Grand Canyon Protection Act

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

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 803, the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act.

Contrary to the name, this bill will damage our environment, while simultaneously killing jobs in rural America.

The proponents of this bill will say it is broadly supported. Listen to the Members who represent the districts most affected by this bill. They don't want it.

Listen to the groups opposed: American Farm Bureau, American Forest Resource Council, or the Grand Junction, Colorado, Chamber of Commerce. They don't want this bill.

This bill creates nearly 1.5 million of acres of new wilderness, withdraws 1.2 million acres from mineral production, and designates over 1,200 miles of wild scenic and recreational rivers. For perspective, the wilderness designated in this bill is the same size as President Biden's home State of Delaware.

This Chamber has bypassed the committee process and circumvented the will of Members who represent districts directly impacted by this legislation. It was scheduled for the floor before the Committee was ever organized.

The consequences of this bill on the four Western States it impacts will be far-reaching. For example, if you live in Colorado and you enjoy recreating on mountain biking and ATV trails like the people pictured here on the Tabeguache Trail, this bill will shut down your ability to recreate on those lands. The same goes for snowmobilers, OHV users, and parents with strollers.

It is very concerning that these wilderness areas will now be off- limits to active forest management. 2020 was sadly another record- breaking fire season. We have a problem on our national forests that is not going to be solved with handsaws and shovels. Now is not the time to rely on century-old management techniques stipulated by wilderness designations when over 80 million acres of U.S. Forest Service land is in desperate need of treatment.

If that wasn't enough, this bill also designates lands as wilderness in the wildland-urban interface. This is a matter of life and death.

Mr. Speaker, I want to clear up some misconceptions about the last title of this bill, the Grand Canyon Protection Act. Nobody is mining in the Grand Canyon; nobody wants to mine in the Grand Canyon; and nobody will mine in the Grand Canyon--ever. Proponents of the bill would have you believe that this is happening right near the Colorado River. In fact, there are already buffer zones in place. It is called the Grand Canyon National Park.

The only saving this bill will do is saving Chinese and Russian uranium mining jobs. In 2019, we only produced 0.5 percent of the domestic uranium needed for commercial reactors. This bill goes far beyond the park's boundaries and the boundaries of the sponsor's home district to simply kill jobs to the direct benefit of our adversaries. This bill will make us more dependent on hostile nations like Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, and Chinese-owned mines in Namibia.

In conclusion, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letters from multiple organizations in opposition to H.R. 803.

Independent Petroleum Association

of America,

Washington, DC, February 23, 2021.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Madam Speaker: The Independent Petroleum Association of

America (IPAA) is opposed to H.R. 803, the ``Protecting

America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act.'' This bill

creates nearly 1.5 million acres of new wilderness and

permanently withdraws 1.2 million acres from mineral

production. It is in direct opposition to the multiple use

mandate given to the Department of the Interior to manage the

federal estate. Many of the local communities impacted by

this measure, including Garfield County in Colorado which has

existing mineral leases and planned for further development,

have raised significant concerns due to the elimination of

multiple use of the land and the overall threat to local

economies and rural jobs.

Further, many of the lands under consideration in H.R. 803

do not meet the basic characteristics for consideration as

wilderness. Instead, the legislation arbitrarily designates

areas as wilderness and wild and scenic rivers despite

official testimony provided by the relevant land management

agencies to previous Congresses that many of these

designations are inappropriate and not recommended. To

declare areas that do not possess these characteristics

undermines the integrity of the Wilderness Act and the Wild

and Scenic Rivers Act.

The process by which H.R 803 is coming to the House floor

is also concerning. The bill did not go through regular

order, receiving no hearings or mark-ups in the 117th

Congress. In fact, the bill was scheduled for floor

consideration before the Natural Resources Committee had even

organized. Local input, especially with regards to managing

active mineral leases which affect jobs, should have been

solicited in an effort to allow the House to better

understand the broad impacts of the bill.

For these reasons, IPAA is strongly opposed to H.R. 803.

Sincerely,

Dan Naatz,

Senior Vice President of Government Relations and

Political Affairs, Independent Producers Association of

America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), the chair of the Western Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from

Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher), the ranking member on the Public Lands Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), whose district is more affected by this bill than anyone else.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

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

Mr. Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on Natural Resources to consider our cancel the Biden ban amendment to H.R. 803.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

The amendment is simple. It will nullify Executive Order No. 14008 and Secretarial Order No. 3395 issued during the President's first weeks in office.

The Biden administration wasted no time in imposing their extremist environmental agenda. On day one, political appointees created a nightmare for our energy operators and a never-ending bottleneck for approvals necessary to keep our energy economy running.

Just a few days later, President Biden halted all new energy production on our Federal lands and waters, jeopardizing the livelihoods of thousands of Americans in the middle of a pandemic and economic crisis.

The administration has tried to downplay the impact of these actions, but we are already feeling the consequences of what I like to call the Biden ban. The economic impact of the decisions will be far-reaching, impacting thousands of companies, many of which are small businesses. Recent studies have concluded that a long-term ban on onshore leasing would cost 72,000 jobs annually, and a long-term ban on offshore drilling would cost 145,000 jobs.

Federal energy development represents a sizable portion of State budgets. Can we afford to cut off this crucial source of revenue as our communities are struggling to recover from the pandemic? Our schools need funding to buy PPE that they need to reopen. Yet, the Biden ban would disrupt a critical source of revenue that our K-12 schools rely on.

In addition, these actions will bankrupt programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

The ramifications of these actions by the Biden administration will be devastating to our rural communities. Americans who work hard every day to keep the lights on and our gas prices low deserve better than a pink slip from out-of-touch political appointees.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, recommit H.R. 803 to the Natural Resources Committee, and put Americans back to work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, today we heard concerns from our Members, including Members most affected by this legislation.

Tomorrow, we will debate amendments that include 15 new unrelated matters to make the total amount of bills in this one bill 23. This will make this bill three times worse after we consider amendments.

I believe we have the responsibility to leave our environment better than we found it. We talk about the economy so often that many people think that we forget about the environment. That couldn't be further from the truth, we all breathe the air and drink the water.

H.R. 803 would attempt to preserve our resources, locking them up and throwing away the key. Congress' focus should be on conservation and conserving these resources instead, using them in sustainable, responsible ways that every American can enjoy.

Since we weren't given any opportunity to debate this bill in committee, I would like to remind my colleagues that this bill will harm the environment; it will kill jobs; it will limit access to outdoor recreation; it will hurt State water rights; it will imperil our national security and American energy independence; it will impede necessary forest management; and make us more reliant on hostile foreign nations.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 147, I call up the bill (H.R. 803) to designate certain lands in the State of Colorado as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 803.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 803, the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act.

I first want to thank Chairman Grijalva for his incredible leadership of the House Natural Resources Committee, and for bringing his Grand Canyon Protection Act to the floor today as part of the bill that we will be considering.

I have been honored to work alongside Chair Grijalva on the Natural Resources Committee and I am looking forward to continuing that work as the chair of the National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands Subcommittee this Congress.

The bill that we are considering today unifies eight standalone proposals as H.R. 803, the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act. Representative DeGette, who is the primary sponsor, Representative Huffman, Representative Chu, Representative Carbajal, Representative Schiff, and Representative Kilmer, have all worked tirelessly to advocate for the places in this bill, and I am looking forward to hearing more from them during today's debate.

Now, before I get carried away with the beauty of Colorado, I would like to acknowledge the product of our combined efforts: 1.5 million acres of wilderness; 1,200 miles of protected wild and scenic rivers; permanent mineral withdrawals for the Grand Canyon and Colorado's Thompson Divide.

Each title of this bill considers how best to protect public lands and provide for local considerations. Together, they will improve access to clean water, clean air, outdoor recreation and, yes, they will even support jobs and our economy.

Protecting public lands is a key part of the climate solution, and I am proud to say that we continue those protections here today with the formal support of the Biden administration.

My contribution to this bill is the Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy Act, or the CORE Act. Through collaboration, consultation, negotiation, local elected officials, community members, businesses, outdoor recreation and conservation groups, ranchers, sportsmen, they have all come together to protect the outdoor areas in Colorado that we love.

In many cases, Coloradans have been asking Congress to protect these areas for a decade or longer. In total, the CORE Act would conserve more than 400,000 acres of public land, and each the CORE Act's four sections were separately crafted by Coloradans.

Camp Hale is one of the special places protected by the CORE Act. High on Colorado's Continental Divide, surrounded by the White River National Forest, the CORE Act would designate the first-ever National Historic Landscape at Camp Hale to honor the storied legacy of the Army's 10th Mountain Division.

The soldiers that trained at Camp Hale led our Nation to victory in World War II, then went on to create the modern outdoor industry, which today contributes billions to Colorado's growing outdoor recreation economy.

To similar ends, the CORE Act formally establishes numerous boundaries, also a handful of National Park Service units without a formal designation by Congress, which would be in this bill. This long overdue designation will provide new fishing access, for example, for sportsmen in the Gunnison River basin.

And in yet another win for Colorado sportsmen, the CORE Act protects Colorado's only migration corridor over Interstate 70 for elk, mule deer, and other wildlife.

These areas are just a small sampling, Mr. Speaker, of the many non- wilderness and locally supported protections included in this bill today.

Additionally, the CORE Act makes a contribution of 73,000 acres to our National Wilderness Preservation System. The CORE Act wilderness protects some of Colorado's most iconic peaks, including two fourteeners: Wilson Peak and Mount Sneffels.

And of the 400,000 acres of public lands covered by the CORE Act, about half is for the withdrawal and protection of the Thompson Divide.

The Thompson Divide, through ranching and outdoor recreation, contributes $30 million a year to Colorado's statewide economy. It is one of

our most treasured landscapes and an area that is simply too valuable to drill for oil and gas.

The thoughtful input and collaboration put into the CORE Act is apparent in each title of the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act.

Now, my colleagues may have ideological differences when it comes to protecting our public lands, but what we can all agree on is that the United States is blessed with some of the most beautiful landscapes in the world. And it is thanks to the careful consideration of the legislators that came before us and the legislators that are gathered here today on the floor that we are able to enjoy them today, and that our children will be able to enjoy them tomorrow.

So I urge my colleagues to consider the decades of work that have gone into the bill that is before us and to recognize the chance that we all have to vote to protect these places.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield, I would be remiss if I didn't say with respect to Colorado in particular, and with much respect to the ranking member, the Outdoor Alliance sent a letter to Chairman Grijalva just a few days ago in support of this bill. It was signed by the CEO of the International Mountain Bicycling Association, so I think they would have much to disagree with, with respect to some of the statements that were made.

Finally, I will also say, every bill that is a component of this measure was marked up in the last Congress, heard in the last Congress, and passed the last Congress twice.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the distinguished chairman of the Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).

Mr. Speaker, with much respect to my colleague from

Louisiana--and I enjoy working with him--I just want to assure him, because he spent a great deal of time in Colorado, that he is still going to be able to enjoy the wonderful outdoor recreation that our State has under this bill.

If anything, his ability to do so will only increase. And that is why the American Whitewater Association, the American Canoe Association, the International Mountain Bicycling Association, The American Alpine Club, and Backcountry Hunters & Anglers all support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time each side has remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. O'Halleran).

Mr. Speaker, there is quite a lot to respond to. I will just respond to a couple of quick points.

Virtually all the BLM wilderness land that was referenced with respect to title I has been managed as wilderness essentially for the better part of the last 40 years.

With respect to wildfires, I would encourage my colleague to read the Wilderness Act because section 4(d) of the Wilderness Act says: ``Such measures may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects, and diseases.'' That is the law.

Finally, I have to say, with respect to the reference to constituent support, with respect to the CORE Act, the bill that we introduced as part of this component bill, Gunnison County, Pitkin County, San Juan County, Ouray County, San Miguel County, Eagle County, they all support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues again to follow the lead of the folks and the voices at the local level who are imploring us to pass this bill. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you again to Chairman Grijalva, and to each of my colleagues, Representative DeGette, Representative Schiff, Representative Huffman, and all of my fellow Members who we heard from today who worked so hard on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have to repeat this because it is important. Every title of this bill was heard in the 116th Congress, I was at those hearings. Every title was marked up. I attended those mark-ups with the ranking member. Every single title of this bill passed in committee, passed on the floor twice, many of them in bipartisan fashion.

I agree with the ranking member. At the end of the day we have an obligation to leave our environment better than when we found it. That is what this bill is all about. Protecting the most iconic and beautiful places in the United States of America so that my children, your children, Mr. Speaker, and the ranking member's children can continue to enjoy these incredible places in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will vote ``yes'' on this important legislation and join us in this effort.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 667, I call up the bill (H.R. 4350) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2022 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam 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. 4350.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Speaker, we have before us the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, and I highly recommend it to the Members of the House and urge everybody to support this incredibly important and very well put together piece of legislation.

The first thing I will say is thank you to all of the staff, certainly on the Armed Services Committee, but the Rules Committee as well, and the leadership staff. This has been a truly bipartisan legislative process.

We had our markup in committee which lasted, I will do a little quick math in my head, something like 16 hours. We considered over 800 amendments, with a variety of different variations, and we got that number up closer to 1100. And then before the Rules Committee there were, again, over 800 amendments submitted, and we have worked with Members of this body, Democrats and Republicans, members on the committee and off, to craft what I think is a very good piece of legislation.

I think it is incredibly important, first of all, that we pass this bill so that Congress continues to exercise its authority to exercise oversight over the Department of Defense.

I know Members on both sides of this aisle have lamented throughout the years the degree to which the executive branch has exerted more power over the years, where the legislative branch has exhibited less. Now, granted, you find that issue more troubling when the opposite party is in charge of the White House, but we are all troubled by that phenomena.

We need to exercise our authority; this bill does that. To my mind, Congress does not pass enough authorizing bills, but we do do so in the Department of Defense, and have done so for over 60 straight years, and should do so again.

This bill, I think, is particularly important because we are at an important moment in defense of this country and in dealing with our role in the world. We have never faced a more complex threat environment. We have threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and transnational terrorist groups.

In addition, we are now coming out of 20 years of war fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, both countries of which our military now is out and not fighting those wars, and we have a whole bunch of change to deal with.

At the same time, innovation has never been more important in properly defending this country. We need to update and modernize our armed forces, everything from our information systems, to our command and control, to our platforms, to the support we give to our servicemembers. I am very proud that this bill reflects those priorities.

And the work has been done between Mr. Rogers and myself and members of the committee to produce that product. And I want to take a moment here to thank Mr. Rogers, the ranking member, he has been a terrific partner in this process, as has his staff and as has his members.

I think this bill reflects those priorities. It figures out how to improve our ability to update the military more quickly, to better buy software, to better innovate, to better embrace the innovative technologies that we need.

Madam Speaker, I want to particularly thank Mr. Langevin, as the subcommittee chair, who has taken the lead on the AI task force that looks at this question in great specificity. This bill really puts us in a position to modernize the force as we need to.

One other crucial issue that we do in this is we address the issue of sexual assault in the military that continues to be a scourge upon service in the military. We have worked for years to try to address this issue, we have not been successful.

This year, thanks in large part to the leadership of Congresswoman Speier, we have updated the UCMJ to create a special victims' prosecutor to give sexual assault and sex crimes the attention they deserve to make sure that we are protecting the men and women who serve in the military. It is a crucial aspect of this bill, and I strongly urge Members to support it.

Lastly, let me just say that as you pore over this bill, everybody here will find something that they do not like. Everybody here will also find something that they wish was in there that is not. There is no doubt about that, because it is a very large bill, and it was a collaborative process.

But it is the nature of the legislative process that you don't get absolutely everything that you want. I hope Members will keep that in mind. But it is also the nature of the legislative process, in this case, that we have produced a product that everybody in this House can be proud of.

And, again, I want to thank my Republican counterpart. We have worked together to produce this. I urge support from all Members. This is a bill every Member, Democrat and Republican, can enthusiastically support, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on House Administration,

Washington, DC, September 8, 2021.

Hon. Adam Smith,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Smith: I am writing to you concerning H.R.

4350, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2022. There are certain provisions in the legislation that

fall within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Committee on House

Administration.

In the interest of permitting your committee to proceed

expeditiously to floor consideration of this important bill,

I am willing to waive this committee's right to sequential

referral. I do so with the understanding that by waiving

consideration of the bill, the Committee on House

Administration does not waive any future jurisdictional claim

over the subject matters contained in the bill which fall

within its Rule X jurisdiction. I request that you urge the

Speaker to name members of this committee to any conference

committee which is named to consider such provisions.

Please place this letter into the committee report on H.R.

4350 and into the Congressional Record during consideration

of the measure on the House floor. Thank you for the

cooperative spirit in which you have worked regarding this

matter and others between our respective committees.

Sincerely,

Zoe Lofgren,

Chairperson.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Rhode Island an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden), who is a member of the committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi), who is the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego), the chair of the Intelligence and Special Operations Subcommittee.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I just want to agree with Mr. Rogers. This bill, as you can hear from the Members speaking in favor of it on both sides of the aisle, encompasses a lot of different provisions, all designed to make sure we can adequately defend the country; and, most importantly, designed to make sure that we protect the men and women who are serving us to protect that country.

There are a lot of provisions in this bill focused on improving the quality of life, including a 2.7 percent pay increase and significant increases to improve things like childcare centers and barracks across the country.

I think this bill does an excellent job of identifying the threats that we face and putting ourselves in the best possible position to meet those threats going forward.

Again, no bill is perfect. We disagree on things. Everyone will have something in here that they wish were slightly different, but overall, I think we can support this bill.

I do want to close by once again emphasizing, I know there is a lot of angst about the amendments that have been ruled in order; but, again, that is not unusual that we would deal with issues that are not necessarily directly within our jurisdiction. We work with the committees of jurisdiction in order to carry those bills. We will continue to work on that.

I can say with confidence that there is no amendment that has been ruled in order that we are going to debate on that should impact any Members voting for this bill. This is a very strong bill. Do not forget the underlying provisions in this bill that are so important to the men and women who are serving this country, to the protections they need, the protections they deserve, and the protections that it is our obligation to provide for them and which I feel very, very strongly that this bill does.

This bill deserves support from this committee. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Madam Speaker, I offer this amendment, which is identical to the SAFE Banking Act the House passed by a vote of 321-101 in April. 180 bipartisan Members of Congress and 39 bipartisan Senators are cosponsors of this important legislation to allow State-regulated cannabis businesses to access the financial system and improve safety in our communities by getting cash off the streets.

By bringing cash into the financial system, banks and credit unions will

subject the funds and the account holders to rigorous anti-money laundering and ``know your customer'' requirements. Under FinCEN's 2014 guidance, financial institutions must comply with a heightened anti- money laundering reporting regime when providing services to cannabis businesses. This will strengthen the security of our financial system and our country by keeping bad actors like foreign cartels out of the cannabis industry.

But most importantly, this amendment will reduce the risk of violent crime in our communities. By dealing in all cash, these businesses and their employees become targets for robbery, assaults, burglaries, and more. In Colorado, Travis Mason, a young father and Marine Corps veteran, was murdered while working as a security guard for a cannabis business. We cannot wait any longer to address this public safety threat.

I want to thank my cosponsors on this amendment, Representatives Velazquez, Davidson, Correa, Blumenauer, Joyce, and Barbara Lee, as well as former Representatives Heck and Stivers.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I just would remind the gentleman from Alabama the matter was deemed germane by the Parliamentarian.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from Governors from 21 States and Territories endorsing the SAFE Banking Act, along with a list of 41 other diverse organizations who support the legislation.

Hon. Charles E. Schumer,

Majority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Sherrod Brown,

Chair, Senate Committee on Banking,

Housing and Urban Affairs, Washington, DC.

Hon. Maxine Waters,

Chair,

House Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Minority Leader,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Pat Toomey,

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and

Urban Affairs, Washington, DC.

Hon. Patrick McHenry,

Ranking Member, House Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC.

April 19, 2021.

Dear Congressional Leaders: As our States' chief

executives, we urge Congress to pass legislation allowing

states with legalized medical or adult-use cannabis to

operate safely under the national banking system. We strongly

support the passage of the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE)

Banking Act of 2021 (H.R. 1996/S. 910) or similar legislation

that would remove the legal uncertainty and allow banks and

credit unions to provide services to state-licensed cannabis-

related businesses.

We were pleased that the House passed similar legislation

in the 116th Congress (H.R. 1595). The SAFE Banking Act of

2021 already has more than 165 bipartisan House cosponsors

and more than 30 bipartisan Senate cosponsors. The

legislation has also received support from more than 30

associations.

Currently, 36 U.S. states, four U.S. territories, and the

District of Columbia have legalized the medical use of

cannabis. Additionally, 18 states, two territories, and the

District of Columbia have legalized recreational use by

adults over 21 years of age. Despite legalization of cannabis

at the state-level, our financial institutions face enormous

legal risks and criminal and civil liability under the

Controlled Substances Act. These barriers disincentive

financial institutions from providing banking services to

state-licensed and regulated cannabis businesses.

Because few banks and credit unions provide these services,

state-licensed cannabis businesses predominantly operate on a

cash basis. Without banking services, state-licensed cannabis

businesses are unable to write checks, make and receive

electronic payments, utilize a payroll provider, or accept

credit and debit cards. Cash only businesses pose a

significant public safety risk to customers and employees.

The cash-only environment also burdens state and local

government agencies that must collect tax and fee payments in

person and in cash, which creates additional public expenses

and employee safety risks.

State and federal governments have a shared interest in

upholding the rule of law, protecting public safety, and

transitioning markets out of the shadows and into our

transparent and regulated banking system. Many of our states

have implemented laws and regulations to reduce these risks

while ensuring financial accountability of the cannabis

industry. These public safety risks can be further mitigated

on the federal level by passing the SAFE Banking Act to

provide state-licensed cannabis businesses with access to

banking service providers.

We urge you to pass the SAFE Banking Act of 2021 or similar

legislation that would provide a safe harbor for depository

institutions that provide a financial product or service to a

state-licensed cannabis business in states that have

legalized cannabis. We look forward to working with you as

legislation progresses to address this urgent public policy

and safety concern.

Sincerely,

Governor Jared Polis, State of Colorado; Governor Ned

Lamont, State of Connecticut; Governor John Bel

Edwards, State of Louisiana; Governor Charlie Baker,

State of Massachusetts; Governor Steve Sisolak, State

of Nevada; Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, State of

New Mexico; Governor Doug Burgum, State of North

Dakota; Governor Gavin Newsom, State of California;

Governor JB Pritzker, State of Illinois; Governor Janet

Mills, State of Maine; Governor Gretchen Whitmer, State

of Michigan; Governor Phil Murphy, State of New Jersey;

Governor Andrew Cuomo, State of New York; Governor Kate

Brown, State of Oregon; Governor Tom Wolf, State of

Pennsylvania; Governor Albert Bryan, Territory of U.S.

Virgin Islands; Governor Jay Inslee, State of

Washington; Governor Tony Evers, State of Wisconsin;

Governor Spencer Cox, State of Utah; Governor Ralph

Northam, State of Virginia; Governor Jim Justice, State

of West Virginia.

The SAFE Banking Act is supported by Governors from 21 states and

territories as well as these 41 organizations

1. American Bankers Association (ABA).

2. American Council of Independent Laboratories (ACIL).

3. American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI).

4. American Financial Services Association (AFSA).

5. American Land Title Association (ALTA).

6. American Property Casualty Insurance Association

(APCIA).

7. American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp

(ATACH).

8. Arizona Dispensaries Association (ADA).

9. Association of Bermuda Insurers and Reinsurers (ABIR).

10. California and Nevada Credit Union Leagues (CCUL).

11. California Insurance Commissioner and California

Department of Insurance.

12. Cannabis Business Association of Illinois.

13. Colorado Bankers Association.

14. Colorado Municipal League.

15. Credit Union National Association (CUNA).

16. Council of lnsurance Agents & Brokers (CIAB).

17. Electronic Transactions Association (ETA).

18. Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA).

19. Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America

(IIABA).

20. Insured Retirement Institute (IRI).

21. Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP).

22. Mountain West Credit Union Association (MWCUA).

23. National Armored Car Association.

24. National Association of Federally-Insured Credit Unions

(NAFCU).

25. National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies

(NAMIC).

26. National Association of Professional Insurance Agents

(PIA).

27. National Association of Realtors.

28. National Association of State Treasurers (NAST).

29. National Cannabis Roundtable (NCR).

30. National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA).

31. National Medicinal Cannabis Coalition (NMCC).

32. National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws

(NORML).

33. Minority Cannabis Business Association (MCBA).

34. Policy Center for Public Health & Safety.

35. Reinsurance Association of America (RAA).

36. Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)

37. The Real Estate Roundtable.

38. United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW).

39. U.S. Cannabis Council (USCC).

40. U.S. Hemp Roundtable.

41. Wholesale & Specialty Insurance Association (WSIA).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Correa).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

This is a public safety and a national security matter, very germane to the issues at hand, dealing with foreign cartels and particularly the cash that is developed by this business that leads to crime. We have seen murders, robberies, assaults, and then the potential for foreign malignant forces to get into the cannabis industry here in the United States.

I urge the passage of amendment No. 1 and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4350. We have maintained the bipartisan tradition of the Armed Services Committee.

Now, while this administration promotes weakness abroad and tyranny at home, robust support for defense in this bill ensures that our adversaries understand that our military has the resources required to stymy their aggressive ambitions which will guarantee that our military will succeed if called upon.

This legislation will enhance readiness by funding the unfunded requests of the services and the co-coms. It will maintain our commitment to the nuclear triad and modernization and aggressively enhance our space capabilities. It protects our troops against punishment for personal politics, prohibits dishonorable discharge for COVID vaccination refusal, and requires a plan for exemptions. And it begins to hold the Biden administration accountable for Afghanistan.

Now, while this bill fosters U.S.-Israeli cooperation, including $300 million for multiple collaborative programs, anti-Israel Democrats have stripped the continuing resolution of $1 billion for the Iron Dome missile defense system.

What does it say about the Progressive Caucus that they object to Israeli citizens defending themselves from missile attacks?

It is reprehensible and anti-Semitic.

Nevertheless, this bill as it currently stands is a bipartisan bill.

I thank the chairman and ranking member for maintaining the collaborative nature of our committee. I want to thank especially the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, John Garamendi, for his leadership and commitment to bipartisanship. I thank my readiness team, Ian, Dave, and Whitney, for their invaluable hard work during this process.

Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

I rise in opposition to this amendment to add a package of unrelated lands bills to the National Defense Authorization Act. Collectively, this pair of bills, this one and the next one, amendments, would impose unnecessary and harmful restrictions on more than 2\1/2\ million acres of lands in Colorado, California, and Washington, including nearly 1\1/ 2\ million of acres of new wilderness designating many miles of wild and scenic rivers and creating 100,000 acres of national monument expansion.

These restrictions will have the effect of greatly reducing opportunities for multiple uses of these lands and will restrict forest management practices that will render these lands more prone to catastrophic wildfires.

In Colorado alone, this amendment would designate approximately 570,000 acres of new wilderness areas, 23,000 acres of expanded wilderness, and 14,000 acres of potential wilderness.

Now, we already have 3.5 million acres of public lands in Colorado that are designated as wilderness, so that protection is already there.

Now, I do commend my colleague for her efforts to work with local stakeholders to address some of their concerns over the years that she has been working on this issue. But this package, unfortunately, does not come close to the kind of balance and consensus that should be required for a package of this magnitude. Many of the local communities impacted by this amendment and that I have heard from have raised significant concerns, including the loss of motorized access and recreation, which would threaten their local economy.

A wilderness designation also makes it much more difficult or even impossible to remove excess fire hazards or invasive species. There is no real management of the land. Future generations lose access to the land, at least for average, everyday people. In a true wilderness area, you can't even ride a bicycle.

This bill is inconsistent with previous designations and existing land uses by arbitrarily adding wilderness areas and wild and scenic river designations where those designations are not really appropriate. Supporting the declaration of areas that do not actually possess these characteristics undermines the integrity of the Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for what was originally intended.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), who has a district where, actually, this designation would take place.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

I rise in opposition to this amendment because it restricts approximately 400,000 acres of land in Colorado, and although the stated goal of the language is to protect and enhance outdoor recreation--and I agree with that goal as stated--the practical effect of this amendment would not be that at all.

For one thing, the active management of land that is under wilderness designation to prevent wildfires is much restricted, if not made impossible. In a State with a lot of wildfire risk, that is simply not acceptable.

Rural county commissioners have talked to me and other opponents of this bill and have raised concerns about negative economic impact of the withdrawal of 200,000 acres of oil and gas land and what effect that would have on their communities.

This amendment would also lock away approximately 1 million acres of public lands in Arizona and permanently ban mining and other multiple- use activities in that State. This misguided and mistitled land grab has nothing to do with protecting the

Grand Canyon. Instead, it seeks to ban development of one of the largest tracts of uranium deposits in the country.

The result of this is to make us more reliant on adversaries such as Russia. We already import 97 percent of our uranium from foreign sources, and that would only become more precarious if this took effect. Since 2018, the majority of uranium imports have come from adversarial nations such as Russia.

What this amendment is doing in the National Defense Act makes no sense at all.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, let's actually hear from Representatives who live in these areas.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert). The gentlewoman is from the western part of the State where this would actually take place, and I believe she is in touch with the people in her district.