe that is available to us. We have delayed this so long, there is no time. And the gentleman keeps responding to me that the Rules Committee will decide the process.

The Rules Committee normally does not decide the substance of legislation. It decides the process under which we will consider the substance. Authorizing committees, as my friend so well knows, decide the substance of that legislation.

But we will have no opportunity to see that, apparently, until perhaps this

weekend, at the earliest, or next week. That does not give us time to debate it and it certainly, as everybody knows, does not give it time to go to the Senate and be debated. I think they will disagree, perhaps, on the language that is suggested. I don't know what it is, but there is a high probability of disagreement. Conference will have to occur, and then it will have to get to the President. And both the Senate and the House are leaving next week for their district work period.

I would urge the majority leader to make every effort with his party to bring what I think ought to be our obligation: a bill which provides the resources necessary--and we may differ on that number--to carry out our responsibilities to implement the law that we passed.

If the gentleman wants to respond further, I yield. If not, I will go on.

Mr. Speaker, we have five appropriations bills which have not been brought to the floor. The Ag bill was on the floor. It was pulled. It has not been brought back. The Labor, Health and Human Services bill, the Interior bill, the Homeland bill, and the Foreign Ops bill have not been brought to the floor, nor has the gentleman indicated any of those are going to be brought to the floor next week.

Can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is any plan to bring those bills to the floor in the 3 weeks that we will be back in September?

I yield to the majority leader.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, but that does not give me any clarity in terms of the five appropriations bills. The supplemental appropriation bill, of course, is not a part of those bills, although, obviously, Health and Human Services is being put under a great deal of pressure by carrying out the terms of the law that we passed in 2008 signed by President Bush. They need resources. The supplemental is to give them the resources.

This is a scheduling conference. It is not just now, in my view, limited to next week, because we are not going to be here for 5 weeks thereafter, and Members want to know what they should anticipate as substantively going to be on the agenda in the 3 short weeks that we will have left, essentially, before the election.

So I can't tell from the gentleman's answer, Mr. Speaker, whether or not any of those five appropriations bills--I know seven have passed-- are intended to be brought to the floor.

I yield to the majority leader.

Maybe I can just print that out and I will just read it, Mr. Speaker.

We have an Export-Import Bank that is going to expire very shortly. It is of great concern to many people on both sides of the aisle. Forty-one Republican Members, Mr. Speaker, have signed a letter urging that this be brought to the floor. It is a very timely, critical issue for the competitiveness of our country. It has been twisting in the wind for this entire year. I worked, Mr. Speaker, with the leader's predecessor to see whether or not we could get this bill to the floor.

I know what the schedule is for next week, so he doesn't need to repeat that for me--and I thank him very much--but does the majority leader have any idea whether we are going to consider the Export-Import Bank before the election?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to ask the majority leader any more questions because I am not going to get any answers.

The American people have a right to those answers. The American people need to have transparency, which was going to be brought to this body, frankly, by the young guns, and they need a right to debate, right to anticipate, right to participate, but the answer I get is, It's not scheduled for next week.

Mr. Speaker, I know it is not scheduled for next week. Critical legislation was not scheduled last week, the week before that, the week before that, the week before that, the week before that, and every week before that--critical legislation supported by the overwhelming majority of the American people.

I am simply inquiring of the majority leader: Is there any contemplation of bringing that legislation to the floor before this Congress leaves for the election so the American people who are going to either reelect this Congress or seek new leadership have an opportunity on which to make an informed decision, which, of course, is what the Speaker said we would have?

Certainly, we ought to have equal consideration for the American people as well so they have the right to robust debate and an open process and so it allows them to understand what we are doing.

I regret that the majority leader in critical issues, like the Export-Import Bank, which relate to the competitiveness of this country, and like Make It In America legislation that we defeated last week on suspension, which we agreed upon--the majority leader voted for it and I voted for it. I presume--I will ask him anyway. I said I wasn't going to ask him: Is there any contemplation of bringing that bill, which got 260 votes on this floor, back to the floor, under a rule which provides again for America's determining whether or not we can find additional rare earth, which is so necessary to be competitive in international markets?

I know it is not on the schedule, so he doesn't have to repeat that litany to me, because I get it. I have heard it now four or five or six times. I get it that it is not on the schedule for next week.

So the question I ask is: Is there any contemplation of bringing that bill, which has 260 people who voted for it, back to the floor, under a rule, so we can provide for a better opportunity to make it in America and to be competitive internationally?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader and I have worked together, and we have sat down for lunch. We agree on the bill that I mentioned, Mr. Swalwell's bill, to try to make America more competitive by producing more rare earth here in this country--so essential in the electronics industry and in other places.

I can't control the Senate, Mr. Speaker. The majority leader cannot control the Senate. What the majority leader and I can do is control what we do here in this House to which we were elected. We can control either urging or, in the majority leader's case--and as the former majority leader of this House, I can tell you I could put a bill on the floor if I thought it was important for the American people and in the best interests of our country. I think the Export-Import Bank falls in that category. I think minimum wage falls in that category. I think comprehensive immigration falls in that category. I think jobs bills fall in that category. I think make it in America--the Swalwell bill-- fell in that category.

We cannot control what the Senate does, but we can control what we do. We can move in a responsible fashion, which the American people, Mr. Speaker, expect us to do and not blame some outside group, whether it is the administration or the United States Senate, for our lack of addressing important issues.

TRIA is an important bill, Mr. Speaker. It is not on the schedule. I presume, if I asked the majority leader about TRIA, he would tell me it is not on the schedule next week. That would not come as a news flash to me, Mr. Speaker, because he has told me that now seven times.

I believe, if the House is going to act in a collegial manner and in a constructive manner and in a manner that the American people want us to act, that we will exchange information not just on what is on next week--there is not much on next week, Mr. Speaker. I know that. There is, in my opinion, a political bill to sue the President of the United States. The American people don't think that is a very good idea. That is on the calendar. So we are using the few short minutes that we have available to do the people's business on four bills, to send a message, that we could pass in, frankly, a very short period of time on Monday night on endangered species. We are filling time. We are treading water, Mr. Speaker.

I will conclude with this. You have put the possibility that we are going to have a bill on the floor next week dealing with the crisis-- your word--at the border. When will we see text of that legislation that might possibly be on the floor?

I yield to the majority leader.

When it is available. That was the answer to my question. We don't know when it is going to be available. We don't know what it will be. We don't know, really, whether it will be considered, because the majority leader tells me, Mr. Speaker, that it may be on the floor. We know that it hasn't gone to committee. We know that there is no subcommittee hearing that has been held. We know that there is no committee hearing that has been held.

The gentleman talks about thousands of pages. We can get into that debate at some other time. I know which he refers to, a bill that had literally more consideration than any other bill I have seen considered by the Congress of the United States--the Affordable Care Act, which is having, in my view, a very positive effect. We don't need to debate that today.

I would tell the majority leader, if the crisis were going to be addressed, the first step is having the resources necessary to carry out the law, then, if the law needs to be changed, deciding how it should be changed, having debate on that, bringing it to this floor out of committee, and considering that legislation. There are differences of opinion on that. I recognize that. The gentleman has pointed that out. That would be the way to do it. That is the regular order of which you spoke and you promised.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that that could be followed. There are many of us who believe it is not being followed, and that is to the denigration of not only this body but to the American people's ability to see what we are doing, how we are doing it, when we are doing it.

Unless the gentleman has something further to say, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 693 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York by way of Kentucky, Ms. Slaughter, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 4315, the Endangered Species Transparency and Reasonableness Act, and

makes in order four separate amendments for floor consideration.

In fact, this rule is generous in making all filed amendments which were germane and otherwise met the rules of the House in order. Only four were filed, and they are all made in order, so it is hard to see how anyone could vote against this resolution as not being fair.

The resolution also provides for 1 hour of general debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member from the House Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to introduce you to an individual in history by the name of John Gochnaur. John Gochnaur was the shortstop for the Cleveland Indians in 1902 and in 1903. In 1902, he played the entire year, and his batting average was .185, as he committed also 48 errors, but was still good enough to be the shortstop in 1903 as well, where he completed a second season, once again hitting .185, but this time committing a still record 98 errors as shortstop, which means one out of every five times he touched the ball, he threw it away.

John Gochnaur probably has the record now of being the most inept major league player we have ever had in history, never hitting above the Mendoza Line and setting the standard for errors. The worst major league player--which is still quite an achievement to be a major league player--but the worst major league player we have ever had in history hit .185. The Endangered Species Act batting average would be .010 if you round it up. They have had 1,500 species listed, only 12 have actually passed the test and been recovered, for an actual batting average of .008, or .010 if you really want to round up.

The Endangered Species Act, quite frankly, is the most ineffective and inefficient piece of legislation that we have in the history of this country. It does not work. It does not meet its goals. It never has and it never will. The sad part is, though, this act does not go into significant changes to the Endangered Species Act, which would change that batting average. Instead, Chairman Hastings has to be commended for getting a group of people to work together that did a study, got testimony, produced a report, and came up with the most basic of reforms that have to be necessary before anything significant can go on past that.

What these reforms are is simply saying, look, if you are going to have an Endangered Species Act, for heaven's sake, make sure that the data that is used to come up with the realization of the program you have is open to the people, it is transparent and it is public knowledge. They are paying for it. You might as well make sure that they have the opportunity to see it.

The President of the United States recognized this when he said in 2008:

Democracy requires accountability; accountability requires

transparency.

And then he quoted Justice Brandeis, who said that ``sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.'' That is the concept that is here. The data used to make these decisions should be available to the public, and presently, it is not.

One of the witnesses in the committee, when it was a full committee markup on this bill, was a long-time biologist by the name Mr. Ramey, who said:

What are the effects of this lack of transparency on the

public when data are not possible or accessible? Legitimate

scientific inquiry and debate is effectively eliminated, and

no independent third party can produce the results. This

action puts the basis of some ESA decisions outside the realm

of science.

We have the issue that if there is data making these decisions, people should know about it. It should be transparent. All of the data that they use to make these decisions should be transparent. That is not what is happening today.

In an exchange between the director of Fish and Wildlife and the ranking member, the ranking member asked:

Okay. But again, why would a scientist wish to withhold

that data? I mean, if we gave them the public funds, I guess

we could require they publish the data; right? I mean, we

could change. We could put that into the language.

The Fish and Wildlife official said:

Congress could do that.

The ranking member said:

Okay. That might be something we would want to do. I don't

understand why we would go down the path of withholding the

data.

That is what this bill does. There are two elements to it. The most significant part is the first of transparency. If there is data that is going to be used, we need to make sure that we have access to that particular data.

This is a bill that was passed almost four decades ago. This is a bill the last time it was addressed I was still wearing saddleback jeans and platform shoes and my hair had color and it was parted down the middle and it covered more than just my ears. We haven't touched it since that time. They didn't have iPods back then the last time we touched it. It is a new era that requires new information and new data, and there is no reason that should be withheld from the American people, and that is what this bill tries to do.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Daines), who has had to live with the realities of the Endangered Species Act.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) because he also is faced with the unique situation, because this is not just a Western issue. This is an issue that affects all of us.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am pleased to talk about the Endangered Species Act here because we need to make sure that the purpose of the Endangered Species Act is not to make sure that the government is always funding the listing and the maintenance of these species, but to make sure that they are healthy enough so that the government doesn't have to do that, in which case, I am sorry, the batting average is still .008. The Endangered Species Act is failing in that effort.

The methods don't work. But we are not discussing the methods here today. We are discussing something that is simply a commonsense solution to how we move forward with the Endangered Species Act.

The Governors understand that as well. I received a letter from the Western Governors' Association, signed by the Governor from Nevada, as well as the Governor from my friend's home State of Colorado, urging us to have transparency in this action, transparency in the Endangered Species Act. It is important that we simply know what is or is not taking place.

The Endangered Species Act, unfortunately, has an impact on real people. It is a regulatory taking by the Federal Government. It impacts real people's ability to use their property, it impacts real people's ability to have jobs and maintain them. To say that talking about this impact on these people is not good enough, that this is not a high enough version, this is not raising to the level, we don't care enough about these people who are impacted by that act, is something we in Congress should never say. It is significant, it is important, and to make commonsense improvements to the Endangered Species Act should be the goal.

Let me explain a couple of different areas in which these reforms are going to be significant and important.

The first one is this tries to cap the amount of money we spend wasted on litigation costs that should be actually going to the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and recovery of these species. This act tries to set a limit on what an attorney can get for engaging in a petition against the government for the Endangered Species Act. It is mind-boggling to me that in most of the agencies of the government we put caps on what can be obtained in attorney fees who sue the government, but we don't in the Endangered Species Act.

So in San Diego, the Jonas Salk Elementary School was postponed indefinitely. The firm that actually did that postponement so the kids didn't have their school charged the Federal Government six figures, and I promise you the first number in that six figures was not 1.

In the Clinton administration, they were averaging 20 petitions a year on this act. Today, we are averaging 1,200 petitions a year. So obviously, we have a problem, as no one has a total concept of what the total cost of this litigation is or how many full-time employees we are using simply for this litigation, although we do know that the Fish and Wildlife Service allotted in 2013 $21 million and 86 full-time employees just to handling the issue of litigation.

The Ag Department has told us that the litigation cost was the third- largest cost that they were running at that time. We don't have that data. We need to have that particular data, and we also need to put in caps so we are not wasting our money on litigation, we are putting the money in the program where it should be.

That is a significant commonsense element of this particular bill. But the most significant commonsense element is simply saying people should know what data is being used to reach the decisions. The bill itself says the Federal Government shall cooperate--shall cooperate--to the maximum extent practical with the States. That simply is not being done.

Let me give you a couple of examples.

First of all, the dunes sagebrush lizard--a wonderful little lizard, Mr. Speaker, in your home State of Texas--that is trying to be listed by the Federal Government, they were using data from the 1960s, determined that they were locally extinct, the lizard was locally extinct in an area where it flat-out was not extinct. Had they gone through with this listing, 47,000 jobs in this district in Texas would have been impacted by this particular listing, and the data was inaccurate.

The Governor of Idaho asked for a FOIA request dealing with the sagebrush. He got back the emails in the FOIA request, and to summarize those emails that dealt with the national technical team report, the emails basically said: This is our approach--does anyone out there have any kind of data we can use? And if there was no data, then their next step was to use the best guess of the elements of the members who were actually working in that particular department.

That is not the way you make decisions. You collect the data first, make it public, let people know about it, then you create the decisions on where you want it to go. In Colorado, Garfield County, Colorado, actually had to go to court to try to get the department to give them the data they were using for the decisions they were going to try to use on the endangered species in that county, and that simply is not an example of how you cooperate to the maximum extent possible with the States.

We have an issue with prairie dogs in southern Utah. The problem is the Federal Government only counts prairie dogs on Federal lands to determine if they are a viable species or not. Prairie dogs are very abundant on private lands and State lands, to the point that you can actually get a permit to hunt them on private lands. Notwithstanding the fact that there is an abundance of prairie dogs, the rural electric co-op down there had to spend $150,000 to airlift transmission lines to build a transmission line so they went over Federal habitat for prairie dogs, even though other people hunting prairie dogs happened to be on the private property.

This is silly, this is unrealistic, this should not take place if we were actually having a commonsense approach to it.

The bladderpod up in Franklin County, Washington, was threatened to be listed on the endangered species. A local university came up with its own study that proved the DNA of this bladderpod was no different than another flower that was not endangered in that area.

Nonetheless, the Fish and Wildlife Service rejected that particular piece of data. They ignored it. They said it wasn't peer-reviewed, but the sad part is that they ultimately refused to tell us the data that they were using to reach their own decision. Even when that data was subpoenaed, they refused to comply with that particular subpoena.

We simply have a problem here, in that decisions are being made on the Endangered Species Act without having public access to the data being used to make those decisions, and that is wrong.

That is not the way you run a government. That is not the way transparency has to be. The people of the United States are paying for all this data. They have a right to see what it is. They have a right to look at it. They have a right to question it.

All this bill does is simply make the data that is being used public--so people know exactly what you are making those decisions on-- and try to limit the amount that we are spending on needless litigation, so you put some kind of caps on them. That is the first step.

Does that solve all the problems of the ESA? Of course not, but it is the first and most important step. This is a commonsense approach that is rational. It is where we need to go. If we can't get this done, no other reforms of a system that is failing can possibly take place.

I urge adoption of this bill. I support the underlying bill. I urge the adoption of the rule that would do it.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to reiterate this is a fair rule, and it is appropriate to the underlying piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

To be clear, the goal of the Endangered Species Act doesn't exist just to get species off the list, it exists to keep species on the planet, and has a tremendous track record of success--99 percent effective at preventing the extinction of species that have been listed on the endangered species list.

There is strong precedent in passing bipartisan Endangered Species Act measures. Last Congress, I was very proud to be an original cosponsor of Mr. Bishop's Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act, which became law in January of 2013. The Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act facilitated the recovery of four endangered species native to the Upper Colorado River Basin. The bill ensures compliance with the Endangered Species Act for over 200 projects that use water from the Colorado River and provided enough water for agricultural and municipal water use as well.

I salute Representative Bishop's efforts to pull together a bipartisan group from Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming to work together on that successful modification to the Endangered Species Act.

What we have before us today is not an example of that same bipartisan spirit and open process of work that

can build upon, rather than take a step back from, protecting species that are an important part of our ecosystem.

This bill in its current form would not only waste taxpayer dollars and Federal Government agency time by creating additional red tape and bureaucracy, but it is also a waste of our limited remaining time in session. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, with a border crisis, crises breaking out across the Middle East, and yet we are debating a particular change to the Endangered Species Act, which, regardless of its merits, is simply not one of the top two issues, five issues, 10 issues, even top 100 issues that I have heard from my constituents about over the last year.

People wonder why this legislative body is as unpopular as we are, with an approval rating of 12 percent. One need look no further than what we are working on. Rather than addressing the budget deficit or restoring fiscal stability to our country, rather than securing the border and passing comprehensive immigration reform, we are instead discussing a bill that weakens the Endangered Species Act. And regardless of whether Members want to strengthen it or weaken it or modify it--Americans care about jobs, the economy, fiscal responsibility, addressing our border crisis--having problems with the Endangered Species Act is simply not on the minds of most everyday American families. I think most American families think the Endangered Species Act is a fine thing, maybe they think it should move this way or that way or be better or stronger or weaker, but that is not the issue that they want us addressing with our limited time in session.

This is our last week in session in the month of July. In the month of August, this esteemed body won't even meet once. In September, we will come back for 2 or 3 weeks. I don't know--are we going to be discussing endangered species for those 2 or 3 weeks as well?

It kind of reminds me of the historical precedent of Emperor Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Here we are in record deficits, war and threatened wars are enveloping the Middle East with the Islamic state and ISIS occupying much of Syria and Iraq, with the uncertainty in eastern Ukraine and separatists engaged in battle, with the precarious recovery of the economy, with things getting harder and harder for middle class American families to get by and support themselves and their family, and here we are with only 3 days left in session before September discussing relatively minor changes that add another bureaucratic layer of red tape to the Endangered Species Act. It is simply not what the people in my district hired me to fight for them on, and I don't think it is what the people in this country want Congress to do at this point.

There are so many issues that the American people, the people who sent us here to represent them, agree on, where there is common ground.

One example is immigration reform. Polls have shown that 87 percent of Americans support comprehensive immigration reform. Perhaps we found that last 13 percent of people who approve of Congress, maybe it is those same people who don't want to see immigration reform. The only people left who approve of these obstructionist tactics with regard to immigration reform, the tactics which are tearing families apart, hurting our economy, bloating our deficit, and preventing us from securing our border, are an ever-dwindling percentage of Americans.

Now that we are dealing with this Endangered Species Act, I hope that we can get back to addressing immigration reform. Let us have a vote on comprehensive immigration reform, a vote on raising the minimum wage, a vote on a comprehensive plan to balance the budget. Let's have a real debate and exchange real ideas to move our Nation forward.

There are a number of flaws in this modification of the Endangered Species Act which prevent it from being a true piece of bipartisan legislation with wide support from this body, like I had the opportunity to work on with Mr. Bishop last session. But I think even more importantly, Mr. Speaker, we just need to ask ourselves why, with days left before Congress adjourns for the summer, are we considering a topic that, while surely worthy of debate, hardly raises to the level of these pressing issues, like our budget deficit, the border crisis, or the Middle East, in which I hope that this body can have a substantive debate around resolving?

While we are here debating a partisan, politically charged bill that threatens to undermine the Endangered Species Act, 32 wildfires larger than 5,000 acres are burning in seven Western States. My district had several last summer, and we are worried about this summer. These fires cover a total of 1.4 million acres and are a serious threat to homes, lives, livelihoods, and health.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2014. Already 196 Members have signed a discharge petition to bring this legislation to the floor of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this rule or the underlying bill.

The Republicans are committed to partisan politics over progress for our country, and this bill is yet another example of that agenda.

In the last 3 days of legislative business before a summer recess of 1\1/2\ months, House Republicans are using this valuable time in the people's Chamber to simply pass a bill that obstructs the Endangered Species Act rather than deals with any of the critical issues facing our country.

Congress should be considering legislation to secure the border or deal with the crisis of unaccompanied minors on our southern border, to balance our budget, to reform our broken immigration system, to deal with wildfires, to raise the minimum wage, to protect workers. But instead, here we are debating partisan changes to a piece of legislation that has, frankly, served us well and our ecosystems well over the prior decades.

We do have an emergency on our southern border with regard to unaccompanied minors from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. We need to have a comprehensive strategy to deal with that and make sure that we are not overwhelmed by people from other countries.

Before we adjourn for recess, Congress could and should address immigration reform. The American people want us to pass bipartisan immigration reform. The bill passed the Senate with over two-thirds majority. That is very rare. Democrats and Republicans came together to pass a commonsense immigration reform bill that more than 80 percent of the American people support, and more than two-thirds of the Senate support it.

If we can schedule that bill for a vote this week, I am confident it would pass right here on the floor of the House of Representatives. We have a bipartisan House bill, H.R. 15, that is ready to come to the floor and be voted on, and I believe it would pass.

I am honored to be a sponsor of H.R. 15, the bipartisan immigration reform bill. The bill would create jobs here, reduce our budget deficit, ensure America is more competitive in the global economy, unite families, and secure our borders. Just as importantly, it will make sure that our immigration system reflects our values as Americans, a Nation of laws and a Nation of immigrants.

House Republicans have refused to allow a vote on immigration reform and it failed to bring forth a single bill to help improve our broken immigration system or our dire crisis at the border. Instead, we are left with time that we could use to debate minute changes that add bureaucracy and red tape to an already encumbered Endangered Species Act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can discuss the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act of 2014. It is so important to my home State and so many others in the West and Mountain West.

I also will oppose the rule and the underlying bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at noon for morning hour and 2 p.m. for legislative business. Votes will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning hour and noon for legislative business. On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business. Last votes of the week are expected no later than 3 p.m. On Friday, no votes are expected.

Mr. Speaker, the House will consider a few suspensions next week, a complete list of which will be announced by close of business today.

In addition, the House will consider a package of bills to ensure transparency and accountability within the Endangered Species Act. Included in this package are H.R. 4315, the 21st Century Endangered Species Transparency Act, authored by Chairman Doc Hastings; H.R. 4316, the Endangered Species Recovery Transparency Act, authored by Representative Cynthia Lummis; H.R. 4317, the State, Tribal, and Local Species Transparency Act, authored by Representative Randy Neugebauer; and H.R. 4318, the Endangered Species Litigation Reasonableness Act, authored by Representative Bill Huizenga.

The House will also consider House Resolution 676, which provides for authority to initiate litigation for actions by the President or other executive branch officials inconsistent with their duties under the Constitution of the United States.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, Members are advised that the House may also consider legislation to deal with the ongoing crisis on the border.

I thank my gentleman for yielding.

Currently, there have been no changes to the schedule.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As I mentioned in the schedule announcement for next week, Members should be prepared for possible consideration of legislation to address the ongoing border crisis. Once the timing is finalized, the Rules Committee will announce a hearing on the measure to determine the process by which the bill will be brought before the House.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As I said earlier, you should be prepared for a possible consideration. Once the timing is finalized, the Rules Committee will announce a hearing to announce the process.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentleman for his passion on the crisis, just as we have on this side.

Since we have taken the majority, we made a pledge to America that we post bills with a 3-day process. So, as I mentioned in the schedule announcement for next week, Members should be prepared for possible consideration of legislation to address the ongoing border crisis. Once the timing is finalized, the Rules Committee will announce a hearing on the measure to determine the process by which the bill will be brought before the House.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I know we originated this for the schedule for next week. As the gentleman knows, the House has passed seven of the 12 appropriations bills in an open process.

To the fact that even one of your Members, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, has had 50 percent more amendments offered on this floor than the entire Republican Conference in the Senate for the last year, we are very proud of the open process we have brought back to the floor.

While the House is not scheduled to consider a regular appropriations bill next week, as the gentleman knows and as I stated already, the House may consider a supplemental appropriation request next week.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman initiated this with inquiring about the schedule for next week. As I stated earlier, in the schedule for next week we do not have anything considered in the regular appropriations process, but we could possibly have a supplemental appropriation next week.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As my friend, the gentleman knows, this is in regard to the schedule for next week. And it is not scheduled for next week. If there will be any consideration, we will notify you.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As the gentleman knows, this colloquy is always based upon the schedule for next week, and I would very proudly like to lay out the schedule for next week.

As the gentleman raised the question, he very well knows we did agree on that bill just as we agreed on quite a few bills. As of today, there are 333 bills that have passed this House that have gotten stuck in the Senate. Of those 333 bills, 40 of them are jobs bills. We know we linger in a very tough economy, and the gentleman voted for a few of those 40 bills. So let me repeat: the 40 jobs bills are still stuck in the Senate. We want to encourage economic growth and innovation. We can ensure a robust American manufacturing sector and put Americans back to work.

As the gentleman knows, as we sat down to lunch, we want to work together on that, but as of right now, it is not scheduled for next week. It was on this week. Unfortunately, it did not pass, but I look forward to continuing working with the gentleman, and, hopefully, we could work together to make the Senate move on those 40 jobs bills and those 333 bills that the American public would like to see move forward.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the gentleman's concern on the crisis. It is not just my word. It is the American word.

If it were not a crisis, we would not have three Presidents from Central American countries here today to talk about the crisis. We would not have three Presidents who are asking to reunite their children with their families in their countries. If it were not a crisis, you would not have a task force that was introduced by this Speaker on this side to address it. If it were not a crisis, you wouldn't even have Members on your side of the aisle partnering with their Senators from another party, sitting in the Senate, to address the crisis.

Now, many Members of this House have gone there to see the crisis. Some in the administration have not. This House is committed to addressing it as soon as it is available.

We take great pride in changing this House. As the majority leader knows, he cares about the institution; but when the majority changed over here, one of the number one things we said we would do is a 3-day process, as you would know in importance, so people can read the bill, because too many times I have been to this floor when thousands of pages have come out at 2 a.m. and have been voted on that day. We made a commitment to the American people, and we have kept our commitment just as we will keep our commitment that we will end this crisis no matter what it takes. This House will act.

Mr. Speaker, as we come here today, one of the things that strikes me--and, of course, I support the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4315, because it really strikes a balance and, as part of the working group that has been meeting under Chairman Hastings and others, including Mr. Bishop, dealing with this, as my friend from Utah said, it is an issue that has not been touched in many, many years. There is nothing that really, from our perspective of government, should not be looked at every once in awhile, and especially when you get things such as the Endangered Species Act, which has grown and multiplied and just really expanded to where not only does it affect Western States, but it affects States like Georgia.

To come to the floor today to take issue with a bill that simply permits the concept--and my friend from Utah said we could have actually gone after a lot more than this. We could have taken on the Endangered Species than this. We could have taken on the Endangered Species Act and said: Let's make it better for the 21st century. Instead, we went to targeted reform, targeted aspects of it. We said: Let's look at transparency. Let's look at capping attorneys' fees. Instead of paying pockets of attorneys, it is okay to still sue. We are saying it is okay if you want to sue, but we are not going to pay unlimited amounts just so you can sue for maybe dubious data or devious wins. This is an issue of transparency.

Wouldn't we want to put that money into protecting actual endangered species? Is that not what the Endangered Species Act is about? Is it actually protecting endangered species?

The problem with the Endangered Species Act, however, is that it has expanded to where now the Endangered Species is jobs. It is people. It is the people who are affected by the Endangered Species Act, and all we are saying is let's shine a little light on it. That is a song from back when the ESA was first passed. Let's shine a light. ``This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.'' Well, let's shine a little bit of light on this as we go forward.

A ``no'' vote on this legislation to me is simply a ``no'' vote, whether it is the rule or the bill. It is a ``no'' vote for the status quo. If there is anything that this country is screaming, whether it is Republican or Democrat, they are tired of the status quo, and especially in something like this, because when they hear about it, they don't understand it.

I am going to tell a little story that comes from Georgia, and it involves the Indiana bat. The Indiana bat is on the endangered species list. A few years ago--oh, oh, be quiet. A few years ago, a transmitter went off. It was a little beep. Oh, oh. You might hear it on your phone. It was a beep in southern Tennessee. It only went off one time from everything that we can gather, but that transponder hit said the Indiana bat is moving south.

Well, we expanded the net and said nothing north of Atlanta. All of a sudden we have to start checking for the Indiana bat. We checked. We have looked. I have it on my phone here. I brought one to the floor today. I have a compass. I have a map. I asked this before and nobody stepped forward, but I will take my compass. I will take my map, and if you help me, come to northeast Georgia and find the Indiana bat, there is probably a prize. I will take you to the Waffle House and buy you whatever you want, because so far it hasn't been found. In fact, the last time the Indiana bat was actually seen in Georgia was in Athens in the 1940s.

Now, Athens is home to a wonderful, fine, upstanding institution called the University of Georgia. Go Dawgs. But it was probably found or seen maybe after one of the celebrations of our great victories on Saturday on the gridiron when everyone is partying, and they may have seen the Indiana bat and said, ``There's the bat,'' but we haven't seen it since.

So I am not sure what we are looking for, but I tell you what we are doing. We are paying almost $100,000 on every road project over and above the cost for hard-earned taxpayer dollars on the Federal and State level looking for a bat that may have existed in a fraternity party in Athens 45, 50, 60 years ago because nobody knows. But it came because, listen--those in the gallery, those watching on TV, listen-- the transponder may go off, and we may just block off all kinds of areas and say ``pay more'' because the transponder went off.

Now, many times our friends across the aisle say we on our side, we just want business and we don't care about endangered species, we don't care about the environment. There is no other Republican, and when you come to the Ninth District of Georgia--and I know my friend from Colorado feels that his State is beautiful, and it is. It is great. But the Ninth District of Georgia is pretty nice, too. And I want clean water and I want good roads. I want the things that matter because the environment in north Georgia is great. But what I do not want is an overreaching regulation that is not addressed when we are simply asking for transparency. We are simply asking for transparency. When you are asking for transparency, my question not only is where is the bat, but where is the problem. Where is the bat? Where is the problem?

The problem with this bill is nothing. The problem with this bill is it begins to shine light on the things that need shining light on. Disinfectant, I am not sure what we are doing here because right now there is no disinfectant. We need transparency to shine a light. ``This little light of mine, I'm gonna let it shine.'' I am going to let it shine on something that protects taxpayer dollars, that protects transparency and does the things that it is supposed to do.

And by the way, if you happen to be coming by, the problem with this is simply transparency. It protects taxpayer dollars and protects endangered species by using the latest in science and being open to the public.

But let me ask all who may be watching: if you are driving through the great State of Georgia, if you are in north Georgia in the Ninth District, I have got a lot of places for you to come, but when you get there bring your binoculars, bring your compass, bring a map, and if you find the bat I will see you at the Waffle House.