H.Res. 1170

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from Claremont Review of Books, spring, 2022, titled ``In the Red,'' by Jeffrey H. Anderson.

In the Red

Our glidepath to insolvency.

When Ross Perot won an impressive 19 percent of the popular

vote as an independent candidate for president in 1992, his

main issue was the national debt. In one of his unusual,

half-hour-long campaign ads, Perot declared, ``Just this

year, we ran up $341 billion in new debt . . . . That's our

legislators and our president trying to buy our vote, this

year, with what used to be our money.''

Three decades later, our national debt--which reached $4

trillion the year that Perot ran--has hit $30 trillion. If

our debt were to keep rising at that rate over the next 60

years, it would increase more than 50-fold and surpass $1.5

quadrillion (a quadrillion, which sounds like a made-up

number, is a thousand trillions).

The portion of the national debt that really matters is the

almost 80 percent that's held by entities--whether foreign or

stateside--other than the federal government. Such ``debt

held by the public,'' which is fueled by deficit spending,

has to be paid back to outside entities, whereas debt not

held by the public merely involves intragovernmental

transfers. Foreign holdings compose about a third of all debt

held by the public. Japan and China hold by far the most

(over $1 trillion each), some of which belongs to private

investors and some to government entities. Put another way,

China--an increasingly hostile world superpower--has more

than $1 trillion of leverage over us.

It's getting worse, fast. Our recent deficit spending has

been truly historic. In 2020, based on official federal

tallies (the basis for all figures in this essay), the

federal government brought in $3.4 trillion in tax revenues

and dished our $6.6 trillion in spending--so, for every $10

that came in, $19 went out. This lavish expenditure smashed

the deficit record like New York's Bob Beamon smashed the

long-jump record in the 1968 Olympics. Beamon soared past the

previous record--27 feet, 4\3/4\ inches--to make an

astounding 29-foot, 2\1/2\-inch jump. In similar fashion,

with the deficit record sitting at $1.4 trillion, the federal

government in 2020 spent a spectacular $3.1 trillion that it

didn't have. In 2020 alone, the government racked up more

deficit spending than it had during the first 36 fiscal years

of the postwar era (1947 through 1982), and that's after

adjusting for inflation.

Even before our blowout spending during COVID, our deficits

had already reached breathtaking levels. In constant 2012

dollars (to adjust for inflation), the average annual deficit

during the four years from 2016 through 2019--a stretch of

relative peace and prosperity--was $700 billion. In

comparison, during the four years from 1942 through 1945--

during which we funded and fought a two-front war against

Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan--the average annual deficit

was $505 billion in constant 2012 dollars. After the war

(using the Office of Management and Budget's composite

deflator), we owed $3 trillion of debt held by the public in

constant 2012 dollars (four times what we owed when the war

began). Subsequent statesmen succeeded in cutting that tally

in half by 1974 (to $1.5 trillion), but it rose back to end-

of-World-War-II levels by 1986 (to $3 trillion), doubled end-

of-World-War-II levels by 2008 ($6 trillion), tripled them by

2010 ($9 trillion), quadrupled them by 2014 ($12 trillion),

quintupled them by 2019 ($15 trillion), and sextupled them by

2020 ($18 trillion).

In other words, we added as much debt held by the public in

2020 alone as we did from the end of World War II to the end

of 2008, and we racked up more debt in the 12 months of 2020

than we did during the four years of the Second World War.

That's after adjusting for inflation.

No Big Deal

And yet, incredibly, many politicians and commentators

claim that our staggering indebtedness is nothing much to

worry about. Unwilling to face the challenge of reining in

the budget, we seem to have thrown up our hands in recent

years and chosen to treat our ballooning deficits as funny

money.

Debt apologists like to measure taxes, spending, and debt

in relation to the gross domestic product (GDP), rather than

in relation to inflation or population growth. That way, if

Americans' tax bills double, but the economy doubles in size

over that same span, it can be said that Americans aren't

paying any more in taxes (as a percentage of GDP). The same

thing is true with the debt, which only rises by this measure

if it increases faster than economic output.

This way of talking partially masks the magnitude of our

debt problem by assuming that our government should grow

every bit as fast as our economy. Even so, by the percent-of-

GDP measure, debt held by the public is now at approximately

end-of-World War II levels. But whereas it fell dramatically

after World War II, there is no reason to think it will do so

now. It more than tripled from 2001 (32 percent of GDP) to

2020 (100 percent of GDP), putting us on course to surpass

300 percent of GDP if it grows at the same rate from 2020 to

2039.

For all of the myriad cultural, technological, and moral

problems we face, few things would guarantee the undoing of

the founders' experiment in self-government more surely than

continuing to pile on the burden, to ourselves and our

posterity, of runaway debt. Thomas Jefferson described fiscal

profligacy as a precursor to inevitable misery and suffering,

the first in a stampede of apocalyptic horsemen. ``[T]he fore

horse of this frightful team is public debt,'' he wrote.

``Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and

oppression.'' This wretchedness will only be more keenly felt

as interest rates rise. Too much debt puts power in the hands

of our enemies and renders the average American poorer every

year.

Mandatory Bankruptcy

The first step in avoiding a truly calamitous, debt-ridden

future is to understand bow we got ourselves into this

predicament to begin with. It is not national defense or even

the New Deal but rather the Great Society that is bankrupting

us.

A fundamental preliminary question is whether our

government taxes too little or spends too much. The answer is

easy to determine. In 2021, the federal government collected

more than three-and-a-half times as much money, in real

dollars per capita--that is, above and beyond inflation and

population growth--as it did at the start of the postwar

period. But it spent nearly seven times as much. From 1947

(the first postwar fiscal year, as FY 1946 began in July of

1945) through 2021, the population of the United States rose

2.3-fold, while prices rose nearly 13-fold. Combining these

two factors, the federal government could have collected and

spent 29 times as much in nominal dollars in 2021 as it did

in 1947 without collecting or spending any more in real

(inflation-adjusted) dollars per capita. Instead, the federal

government taxed more than 100 times as much in 2021 as in

1947 and spent almost 200 times as much. By any reasonable

standard, our government isn't afflicted by a shortage of tax

revenues but by an almost endless appetite for spending.

What are we spending all of that money on? Contra the

Left's repeated claims, it isn't defense--and our debt

problem wasn't created by Ronald Reagan. We actually spend

less per capita on defense now, after adjusting for

inflation, than we did during the Kennedy Administration.

Real per-capita defense spending fell from $2,283 in 1962 to

$1,953 in 2020, a drop of 14 percent. Even at the height of

the Reagan defense buildup, we exceeded the 1962 level by

only 2 percent. Meanwhile, real per-capita spending on

everything but defense increased more than eight-fold (from

$1,930 in 1962 to $15,646 in 2020). If overall federal

spending had followed the same trajectory as defense

spending, we would have had a surplus in 2020 of $2.1

trillion instead of a deficit of $3.1 trillion.

The problem isn't defense: it's health care. More

specifically, it was Lyndon Johnson and his (mostly)

Democratic congressional allies who put us on a glidepath

toward insolvency with the passage of their Great Society

programs. The New Deal put strain on the federal budget, to

be sure, but not enough to break it. By 1964, over three

decades after Franklin Roosevelt had taken office, federal

debt held by the public had fallen more than 40 percent from

the end of World War II, in real (inflation-adjusted)

dollars. The real deficit was 1/68th as large as it would be

in 2020. As the first Ford Mustangs rolled off the assembly

line, the country's debt was manageable and dropping, its

deficits were minimal, and seven of the postwar years had

actually produced surpluses. The next year, Johnson signed

legislation creating Medicare and Medicaid.

Broadly speaking, there are two ways to fund federal

programs. Congress either decides how much funding a program

will get (``discretionary'' spending), or just puts a program

on autopilot and finds out later how much it turned out to

cost (``mandatory'' spending). With discretionary spending,

Congress decides each year how much money to appropriate (for

something like national defense), taking into account such

quaint notions as what we need and what we can afford. With

``mandatory'' spending, Congress creates a program and

pledges to fund it at the same time, even though no one knows

what its price tag will be.

Within ``mandatory'' spending, there are programs that have

a dedicated and generally sufficient revenue stream (such as

Social Security), and there are those that do not have a

dedicated revenue stream that comes anywhere near covering

their costs--such as Medicare and Medicaid (and Obamacare,

part of which expanded Medicaid). Payroll taxes cover only

about a third of Medicare's costs and none of Medicaid's. In

other words, no one who launched these programs had any idea

how to pay for them.

This has had extraordinary consequences. The first year

that Medicare spending visibly hit the books was 1967. From

that point through 2020, Medicare and Medicaid cost a

combined $17.8 trillion, while our combined federal deficits

over that same span were $17.9 trillion. In essence, our

deficit problem is a Medicare and Medicaid problem.

The Father of Our Debt

By 1975, a decade after they were created, Medicare and

Medicaid were entrenched. From that point through 2019--the

most recent ``normal'' (pre-COVID) spending year--real per-

capita Medicare and Medicaid spending rose nine-fold (more

than triple the rise in Social Security costs over that

period). In 1975, we spent more than five times as much on

defense as on Medicare and Medicaid combined. By 2019, we

spent 56 percent more on Medicare and Medicaid than on

defense.

In 2019, the federal government collected about $10,500 in

revenues per capita and spent about $13,500. Here's how

Americans' contributions to the federal treasury were

allocated. The first $1,000 essentially just went into the

trash--it was used to pay interest on the debt, not to buy

anything. About $2,000 was spent on defense and another

$2,000 on non-defense discretionary spending. Roughly $3,000

was spent on Social Security, $3,000 on Medicare and Medicaid

(with about a 60 percent-40 percent split between them), and

$2,500 on other ``mandatory'' spending, to include much of

Obamacare, unemployment, welfare, etc. So, in all, about

$4,000 (or roughly 30 percent) was discretionary spending,

actually voted upon by Congress, and about $9,500 (roughly 70

percent) was either ``mandatory'' spending or payments on the

national debt.

If we had a Mount Rushmore of deficit spending, then,

Lyndon Johnson would merit George Washington's place of honor

as the father of our debt. Beside him would be the three most

recent presidents. For we have run up more debt under Barack

Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden--even after adjusting

for inflation--than we did under the previous 42

presidents combined. After a brief period of fiscal

responsibility under Bill Clinton, the average annual

deficit soared to $455 billion under George W. Bush ($41

billion more than under his father), $857 billion under

Obama, and $1.462 trillion under Trump (who was averaging

$805 billion even before COVID hit).

Again--amazingly--these figures are adjusted for inflation.

They are based on each president's having been responsible

for the deficit the year after he took office--for example,

Obama, who took office when fiscal year 2009 was already

underway, was responsible for fiscal years 2010 through 2017.

But note the following exceptions: the $179 billion in Obama-

signed ``stimulus'' funds spent in 2009, and the $1.115

trillion in Biden-signed COVID ``stimulus'' funds spent in

2021 are treated as part of Obama's and Biden's deficit

tallies, respectively; and the $147 billion in TARP loans

repaid in 2010 ($110 billion) and 2011 ($37 billion) are

counted as reductions in George W. Bush's deficit tallies, as

they paid back money that was counted as deficit spending

when it was loaned out on Bush's watch.

Clinton is the obvious outlier, having managed an average

annual surplus of $3 billion during his eight years in

office, six of them with a Republican Congress. After Perot

sounded the alarm and Republicans won the House for the first

time in four decades, Speaker Newt Gingrich and his

Republican colleagues--working with Clinton--made good on the

Contract with America's pledge to balance the budget. They

cut defense spending, passed welfare reform, benefitted from

a strong economy that increased revenues, and were able to

lower federal interest payments as the debt fell. Most

surprisingly, however, they managed to cut Medicare spending,

via reforms passed through the Balanced Budget Act of 1997

(BBA). After Medicare's costs had quadrupled from 1982 to

1997, they actually dropped from 1998 to 1999--not just in

comparison to inflation, but in terms of the actual number of

dollars that went out the door.

It was around this time that the ``experts'' decided the

work was done and the free-spending days could return once

again. In 2002, after the George W. Bush tax cues had been

enacted, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that

the federal government would run a surplus in nine out of the

ten years from 2003 through 2012 and a decade-long surplus of

$2.3 trillion. It turned out that the federal government ran

a deficit in all ten of those years and a decade-long deficit

of $7.l trillion. The CBO also projected that debt held by

the public at the end of 2012 would be $1.3 trillion. It

turned out to be $11.3 trillion, so the CBO was off by $10

trillion and a factor of nearly nine.

Despite this subsequent debt explosion, the Clinton-

Gingrich era was a successful one in terms of fiscal

responsibility. Indeed, over the past 40 years, deficits have

been lowest when a Democrat has been in the White House and

Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress. The

second-best scenario has been a Republican president with

either party controlling both houses of Congress. Next-best

has been a Democratic president paired with a mixed Congress

(with each party controlling one house), followed by a

Republican president paired with a mixed Congress. The worst

scenario has been Democratic control of the whole government.

Over the past four decades, Democratic control (average

deficit of $1.1 trillion in constant 2012 dollars) has been

more than twice as costly as Republican control ($490

billion).

No matter who is in power, however, about 70 percent of our

spending--consuming about 90 percent of our tax revenues--is

on autopilot. To balance the budget by focusing solely on

cutting those portions of the budget that Congress actively

controls through the appropriations process, we would have to

cut discretionary spending--which includes defense--by about

75 percent. Any realistic effort to balance the budget,

therefore, must focus on ``mandatory'' spending.

Fixing Our Mess

Medicare absolutely must be reformed. Its autopilot has

malfunctioned and is flying not only the plane but also the

country into the ground. We came tantalizingly close to

fixing things back in 1999, when the National Bipartisan

Commission on the Future of Medicare grew out of the BBA and

drafted an appealing blueprint for reform. The Commission,

chaired by Democratic Senator John Breaux and Republican

Congressman Bill Thomas, floated a variety of proposals, most

notably ``premium support,'' which would utilize private

competition to keep public costs down. But events intervened:

Politico healthcare editor Adriel Bettelheim writes that

``with the Monica Lewinsky scandal festering and the threat .

. . of impeachment growing, [Clinton] took a very public turn

to appease his left flank'' and turned against the commission

just as it was wrapping up its 11 months of work.

Nevertheless, the commission was a serious effort at

exploring promising ideas, many of which Congressman Paul

Ryan picked up during his Obamacare-fighting era. Ryan's

advocacy of premium support did not keep him from being

tapped as Mitt Romney's 2012 running mate, nor did it hurt

the Romney-Ryan ticket (Romney did that all on his own). This

suggests that Medicare reform can be politically viable when

advanced with determination and skill.

Medicaid also cannot go on in its present form. Its funding

system, whereby every $1 of state funding is matched by

between $1 and $9 of federal funding, invites waste and

inefficiency. The more a state spends on Medicaid, the more

federal money it gets. If it manages to reform its Medicaid

program, it gets at most half of the savings--usually far

less. Also, states often hire consultants who concoct

elaborate shell games to exaggerate states' Medicaid funding,

thereby

bringing in even more federal money, much of which funds non-

Medicaid ventures. If Medicaid were reformed so that each

stare simply received a given amount of federal funding,

independent of the state's level of funding, that would

presumably remove most of these perverse incentives and

reduce Medicaid's costs.

Social Security has always been self-funded, but it too is

projected to dip into the red about a dozen years from now.

It poses nowhere near the threat to our fiscal solvency that

Medicare and Medicaid do, bur its costs have still risen

faster than overall federal spending, and it does need to be

sensibly revised. The percentage of the U.S. population that

is over age 75 is roughly the same as the percentage that was

over age 65 when Social Security was created, yet the

eligibility age for receiving full retirement benefits has

been raised just two years (from 65 to 67) over the past

eight decades. Gradually (but not too gradually) raising that

age to reflect current biological and fiscal realities is an

obvious and necessary fix.

In addition to changing individual programs, there are

measures we can take to promote fiscal responsibility more

generally. Simply demanding a balanced budget, either as a

matter of policy or through a constitutional amendment, will

not do: the state could still spend as much as it accrued,

which might encourage ever-greater levels of taxation to fund

an ever-larger government, as in many European countries.

Instead, we ought to focus on measures that can keep spending

itself low.

For instance, the American citizenry would be more apt to

view the debt as a shared concern if nearly everyone paid at

least some income tax, as Florida Senator Rick Scott has

proposed. At the least, no one's income tax bill should go

negative, as it does when tax credits are made

``refundable''--available not as a tax cut but as a payment

to those who don't pay income tax. A few years ago, I

released ``The Main Street Tax Plan'' (Hudson Institute,

2016), which the Tax Foundation said would reduce deficits.

It declared, ``Nearly everyone should be paying something in

income tax, however small, and Americans shouldn't regard

April 15 as a payday.''

Some, such as Senator Mitch McConnell, oppose Scott's

proposal because--in McConnell's words--it ``raises taxes''

(for people who don't pay income taxes). Those who share this

concern should consider pairing refund reform with an end to

the Medicare payroll tax. Unlike the Social Security payroll

tax, which is viral and funds Social Security as a (more or

less) pay-in-for-yourself program, the Medicare payroll tax

funds only about a third of Medicare and helps perpetuate the

false notion that Medicare too is mostly pay-in-for-yourself.

Eliminating the Medicare payroll tax would soften the

perception of Medicare as an entitlement, simplify the tax

code, and ease the tax burden of the working poor. Combining

this with Scott's plan would encourage more people to care

about the size and scope of the federal government.

In 2010, back when the Tea Party was ascendant and the

national debt was $13 trillion rather than $30 trillion, I

proposed (in National Affairs) a Limited Government Amendment

to the Constitution. Such an amendment would limit annual

increases in federal spending to inflation plus two

percentage points, except during a formally declared war, or

if two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of state

legislatures authorized additional spending for other

reasons. An amendment in this spirit could greatly facilitate

fiscal restraint.

It has become fashionable to think of constitutional

amendments as relics from the past. But then, so are fiscal

responsibility and--increasingly--representative government.

The founders made the Constitution amendable for a reason,

and we should take our cues from them. In the late 1990s, we

showed--briefly--that it's possible to take action to reverse

our course and help save our country from the tragic fate

that Jefferson described. But the first step is to recognize

that the $30 trillion elephant in the room isn't going away.

It's just growing bigger.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, sadly, to H.R. 2773. Although protecting our endangered species is truly a worthy cause, our country is not fiscally sound, and to commit $1.4 billion a year in perpetuity is exactly the kind of spending that has landed us in the mess we are now in.

Let me be clear: we do not have the money. In the 30 years since 1992, the national debt has increased from $4 trillion to $30 trillion. Mr. Anderson notes in his article that:

At that rate over the next 60 years, our debt would

increase by more than 50-fold to surpass $1.5 quadrillion. In

case one is wondering, a quadrillion is 1,000 trillions.

Mr. Speaker, some might say: Just raise taxes. But, Mr. Speaker, the author of the article points out that, in fact, the Federal Government last year taxed over 100 times what it did in the first postwar year and spent nearly 200 times as much. So taxes are not the problem. Spending is the problem.

The $1.4 billion per year is perpetual. Now, under anyone's measure, perpetuity is a long time. Since this money will never be paid back, some might say like those deep in credit card debt: We will just pay the interest.

The interest on $1.5 billion for 30 years at current rates of 3.4 percent is $51 million a year. But, Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the current total interest bill. It is estimated to be almost $400 billion a year or about 8.7 percent of everything we spend.

Why would we add to this enormous obligation?

There is a quote by Ernest Hemingway: How did you go bankrupt?

The answer is: Gradually, then suddenly.

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly how bankruptcy works. You can keep spending recklessly and rack up debts for a while--even a long while-- but at some point, it comes to an end abruptly. We have ignored our Nation's spending problems for far too long. We have been going bankrupt gradually, and I fear the day will come when we will go bankrupt immediately.

We must correct this course. For this reason, I cannot support, sadly, this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment No. 8.

This fiscally responsible amendment would establish a 1.85 percent administrative cap for the Department of the Interior when implementing title III of this bill.

Title I of the bill, which provides funding to State fish and wildlife departments for species conservation, includes a 1.85 percent administrative cap.

Title II of the bill, which covers Tribal Wildlife Conservation and Restoration, includes a 3 percent administrative cap for the Department of the Interior.

However, as currently drafted, title III does not have an administrative cap.

The original intent of this bill was to provide States with funding to conserve species of greatest conservation need.

Unfortunately, the majority decided to ignore the committee process by airdropping in title III to give more funding to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Not only did they circumvent process to add the entire title to the bill, they didn't carry over any of the good government amendments made in committee.

Under the current text, the State and Tribal portions of the bill would be subject to strict administrative caps, but the Federal Government would not be. This is backwards, as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service needs much more oversight since the agency is part of the reason we find ourselves in the position we are currently in with respect to the broken Endangered Species Act.

Additionally, the programs funded in title III already receive existing appropriations, and if the majority would like to increase them, they should do it through the appropriations process instead of airdropping in another layer of statute and bureaucracy into the legislation.

For these reasons, title III should be struck from the bill. Unfortunately, the majority refused to allow a vote on my colleague from Utah's amendment that would have done just that.

The very least we can do is at least ensure that title III is subject to the same administrative requirements as the other titles.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 2773, as drafted. The goal of this bill is commendable. Republicans and Democrats alike want to see America's wildlife thrive. Unfortunately, the legislation as written contains partisan provisions that I simply cannot support.

State and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies have long been recognized as the primary and most well-equipped managers of local species and habitat in the United States. After all, those on the ground are more attuned to what is happening in their backyards than the Federal Government. That is why State and Tribal wildlife agencies, as well as prominent sportsmen's groups support this bill.

While the bill would provide financial resources to States and Tribes to help meet wildlife recovery goals, the spending is mandatory and lacks any offset. This spending is not pocket change. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the Rules Committee Print would lead to more than $12 billion--that is $12 billion--in direct spending in the first decade of the program alone. And I say the first decade, because that is only what is in the so-called scoring window. In reality, this program and its mandatory spending would last forever since there is no sunset in titles I and II of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the modern-day funding models suggested by the blue ribbon commission. This is an important issue, and we should make the responsible, tough decisions on how to fund it.

This funding model has no offset ever, and it has an average expenditure of $1.4 billion per year. It is the most irresponsible, lazy way to fund the program, especially with the record government spending that is contributing to record inflation. At a time of rampant inflation, it would be wildly irresponsible to drive inflation even higher and saddle future generations with the consequences. The debt created by this bill will only add to our Nation's current $30 trillion debt.

This bill also lacks a sunset provision. Without a sunset, there is no mechanism to ensure oversight or proper review of the program to fix flaws that may arise. Mandating a permanent new program is poor governance, and it ignores precedent. Congress routinely passes legislation like the Farm Bill or the Water Resources Development Act which have proper sunsets. Those sunsets require us to come back and do our jobs by assessing what is working, what is not working, and making tweaks and changes to the law.

The bill does not allow Congress the opportunity to perform the needed oversight. Instead, it requires spending $1.4 billion per year in perpetuity. I, and my fellow Republican committee members, tried to resolve these fiscal issues with amendments at the committee markup. We were told by the Democrat majority that, although they opposed these amendments at the time, they would work with us on finding a funding offset before this bill would be considered on the floor.

We stayed at the negotiating table, as did the bill's sponsor, Mrs. Dingell, whom I have a lot of respect for and commend her for her efforts on this bill. But larger forces decided to ram this bill forward without fixing anything. In fact, the majority made the bill worse than it was when it left our committee.

They decided to airdrop provisions into a new title III that would siphon money away from States and Tribes and give it to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. That is in direct contrast to the spirit of this bill to give money to the State and Tribal agencies so that they could do the management.

We never even had the chance to debate this terrible title in the committee. The whole point of this bill was to empower States and Tribes who are the ones, again, who are closest to our lands and waters, not to increase the Washington, D.C., Federal bureaucracy, which is now what this bill will do.

A number of Republican amendments proposed to the Rules Committee tried to fix these problems and several other issues but they were similarly ignored, depriving us of ways to improve the bill and debate these issues today. As a result of all of this, we have a regrettably flawed bill. The situation we are now in was avoidable. The bill before us represents a lost opportunity to forge significant bipartisan compromise. It didn't have to be this way, and I hope that this is not a partisan sign of the future of conservation.

I will remain at the table and hope that my Democratic colleagues come back and work together with us on a lasting solution. Until then, I am opposed to H.R. 2773, and I reluctantly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that even though there is a reporting requirement in the legislation, once you approve mandatory, permanent spending, then Congress loses our leverage. Creating a permanent program doesn't bode well for oversight from Congress. Programs that were mentioned like Pittman-Robinson, think about the land and water conservation fund, all of those had dedicated funding streams. This funding is coming straight out of the Treasury. It is coming out of our kids' and our grandkids' piggy banks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

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

I know that we all like the idea of dynamic scoring, and I spend a lot of money on hunting and fishing myself, as do a lot of other Members of Congress. But CBO, unfortunately, does not take that into account.

I know we all think that this bill could help not have listings of endangered species. But case studies clearly show that Federal money alone will not keep species off the endangered species list.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the record the CBO score from the Senate version of the language that is in this bill.

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, May 26, 2022.

Hon. Thomas Carper,

Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.

Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2372, the

Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2022.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Madeleine

Fox.

Sincerely,

Phillip L. Swagel,

Director.

Enclosure.

Mr. Speaker, this report does show that it will cost over $12 billion in the first 10 years and $1.4 billion thereafter.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

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

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the majority to put their estimates to the test. Let's make this a bill with a 7-year sunset like the amendment that I proposed. Let's come back, look at it, and see if it really did save money. If it really did save species, maybe we should fund it at more than $1.4 billion a year. Maybe we can find that funding with an offset.

But the simple truth is it is all speculation right now, and we are getting ready to put a permanent mandatory spending program in place with no way to come back and have checks and balances on it without repealing the law. And how many times does that happen when Congress passes a law?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Idaho for making a point that it is really the underlying reason that we should be--or the underlying question we should be talking about is, Why do we need to recover America's wildlife?

It is because we have messed up badly. We have mismanaged our Federal lands. Catastrophic wildfires run rampant. That does nothing to help wildlife habitat, and it is sad that we are actually here looking for funding and ways to fix something that we should have already fixed, something that we shouldn't have broken in the first place.

I think there is a way to recover wildlife, if we would just simply manage the habitat that the wildlife lives in. That is the purpose of this bill, but it is going to take some worldview changes, and the so- called environmental groups that are pushing to stop the management activity are going to have to allow this activity to take place.

It doesn't matter how much funding we put out from the Federal Government; we are going to continue to see wildlife habitat destroyed, and we are going to continue to see the loss of wildlife.

So it is not a problem that simply throwing money at will fix, and it is, again, a problem where we should put a program in place, come back and evaluate it, and decide whether we want to continue the program based on the merits of the successes of it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about this bill being bipartisan. The original House version of the text did have 42 Republican cosponsors on it, which is a sizable number. That is a bipartisan bill.

There will still be Republicans who vote for this version, but as long as we are in the business of estimating today, I am going to estimate that it won't be the 42 cosponsors of the original text, which, again, was supplanted by the Senate version that didn't send all the money to the State and Tribal governments. It sent the money to U.S. Fish and Wildlife, part of the funding to U.S. Fish and Wildlife.

I have talked to some of the Republican Members who have cosponsored the bill, and their understanding was that the pay-for was going to be worked out. If we would just sponsor the bill, we would get the pay- fors worked out. We were told the bill will go to the floor, and we will work out the pay-fors. Well, here is the bill on the floor and there is still no pay-fors. It is still permanent mandatory spending, $1.4 billion a year.

If this bill passes out of the House, and if for some reason it doesn't make it through the Senate and become law, then I hope to come back and work on a bill that has the same objectives but is fiscally responsible, a bill that has pay-fors, a bill that is not borrowing from our children, and a bill that is not permanent, one that actually gives Congress the authority to have oversight and to come back and analyze the language, to analyze the success of it, and make changes as needed as we go on.

We do this with the farm bill, we do it with other bills. I am not sure why we can't do it with Recovering America's Wildlife Act because it is a very important subject.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I just want to go back through the facts as we know them.

We know that we need to do better habitat management, whether it is forest, rangelands, oceans, rivers, or lakes. We know there are areas where we need to manage better. The intent of this bill is to let those management activities be done by the people who do it best, State and Tribal agencies.

I think there is a huge agreement in the House, both Republicans and Democrats alike, but that is a good thing. The problem we have with the bill, though, is the way that we are going to implement it in the financial times that we are in now, and looking back at history and seeing how we got in the condition that we are in. The spending problem in this country is not discretionary spending. It is not the appropriation bills that we should be debating and approving every year.

It is the mandatory spending. It is the cruise control programs that previous Congresses have put in place that are driving the deficit. Over 70 percent of our debt is due to mandatory spending. And here we are with record debt, record inflation, and we are talking about putting more on the mandatory side of the equation.

There is a path where we could get huge support. We could probably do this, maybe even do it on a unanimous consent bill, and that would be if the majority would accept the amendment that I offered in the Rules Committee.

As the ranking member on the committee, I offered an amendment that would bring a lot of our Members on board, and it simply put a 7-year sunset in, make it an authorization and let the Appropriations Committee do their work.

We are not even going to vote on that. We are not even going to put it on the floor to see where the Members of the body are at. The Rules Committee took that off of the table. So we have no choice. No choice but to recommend that we vote ``no'' on this bill, that we come back to the table, that we look at something that everybody can agree on. Not just on the authorization, but on how we fund the bill. I think we can get there.

I hate to take it out of the House's hands and put it into the Senate's hands when we didn't give it a full effort on how to not only craft the legislation on what needs to be done on the ground, but how to pay for it, how to be fiscally responsible going forward.

So, again, I support the idea. I don't support the way we are paying for it. I have to recommend a ``no'' vote. I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also rise in support of this amendment en bloc.

None of the amendments included in this amendment en bloc would add more spending to this bill. Three of the amendments in this en bloc amend title I by adding more flexibility for State fish and wildlife agencies when they make conservation investments funded under this bill.

These amendments do not impose new mandates, but rather, provide States more tools to manage wildlife as they see fit.

Mr. Scott's amendment on helping pollinators and their habitats will enhance ongoing efforts aimed at helping the monarch butterfly. Pollinators are critical to ecosystem conservation around the world. That is why my Republican colleagues and I have continuously supported the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for the monarch butterfly, which allows private companies and landowners to contribute to proactive conservation.

The amendment from Congresswoman Cherfilus-McCormick recommends that States prioritize funding toward innovative strategies and partnerships to recover species. I believe that innovation is critical for ensuring widespread species recovery. The current species recovery framework under the Endangered Species Act is not only outdated, but it is broken and needs innovation.

Republicans have offered numerous ideas to use innovation to spur species recovery. One idea from Representative Herrell of New Mexico would help incentivize proactive Candidate Conservation Agreements that allow private companies and landowners to contribute toward at-risk species conservation through their own dollars and efforts. Sounds like a good, commonsense idea.

The outdated Endangered Species Act has become a top-down government approach that rarely works to help species or people. Innovative approaches like Ms. Herrell's are much needed.

I was disappointed to see that the majority discarded amendments like Ms. Herrell's without even giving us the chance to debate its merits on the House floor.

Representative Stauber also had an innovative idea to update the Endangered Species Act that he offered as an amendment. His amendment would have provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the flexibility to utilize so-called 4(d) rules for endangered species. Under a 4(d) rule, the Secretary of the Interior can issue a rule for individual species that tailors protections to that species' conservation and recovery. Unfortunately, again, the majority also ignored that amendment.

The amendment by Congresswoman Schrier is also included in this en bloc by encouraging States to invest in ``conservation infrastructure projects.'' While States already have flexibility to decide how to spend the funding provided in title I of the bill, this amendment would give them the option to invest in natural solutions, such as buffer strips, wetlands--one of my favorite things--planting trees, and other natural solutions to environmental challenges.

Lastly, Congresswoman Jackson Lee's amendment would require the Secretary of the Interior to issue a report within 1 year of this bill's enactment, detailing the percentage of total awards and grants that were awarded or allocated to institutions serving minority communities.

While I support this amendment and its reporting requirement, I have bad news for the sponsor. Because the bill lacks a sunset provision, there is little incentive and recourse for Congress to fix any problems. In other words, if the reports required by this amendment highlight a glaring flaw with the programs being carried out under this bill, there will be no guarantee that Congress will fix the problem. The same is true for the State reports required under the bill.

For that reason, I offered a commonsense amendment that would have included a 7-year sunset to ensure that Congress would have to fix any flaws associated with this new program. Unfortunately, as I stated earlier, my amendment was also blocked by the majority.

This bill and the process to rush this bill to the floor today are unfortunate. It could have been avoided, but at least the amendments included in this en bloc do not spend any more taxpayer money and provide some needed accountability.

Mr. Speaker, I support the en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, again, I support this group of amendments en bloc and encourage a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in wholehearted support of these amendments en bloc, which include amendments from our colleagues from Oregon (Mr. Bentz) and from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

These amendments would ensure that the funds provided in title III are subject to the same overhead cap requirements and oversight measures as title I.

The original point of this bill was to empower States and Tribes to carry out species conservation, not set up another Washington, D.C.- based Federal program, which is now what the bill does. Not only does title III change that intent by giving more than $180 million annually in the first 4 years to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but it was also added at the Rules Committee and was not part of the bill that the Committee on Natural Resources marked up. Because the Committee on Natural Resources never had the

chance to debate this title when we marked up the original bill, we did not have the opportunity to add these good-governance amendments to it like we did for titles I and II.

I believe that title III should be removed altogether. Unfortunately, Representative Moore's amendment, which would have removed title III, was not made in order, so we didn't even get the chance to debate it, much less vote on it today.

In the absence of that amendment, the least we can do is ensure funds allocated by title III are being spent responsibly and with some oversight.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

Madam Speaker, I again encourage adoption of these amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment, which adds more responsibilities to the already duplicative and expensive title III portion of this bill, which was never debated in the Committee on Natural Resources.

I have no objection to efforts aimed at controlling invasive species, and these efforts are already being carried

out by many Federal agencies. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the agency funded by title III at the expense of State and Tribal funding, already administers invasive species control programs, including the Coastal Program and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, two programs that title III would duplicate.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, at USDA monitors, responds to, and conducts control and eradication programs to address invasive species that pose a threat to U.S. agriculture.

These and other similar programs are subject to Federal appropriations, which is what title III should be subject to as well-- not permanent mandatory funding. If the majority would like to increase Federal funding for invasive species control, they should do it through the appropriations process instead of airdropping another layer of bureaucracy into this bill.

For these reasons, we should be striking title III from the bill, at least until the committee of jurisdiction has a chance to consider and mark up its provisions. Unfortunately, the majority refused to allow a vote on my colleague from Utah, Mr. Moore's amendment, which would have done just that.

I oppose this amendment to allow the funding for title III to be used for even more duplicative Federal bureaucracy.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, once again, we all have invasive species that we deal with. It is something we should be focusing on. We just don't need another duplicative Federal program to do that.

Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, this amendment would actually make the bill worse by authorizing nonprofit organizations to receive funding under title I.

This amendment is in direct contravention to the original intent of this legislation, which is to empower States and Tribes in species conservation.

The current bill directs funds provided under this program to State and Tribal fish and wildlife departments or

to regional associations of fish and wildlife departments.

The amendment would allow activist environmental groups, many of whom are serial litigants against the kinds of projects this bill aims to support, to receive funding under title I, decreasing money available for State fish and game departments.

Radical special interest groups have weaponized the Endangered Species Act by continuously suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This sue-and-settle process overwhelms regulatory agencies, resulting in settlement agreements and consent decrees that require agencies to promulgate major regulations within an arbitrarily imposed timeline.

These agreements are often negotiated behind closed doors with little or no transparency or public input, allowing radical special interest groups to promote their own Federal policy agendas, outside of the normal processes.

To make matters worse, these groups are financially rewarded for suing the government, for suing the American taxpayer. According to the Government Accountability Office, from 2000 to 2010, ESA lawsuits cost taxpayers nearly $24 million in attorneys' fees and associated costs.

Private citizens with a net worth of $2 million and for-profit businesses with a net worth of $7 million cannot receive attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. However, there is no such cap for nonprofit organizations, which allows these wealthy groups to rake in taxpayer money.

According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, from 2009 to 2017, there were 109 Endangered Species Act settlements. The majority of these settlements came from just three groups: the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and the WildEarth Guardians. The Center for Biological Diversity was individually responsible for 41 of the 109 settlements.

This is not surprising after the Center for Biological Diversity's director said, in 2009, that ``When we stop the same timber sale three or four times running, the timber planners want to tear their hair out. They feel like their careers are being mocked and destroyed--and they are. Psychological warfare is a very underappreciated aspect of environmental campaigning.'' We are paying them to do that.

Today we can see the legacy of this mentality and these lawsuits out West where we have had two of our worst fire years back-to-back, and this year is not looking any better.

I cannot in good conscience support allowing these radical groups to receive funding under this bill, especially since it will pull money away from State fish and wildlife agencies and Tribes, as the bill was intended to fund.

Madam Speaker, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, there are some wonderful groups out there that do great work, but this bill is not about funding private groups or nonprofit groups. This bill is about funding State and Tribal entities. It is what it was originally about. It has changed, it is now funding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well. I guess the majority is thinking, why not just throw in some of these environmental groups. Who else will this bill be putting funding out to before it is said and done?

There are groups that abuse the process. They abuse it greatly. They abuse it at the expense of the American taxpayer. They abuse it at the expense of the environment. They claim they are wanting to help the environment and they are destroying the environment.

Madam Speaker, I am opposed to this amendment, and I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing it.

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

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.

Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1170, I call up the bill (H.R. 2773) to amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to make supplemental funds available for management of fish and wildlife species of greatest conservation need as determined by State fish and wildlife agencies, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2773.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2773, the Recovering America's Wildlife Act. This legislation has been years in the making, and this moment is the culmination of the collected works of a bipartisan group of Members, a strong, diverse coalition of advocates, and grassroots support from across the country.

This work began in 2015 when the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies--which represents State fish and wildlife agencies across the country--established a blue ribbon panel on sustaining America's diverse fish and wildlife resources.

After working closely with hunting and fishing organizations, as well as partners in the sportsmen's community, businesses, and other advocates, it was decided that we needed a 21st century model of funding conservation to address the current shortfalls in wildlife conservation.

Right now, the United States is facing an unprecedented biodiversity crisis. One-third of all bird species are in need of urgent conservation action. In fact, the number of birds in the United States and Canada have fallen by 29 percent since 1970; a decline of almost 3 billion fewer birds.

We have seen similar declines across the board. For example, 40 percent of freshwater fish species are also at risk. One-third of all U.S. wildlife species are currently imperiled or vulnerable.

These developments threaten our common environmental heritage, reduce opportunities for outdoor recreation, and will require costly and aggressive interventions if not addressed soon.

This legislation is particularly critical for the sportsmen's community. As one of the co-chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I have always said that sportsmen and women are some of our best conservation advocates, as they understand the on-the-ground reality of the decline in wildlife and the importance of cost-effective conservation.

Their input has been critical to the historic and innovative legislation before us today. Without a change in the way we finance fish and wildlife conservation, the list of Federally threatened and endangered species will balloon from nearly 1,600 species today to thousands more in the future.

The cost of inaction is immense. The longer we wait to address this issue, the more resources we will ultimately need to safeguard our Nation's wildlife and environment. And we cannot keep waiting. We must take the bold, urgent action that addresses the scale of the threat. We need strong, proactive conservation measures to address these

unmet needs, and that is why the Recovering America's Wildlife Act is necessary.

The legislation provides approximately $1.4 billion in dedicated, annual funding to the States, territories, and Native American Tribes for proactive conservation efforts for the approximately 12,000 species of wildlife and plants identified under State wildlife action plans.

This bold investment in our Nation's wildlife will pay significant dividends. It will allow States to take proactive action that will prevent at-risk species from becoming endangered. This is critical not only to preserving our common environmental heritage, but for supporting hunters, anglers, and the almost $900 billion outdoor recreation economy.

As I have said previously, as one of the co-chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I understand the importance of these measures to support fishermen and hunters across the country.

I thank my three fellow co-chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus who have sponsored the Recovering America's Wildlife Act as well. It shows the strong, bipartisan support for this bill.

The broad group of stakeholders supporting the Recovering America's Wildlife Act underscores the need for action and the support for this approach. Hundreds of leading sportsmen's groups, hunting and fishing advocates across the country, conservation organizations, environmental organizations, and businesses, all support the legislation for good reason: it utilizes proven funding mechanisms, boldly addresses pressing conservation needs, and prevents the need for more costly interventions in the future.

The Recovering America's Wildlife Act is the product of years and years of work and consultation with these stakeholders and has broad bipartisan support. This legislation has received bipartisan support in both the House and Senate, and the thoughtful input of my colleagues has resulted in strong consensus legislation that will benefit every single congressional district in the country.

We have a conservation, economic, and moral rationale to act in order to protect and recover America's wildlife for future generations. This is an opportunity to take historic action to address a pressing conservation need, and I ask my colleagues that they support the Recovering America's Wildlife Act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's perspective on permanent funding, and I have a great deal of respect for him. We have and will always continue to work together on conservation issues. But the fact is we know that stable and predictable funding is critical to effective conservation efforts, and that is what the blue ribbon panel on sustaining America's diverse fish and wildlife resources--which included 26 members from the hunting and fishing business and outdoor recreation communities--found in their 2016 report whose recommendations formed the basis of this legislation. We have seen that this funding structure has been fundamental to the success of Pittman- Robertson and Dingell-Johnson conservation programs upon which this is built.

I appreciate my colleague's views on oversight. This legislation contains robust guardrails to ensure that there is appropriate use of public funds, including reporting requirements and other oversight provisions.

So the Recovering America's Wildlife Act does meet the moment because of its funding structure and because of the strong oversight language which is

supported by the coalitions of hundreds of organizations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that hunting and angling collectively support over $200 billion in economic activity annually, including over 1.5 million jobs as well as almost $15 billion in Federal tax revenue.

My home State of Michigan, the Great Lakes State, is home to almost 650,000 licensed hunters and over 1.1 million licensed fishermen and - women as of last year. However, with over 40 percent of freshwater fish at risk, and significant declines in game and nongame species that support local ecosystems, we need RAWA's investments in on-the-ground conservation to support hunting and fishing for future generations, which is why the major sportsmen's groups, like the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation and Ducks Unlimited, have endorsed this legislation.

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

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

Before recognizing my colleague, I would like to talk about these costs and address the fact that dollars invested properly do save dollars.

I note that the droughts in the American West cost $8.6 billion just last year, according to NOAA, and that the impact of wildfire cost over $10 billion last year alone.

Restoration efforts, which this bill would help do, that make habitats and communities more resilient to climate change have an exceptionally high return on investment, such as reducing drought and wildfire risks, increasing job opportunities, and growing local economies.

Conservation and restoration of key habitats help reduce the threats of wildfires and help States conserve water and improve water quality, making their water systems more resilient to the drought.

Finally, full implementation of State and Tribal wildlife plans will help species recover and be removed and even stay off the endangered species list, which is what we want, saving the U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars each year.

The large economic and social benefits of this legislation would boost our economy and help us deliver on our climate commitments for years to come as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

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

I say to my colleague, I deeply agree that these fires are horrific in what they are doing to our natural resources and our habitat, but that is why this bill is so important.

It is not Washington telling the States or the Native lands or territories in the Native lands what to do. It is the State wildlife plans that are being drafted at the local level where they know what needs to be done that we will be funding and trying to prevent fires like that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the very distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, who leads all of us on so many of these issues.

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

I say to my colleague, we have worked in good faith. We will continue to work in good faith.

The Senate, which doesn't work together as closely at times the way we do, has negotiated a legacy fund that is a bipartisan negotiated provision by the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Actually, more Republicans voted for that than Democrats did.

This bill has been supported by a broad cross-section of Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats. Quite frankly, there are some of your Senate Republican colleagues who will only support it the way it is now. I have talked to many Republicans who want to see this bill go through. I don't know how the final vote will be today. I know people want to support it.

By the way, it addresses a shared goal, what the Senate did, that third provision helping to move species off of the ESA listings more quickly. It contains guardrails on the use of funds that I know were important to my Republican colleagues. These include prohibitions on the use of funds to make any listing or critical habitat determination relating to the endangered or threatened status of any species or to acquire any Federal land, which I know is really important on your side.

The broad coalition supporting the bill, including the State wildlife agencies and sportsmen's groups, have also backed all these provisions. We are not done. If the bill passes the House, we will go to conference with the Senate. We will all be at that table. But the time is now. We need to get this done. We have lost almost 3 billion birds since 1970. We are losing 40 percent of our fish. You and I both fish. I am not as great a hunter as you guys are, but I was married to one. But they know what is happening. The time for action is now.

Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the constructive debate and input that we have had to date on Recovering America's Wildlife Act. This legislation is historic, and our shared efforts today will help move us one step closer to a bold solution to the biodiversity crisis and will establish conservation measures that will endure for generations, which I know we both care about.

The Recovering America's Wildlife Act has strong bipartisan support, the backing of hundreds of meetings of sportsmen's groups, hunting and fishing advocates, conservation organizations, environmental advocates, businesses, and countless others.

It will fund proactive conservation measures that will benefit every State and territory and contains a strong Tribal title to support Tribal organizations' efforts to protect wildlife on tens of millions of acres of land.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Recovering America's Wildlife Act. It will make a difference in every congressional district in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1170, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. Speaker, this en bloc consists of four amendments: Amendment No. 3, offered by the gentlewoman from Texas; amendment No. 7, offered by the gentleman from Georgia; amendment No. 6, offered by the gentlewoman from Washington; and amendment No. 1, offered by the gentlewoman from Florida.

Amendment No. 3, offered by the gentlewoman from Texas, requires the Secretary of the Interior to submit a report to the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works outlining the dollar amount of grants, contracts, and subcontracts, and the percent of total awards and grants that were awarded or allocated under RAWA to HBCUs and minority-serving institutions, minority- and women-owned businesses, and community-based organizations serving minority communities.

Current conservation and restoration practices underutilize the breadth of traditional, indigenous, and local knowledge found in our communities. To be successful in our restoration and conservation goals, we must use all of the tools at our disposal.

Amendment No. 7, offered by the gentleman from Georgia, adds activities that support native pollinator conservation and restoration to the list of appropriate uses of funds from the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Subaccount.

While many State wildlife action plans already include projects that will conserve and restore native pollinator species and habitat, we recognize the important role that pollinators play in ecosystem functionality.

Twenty-seven States included monarch butterflies in their State wildlife action plans, and thousands of other pollinators are identified as species of greatest conservation need.

Our pollinators are at risk, and it is important that we not forget the important impact they have on our landscape.

Amendment No. 6, offered by the gentlewoman from Washington, clarifies that the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Subaccount funds may include conservation infrastructure projects related to the protection and conservation of a species of greatest conservation need and the habitat of those species.

Conservation infrastructure projects are cost-effective methods to enhance conservation and build climate resiliency. They can protect against excessive heat and coastal storms while improving wildlife habitat and carbon sequestration.

Conservation infrastructure projects improve the health and management of ecosystems so that they provide important benefits and services. Examples include managing stormwater runoff, improving water quality for wildlife, restoring wildlife habitat in the built environment, and attracting beneficial species.

Finally, amendment No. 1, offered by the gentlewoman from Florida, broadens the appropriate uses of Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Subaccount funds to include using innovative technologies, tools, strategies, or collaborative partnerships that accelerate, expand, or replicate effective and measurable recovery efforts for species of the greatest conservation need and endangered species.

Supporting the implementation and expansion of new, creative conservation methods is of the utmost importance if we wish to interrupt the ongoing mass extinction event. In this time of need, our species and ecosystems need all the help we can provide. Funding innovative ideas will fill the gaps left by traditional conservation methods while spurring research and creating jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad we found an area of agreement this afternoon. I think we have more agreement than people realize.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), the author of one of these very critical amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this en bloc package as well as the bill upon final passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, en bloc No. 2 consists of two good- government amendments offered by my Republican colleagues: amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Oregon and amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Amendment No. 2 stipulates that no more than 1.85 percent of funds can be used for administrative costs in the grant programs authorized by title III.

The purpose of the Recovering America's Wildlife Act is to fund on- the-ground efforts that are focused on conserving and restoring wildlife and habitat. This 1.85 percent cap will ensure that these dollars are being used toward actions that create the most impact.

Amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin requires that half of 1 percent of the money in the Endangered Species Recovery and Habitat Conservation Legacy Fund be directed to the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior to oversee the expenditure of the fund.

This amendment will ensure that money from the Endangered Species Recovery and Habitat Conservation Legacy Fund is used appropriately and in a manner that is in line with the spirit of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on en bloc No. 2, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the en bloc package as well as the bill upon final passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from Michigan for this amendment.

This bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan and cosponsored by the Republican gentleman from northern Michigan makes it clear--or western Michigan, not from where Dan and I are, but it is Michigan--makes it clear that eligible funding for conservation activities under the Endangered Species Recovery and Habitat Conservation Legacy Fund include invasive species and disease management control and prevention efforts.

Invasive species and diseases pose severe threats to our Nation's wildlife population, especially for species that are already threatened or endangered.

Few places in the United States are more familiar with invasive species than the Great Lakes region which has been battling sea lampreys, zebra and quagga mussels, and now Asian carp. Native fish species are smaller and less plentiful than they once were thanks to these invasive species.

On the disease front, chronic waste and disease, a fatal disease for North America's deer, elk, and moose have spread to 25 States posing significant risks to those populations.

To properly recover native species, we must provide the resources and coordinate efforts to eradicate or control invasive species, prevent new introductions, and better understand emerging diseases.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Speaker, this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona and the gentleman from North Carolina adds nonprofit organizations to the list of entities that are eligible to compete for innovation grants funded by the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Subaccount.

Ten percent of subaccount funds are used to fund innovation grants. These grants are meant to catalyze the innovation of techniques, tools, and strategies while fostering collaborative partnerships that accelerate, expand, or replicate effective and measurable recovery efforts for species of greatest conservation need and species listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Including nonprofit organizations in this competitive grant process will foster collaboration and ensure that the best strategies and efforts are being funded.

Madam Speaker, I am sure that none of the groups are the radical groups that you are referring to, but I don't know. It is a competitive process that will be carefully managed.

Madam Speaker, I support my colleague's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2543 represents a seismic and powerful response to racial discrimination in financial products. Thank you to Chairwoman Waters, and to my colleague who is managing, for the leadership given.

My amendment is very important. I am pleased that my amendment is included in the en bloc amendment that the Financial Services Committee has today.

It requires the Federal Reserve Board to submit a report to Congress about the prevalence of racial discrimination in lending to victims of a Federally declared disaster. I know it well.

This amendment merits the support of all of my colleagues because no district is exempt from natural disasters. I am reminded of 2017, among others, in my district where it was devastated by Hurricane Harvey over an area of 41,500 square miles, 21 trillion gallons of rainfall, and one-third of Houston underwater.

There was major discrimination against Black and Brown Houstonians who sought loans or home loans or financing to pay for repairs. They faced obstacles, delays, and outcomes that were different than their neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, this endemic discrimination was seen in efforts to gain assistance from the Small Business Administration.

Mr. Speaker, as an outspoken advocate for equity in this country's economy, I rise in support of the Financial Services Racial Equity, Inclusion, and Economic Justice Act.

This bill requires that financial services regulators and companies establish procedures to ensure racial equity and eliminate racial disparities in all aspects of their operations including employment, income, wealth, and access to affordable credit.

In addition to the reforms in H.R. 2543, the bill requires regulators to provide reports to Congress about economic inequality, especially within the labor force, and enact plans to minimize said inequalities.

America's economy has only rarely worked to the advantage of working- class people. Worse still, there has been an endemic and vile trend of implicit and perhaps explicit discrimination against people of color within policies and overall economic policy.

However, unfair monetary policy is not just an anachronism from long ago or a relic from a different era. It is happening now.

Recent analyses have found that algorithms used by lenders often are designed in such a way that they result in black and brown Americans being charged higher interest rates.

This legislation takes a major step toward fixing long-overdue-- disparities and fundamentally changing the financial services industry to make it proactive in fighting economic discrimination.

I am also very pleased that my amendment is included in the En Bloc Amendment that the Financial Services committee is bringing before the House today.

My amendment requires the Federal Reserve Board to submit a report to Congress about the prevalence of racial discrimination in lending to victims of a federally declared disaster.

This amendment merits the support of all of my colleagues because no district is exempt from natural disasters, and with the acceleration of climate change, it is increasingly likely that these events will occur even in areas of the country that previously felt insulated from them.

When disasters occur, our Nation has a moral and legal duty to facilitate their recovery and rebuilding. It is totally unacceptable and abhorrent for racial or ethnic discrimination to be injected into decisions on financial factors impacting remedial action.

However, in some instances, discrimination--whether by intent or effect--has occurred during these moments of greatest need.

For example, in 2017, my district in Houston was one of the many in Texas devastated by Hurricane Harvey. Over an area of 41,500 square miles spanning Texas and Louisiana, the storm dropped nearly 21 trillion gallons of rainfall and damaged 203,000 homes, of which 12,700 were destroyed.

At its peak on September 1, 2017, one third of Houston was underwater, and over 300,000 structures of all types were flooded in southeastern Texas, where extreme rainfall hit many areas that are densely populated.

Hurricane Harvey was the largest housing disaster to strike the U.S. in our Nation's history. When the cleanup began, thousands of Houstonians needed loans to help rebuild their homes and their lives.

But black and brown Houstonians who sought loans or home loan refinancing to pay for repairs faced obstacles, delays, and outcomes that were different from their other neighbors. This endemic discrimination was seen in efforts to gain assistance from the Small Business Administration.

If there was ever a moment when our financial systems need to fully support minority communities, it is after they have been decimated by a natural disaster.

For majority Houstonians who applied and received a $200,000 loan from the Small Business Administration or $25,000 by virtue of a government declaration, the process was streamlined. They could also apply for and receive $40,000 from the SBA to replace or repair personal property--such as clothing, furniture, cars, and appliances-- that was damaged or destroyed in the disaster.

The SBA asks applicants for collateral, such as a first or second mortgage on the damaged real estate, which are common forms of collateral for an SBA disaster loan.

In the case of majority applicants, it was found that the SBA usually would not decline a loan for lack of collateral.

However, for black and brown families, the system worked differently. Financing was difficult to access. Applications for loans from black and brown residents were less likely to be approved than applications from their white counterparts.

My amendment protects black and brown Americans who face the consequences of a debilitating natural disaster. It would guarantee their protection from unfair policies in their most vulnerable moments.

Fighting economic discrimination should be a bipartisan issue. No American deserves to be left behind because of antiquated monetary policy or a federal government that refuses to fight on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to recognize the discrimination and to fix it by adding the Jackson Lee amendment.

I include in the Record an article titled: ``Black Communities are Last in Line for Disaster Planning in Texas.''

[From the Washington Post, May 12, 2022]

Black Communities Are Last in Line for Disaster Planning in Texas

Houston.--Lawrence Hester worries every time it rains.

During heavy storms, water overflows the dirt drainage ditch

fronting his yard and the bayou at the end of his block--

flooding the street, creeping up his front steps, pooling

beneath the house, and trapping his family inside. ``We are

always underwater here,'' said Hester, 61. And yet, the state

of Texas allocated none of the $1 billion in federal funds it

received to protect communities from future disasters to

neighborhoods in Houston that flood regularly, according to

an investigation by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development.

HUD has now found the exclusion of those majority Black and

Hispanic urban communities to be discriminatory. The state

``shifted money away from the areas and people that needed it

the most,'' disproportionately benefiting White residents

living in smaller towns, the agency concluded. Houston has

faced seven federally declared disasters in the last seven

years and suffered an estimated $2 billion in damage from

Hurricane Harvey in 2017. That storm devastated Kashmere

Gardens, where Hester has lived his entire life. The

floodwaters from Harvey deposited black mold throughout

Hester's home and left his daughter chronically short of

breath.

The state, which is appealing HUD's findings, denied

discriminating, saying the Texas General Land Office

administered the federal grant program based on HUD approval.

The situation in Texas illustrates the challenge facing the

Eiden administration, which has pledged to focus on racial

equity but is struggling to protect low-income communities of

color from the growing threat of climate change. Even after

HUD's finding of discrimination, the agency said it does not

have the power at this time to suspend the rest of the $4.3

billion in disaster mitigation money awarded to the state

under criteria approved by the Trump administration. ``What

is happening here with these federal dollars going through

the state and not one dime coming to the City of Houston

post-Hurricane Harvey is absolutely crazy, and it cannot be

justified,'' said Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner. ``What do I

say to the people in Kashmere Gardens when these storms keep

coming, and we are not putting in the infrastructure that

they desperately need to mitigate the risk of future

flooding?''

Black and Hispanic communities in northeast Houston,

including Kashmere Gardens, are especially vulnerable to the

more frequent storms and catastrophic flooding expected due

to climate change, according to the Federal Emergency

Management Agency. Many of the residential streets lack curbs

and gutters--common storm drainage infrastructure in

predominantly White neighborhoods in Houston--and rely

instead on open ditches dating back to the 1930s.

``Sometimes we can't get out because the water is so

high,'' said Jackie Spradley, Hester's wife. ``You're

literally trapped until the water starts to subside.'' She

can't get to work. Their 12-year-old daughter can't get to

school. The whoosh of traffic and trains permeates the

triangular neighborhood of modest single-family homes penned

between two highways and two sets of railroad tracks. During

large storms, runoff from impervious highway surfaces flows

onto residential streets.

Piles of trash--old tires, mattresses, furniture, home

insulation--accumulate for weeks in the drainage ditches

along many streets, blocking water from flowing through the

ditches to the bayou. Silt and other debris clog many of the

culverts beneath narrow driveways and footpaths spanning the

ditches. In the summers, standing water breeds mosquitoes.

The city of Houston had hoped to use $95 million in federal

grants to upgrade Kashmere Gardens' storm drainage

infrastructure. The proposed improvements, including

converting some of the ditches to a curb and gutter system,

would have removed the flood risk to nearly 1,400 properties.

But without the money, the city shelved those plans.

Hester's daughter Ashlei was 7 years old in 2017 when

Harvey floodwaters breached their family room, lapping at the

legs of the card table on which the family played dominoes.

Her cough worsened, and doctors prescribed four different

medications for asthma. She was hospitalized in 2018 for more

than a week. But doctors still did not know what was causing

her illness. It wasn't until December 2019, more than two

years after Harvey, when Hester and his wife discovered the

black mold that was making their daughter so sick. A city

inspector recommended that the house be condemned.

``I was so ashamed,'' Hester said. ``We didn't have nowhere

else to go.''

His mother had purchased the home in 1960, paying the

mortgage with wages from her job flipping burgers 16 hours a

day. Hester was born in the house months later. He had stayed

in the house after Hurricane Alicia flooded the home in 1983.

And after Ike in 2008. Even after Harvey, Hester stayed,

hoping to someday pass the three-bedroom ranch-style home

onto his daughter. But Hester, who is on disability for

herniated disks in his back and neck from his years as a

long-haul truck driver, and his wife, who sells insurance,

never had the money to adequately repair the storm-ravaged

roof and mold-covered walls. Hester said the city informed

him after Harvey that he was ineligible for funding to fix

the home because of unpaid property taxes ``It's not just

about the storm drainage,'' Hester said. ``It's about

everything.''

Hester said that the rainbow-hued oily waters he had

splashed in while playing in the drainage ditches as a child

had been polluted with cancer-causing creosote used to treat

wooden railroad ties and utility poles. A 2019 state health

department investigation confirmed elevated cancer rates

among residents in the southern end of Kashmere Gardens,

located near two Superfund sites. Residents fear that

flooding will carry toxic deposits into their yards. Hester's

mother had died of cancer. So had his father. And one of his

brothers. ``Cancer is killing the whole neighborhood,'' said

Hester, who is too afraid to visit the doctor about his own

health problems.

Federal disaster mitigation grants are supposed to improve

the inferior flood infrastructure in lower income

communities. But the HUD investigation found that competition

rules set by the Texas General Land Office unfairly favored

smaller towns with less urgent needs and where residents are

more likely to be White and less likely to be lower income.

The state knowingly adopted scoring criteria that prioritized

lower-density areas and excluded communities that HUD

designated as the most impacted by disasters from half the

grants, HUD said. ``Because the criteria had these

unjustified discriminatory effects, their use failed to

comply with HUD's regulations,'' the agency found.

No other state adopted Texas' method of distributing the

funds, according to HUD's Office of Fair Housing and Equal

Opportunity. The agency concluded that without Texas's

discriminatory criteria, nearly four times as many Black

residents and more than twice as many Hispanic residents

would have benefited from the grants. The General Land Office

said in its April 1 appeal that the state ``does not

discriminate, and the projects it has funded help minority

beneficiaries across Texas.'' The state said more than two-

thirds of residents in communities that received awards are

Black, Hispanic or Asian. The state pointed out that its plan

was approved two years ago and characterized HUD's new

objections as ``politically motivated.''

In addition to Houston and surrounding Harris County, the

General Land Office denied grants to the predominantly Black

and Hispanic cities of Port Arthur, Beaumont and Corpus

Christi as well as Jefferson and Nueces counties--all of

which experienced significant flooding from Harvey, according

to the civil rights complaint. Texas Housers, a nonprofit

focused on housing in low-income communities, and Northeast

Action Collective, a grassroots advocacy group of Houston

residents, filed the complaint with HUD last year. Instead,

funds were steered toward inland, Whiter communities that

were far less severely impacted by hurricanes and used to

fund routine infrastructure, the complaint said. That

includes $17.5 million for a new community center in Caldwell

County that is supposed to double as an evacuation center;

$10.8 million to install a sewage system in the 379-person

town of Iola; $6 million for a new sheriffs department radio

tower and

radios for Gonzales County; and $4.2 million for a 2,000-

foot-long road in Bastrop County to connect a Walmart parking

lot and a Home Depot, justified as an alternate path for

emergency vehicles in case the adjacent freeway is clogged

with hurricane evacuees from the Gulf Coast 161 miles away.

``These mitigation funds are a strategy to undo the

systemic racism of the past, but that's not what we're seeing

Texas interested in at all,'' said John Henneberger, co-

director of Texas Housers. ``This is a test of how serious

HUD and the Biden administration are in enforcing civil

rights.'' HUD's Office of Community Planning and Development,

which oversees disaster mitigation aid, wrote to the Texas

General Land Office in March expressing ``grave concerns''

over the distribution of the first round of grants. ``The

State has not identified a plan to protect communities while

guarding against competition criteria that could disadvantage

minority residents,'' HUD wrote. If a voluntary resolution

cannot be reached, HUD said it could refer the matter to the

Department of Justice for enforcement. But advocates worry

that could come too late for communities like Kashmere

Gardens. While HUD said it cannot stop the state from

awarding the rest of the grants ``due to prior decisions,''

it would begin monitoring how the money is distributed and

warned it could claw back the funds if necessary.

``Texas has a history of sending money to those who are

politically connected,'' said Shannon Van Zandt, a professor

of urban planning at Texas A&M University whose research

focuses on hazard reduction and housing. She noted that

racial disparities occurred with the distribution of disaster

funds after Hurricane Ike in 2008. Civil rights advocates say

HUD has the authority to suspend Texas's ability to spend

federal grant money; it has done so under previous

administrations. But Sara Pratt, former deputy assistant

secretary in HUD's fair housing office who is now

representing Texas Housers as an attorney, said there is

long-standing division among HUD staff over enforcing civil

rights violations when making funding decisions.

``There is deep disagreement internally,'' Pratt said.

``The secretary's job is to resolve disputes like this.'' HUD

Secretary Marcia L. Fudge declined to comment because the

Texas investigation remains open, HUD spokesman Michael Burns

said. ``Her commitment to civil rights and fair housing is

well documented and unwavering, and she is committed to

ensuring that all HUD funds are used in compliance with all

relevant laws and program requirements,'' Burns said. In

response to widespread criticism over how the first $1

billion in Harvey disaster grants was distributed, Texas now

plans to allocate $750 million to Harris County. Houston is

due to receive an additional $9 million out of $488 million

that the state plans to send to the Houston-Galveston region.

City officials point out that the $9 million amounts to less

than one tenth of the cost of its proposed improvements to

Kashmere Gardens.

In Kashmere Gardens on a recent morning after a

thunderstorm inundated streetside drainage ditches,

bulldozers and dump trucks worked to widen and deepen Hunting

Bayou to absorb runoff from future storms. The work is a

small portion of a $2.5 billion flood protection bond that

Harris County passed in 2018. The bulk of the bond money was

directed to wealthier neighborhoods because the county

expected to receive federal disaster funds for poorer ones,

according to county commissioner Rodney Ellis. But without

money to upgrade the ditch system to drain storm water from

neighborhood streets, it's unclear if the bayou expansion

will be effective.

``This is the Texas two-step in Houston. You have to get

the water from the neighborhoods to the bayous. And then you

have to get the water from the bayous to the Gulf of

Mexico,'' said Ellis, who represents the area. Residents,

too, remain skeptical. ``It's a wait and see situation,''

said Dorothy Wanza, another Kashmere Gardens resident whose

street turned into a river during Harvey and flooded her home

with more than a foot of water. The experience left the So-

year-old so traumatized that ``every time it rains, I get the

hell out of dodge.''

She spent the previous night fully dressed, prepared to

evacuate to one of her children's homes. ``The ditches

overflow, and once they are full, the water comes back on

you,'' Wanza said. On the other side of the bayou, Hester

said the city had recently cleaned out part of a ditch lining

his street for the first time he could recall in more than a

decade. Dirt and bricks still block some of the culverts.

``Right up under there, look,'' he said, pointing beneath

the concrete walkway leading from the street to his front

yard. ``It's stopped up on both sides.'' He nodded farther

down the street to another culvert: ``That whole drain hole

was flooded.'' He and his next door neighbor had removed as

many bricks as they could to move the water through. ``If we

don't do things around here, ain't nothing going to get done.

I have to go around here and try to help, and I'm in bad

shape myself.'' Hester limped around the perimeter of his

home and pointed two feet up the siding where Harvey

floodwaters had reached--a reminder of the catastrophe he

says he failed to protect his daughter from.

A nonprofit had removed the mold inside when it fixed up

the house in 2020, installing new cabinets, a new roof and

laminate flooring. But the entryway still slopes. The floor

joists need to be repaired. The porch is lopsided, its wood

rotted. Hester is stooped from years of pain. Yet he remains

intent on doing what he can to make things right. ``It's not

my life I'm worried about. It's my daughter's,'' Hester said.

``I'm half dead.''

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1170, I call up the bill (H.R. 2543) to amend the Federal Reserve Act to add additional demographic reporting requirements, to modify the goals of the Federal Reserve System, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 2543 and to insert extraneous material thereon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2543, the Financial Services Racial Equity, Inclusion, and Economic Justice Act, landmark legislation focused on promoting racial and economic justice.

This bill was introduced by Financial Services Committee Chairwoman, the Honorable Maxine Waters, and it includes several provisions authored by members of the committee. Unfortunately, Chairwoman Waters couldn't

be here today, but I would like the Record to reflect not only her authorship of this bill but also her unwavering commitment to achieving equity and inclusion on behalf of communities of color.

Today's House consideration of H.R. 2543 is historic in that for the first time in our Nation's history, the U.S. House of Representatives is voting on a comprehensive package of legislation to finally address inequity with equity and inclusion in terms of financial access, economic mobility, and fair treatment.

Today, I boldly and proudly say that this would not have been possible without the Honorable Chairwoman Waters' leadership. This bill is needed because racial disparities in lending, homeownership, and wealth creation are all too real.

For some, invidious discrimination, Mr. Speaker, is only a phrase. However, for too many others, it is a fact of life. According to the Brookings Institution, the racial wealth gap between White and Black households is more than $10 trillion. The onerous wealth gap is perpetuated by the toleration of ongoing discrimination, redlining, and systemic barriers to accessing financial credit and services.

Some of my colleagues across the aisle may say that the House shouldn't address this important issue. They may say that the House should ignore these very real, well-documented disparities and focus on getting inflation under control, to which I say, this bill deals with the very real inflationary pressures that people of color experience in their daily lives. Too often, Mr. Speaker, consumers and businesses from low-income communities and communities of color suffer invidious discrimination as they struggle to access capital and credit.

Chairwoman Waters said it best, and I was there to hear her say it, when she spoke before the Rules Committee this week. She noted that this type of discrimination is a form of inflation in communities of color. She indicated that when you add up inflated fees in tandem with inflated interest rates, simple loans cost more for people of color than others taking out the same loan in a different community.

This, of course, assumes that you are lucky enough to qualify for the loan in the first place. If you are not, then your options to build wealth are severely limited because you can't buy a home or start a small business. In fact, your only option for credit might be an inflated predatory payday loan that leaves you worse off, not better.

This is inflation that people of color experience each day, and we should be just as outraged and concerned about these needlessly inflated high costs as we are about the general inflation we are experiencing during the pandemic. And I would further argue that addressing this form of inflation will bring down costs for everyone because, as my colleagues across the aisle are fond of saying, a rising tide lifts all boats.

We also know that general inflation disproportionately hurts people of color, which is why this bill directs the Federal Reserve, as it carries out its duties to rein inflation in and promote full employment, to also consider racial disparities so that all people--all people--will benefit from the Fed's dual mandate.

Members of the LGBTQIA-plus community also face discrimination in lending. This is why it leads to higher costs for them as well. We shouldn't stand for this during any time of the year, but I am pleased to be among those fighting for LGBTQIA-plus justice during Pride Month. This is why H.R. 2543 includes my bill H.R. 166, the Fair Lending for All Act, which furthers fair lending by clarifying that lending discrimination is prohibited not only on the basis of race, Mr. Speaker, but also on the basis of gender identity, sexual orientation, and geography. This bill enhances supervision and establishes criminal penalties for fair lending violations.

Let's take a closer look at fair lending at this time. Every person who purchases a home should be able to read and understand their mortgage documents. This is why common sense should prevail. However, that is not the reality for many home buyers in our country today. This is why the bill includes robust language, robust language to access the requirements for a mortgage, and these mortgage conditions should be made clear in languages that people understand. It requires servicers to expand and preserve the dream of homeownership for borrowers with limited English proficiency. Chairwoman Waters' bill will also support the efforts of community development financial institutions, or CDFIs, and minority depository institutions, or MDIs, that fill a historic lending gap in underserved communities across this country. And it would mitigate banking deserts by allowing credit unions to serve areas that banks have ignored or abandoned.

Moreover, this legislation includes another bill of mine, H.R. 2516, the Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Banking Act, which would require Federal banking regulators to evaluate policies and procedures banks and credit unions have to promote diversity and inclusion.

I thank Chairwoman Waters for her continued leadership, her bold leadership, as well as my colleagues and members of the Financial Services Committee for their tireless work, including Representatives Meeks, Cleaver, Beatty, Garcia of Texas, Torres, and Auchincloss.

Mr. Speaker, the pandemic has exacerbated and exposed many truths about our Nation's inequitable housing and financial systems, as well as its outsized impact on low-income families and communities of color. It is incumbent on this Congress to finally address these disparities, and that is precisely what Chairwoman Waters' bill will do.

Hence, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2543, the Financial Services Racial Equity, Inclusion, and Economic Justice Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks), my dear friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing now why we have the invidious discrimination that exists in this country. Not one word has been said about the invidious discrimination, the high cost in loans that people of color suffer. Not one word is being said about it. Rather, there is always an effort to deflect. This has been going on for centuries, but not today. It ends today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Beatty).

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

I will read from an article entitled: ``Examining the Black-White wealth gap'' from the Brookings Institution dated February 27, 2020. ``A close examination of wealth in the U.S. finds evidence of staggering racial disparities. At $171,000, the net worth of a typical White family is nearly 10 times greater than that of a Black family ($17,150) in 2016. Gaps in wealth between Black and White households reveal the effects of accumulated inequality and discrimination, as well as differences in power and opportunity that can be traced back to this Nation's inception.''

And this is why it continues, because people on that side of the aisle are willing to tolerate invidious discrimination. They will talk about anything but invidious discrimination. They have no remedies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver), my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, inflation does care about your race if you happen to be a person of color and you are applying for a loan.

Inflation does care about your race if you happen to have fees added on that you shouldn't have simply because you are a person of color.

People of color have to deal with general inflation and the specific inflation associated with invidious discrimination, and it is the intolerance by my colleagues across the aisle through the centuries that has perpetuated this level of inflation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 20 seconds to the gentlewoman.

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

People of color are constituents. People of color are Americans. People of color deserve the opportunity to have equality of opportunity.

Hundreds of years have gone by, and this is what we are getting as a result of those who would ignore the concerns of Americans of color.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Auchincloss), a member of the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, the Brookings Institution indicates that the Black and

White wealth gap reflects a society that has not and does not afford equality of opportunity to all of its citizens. This is evidenced today by the responses that we are getting.

No effort to deal with the centuries of inequality. No desire to deal with invidious discrimination. Always a reason why we can't get to it right now. I have been in Congress for years--never addressing this problem.

Mr. Speaker, today is a day of reckoning for all of those who have been hiding behind other issues. Today they have to confront the truth. There is invidious discrimination in America, it impacts the LGBTQ- plus, it impacts people of color, and women as well, and today we have legislation because of the Honorable Maxine Waters' efforts that can deal with these issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, people of color are clobbered every day by higher interest rates. They are clobbered every day by loans that have fees that are higher than loans for people of a different hue. These are the things that are being perpetuated when they tolerate this kind of behavior. For centuries they tolerated it.

Now we have the opportunity to do something about it. Let's eliminate these costs for some people so that we can deal with the costs for everybody. Until that is done, we have to have this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard a great recitation on how to do nothing; how to maintain the status quo; how to be proud that you can stand up in the House of Representatives and defend the status quo for some 300 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I am prepared to close.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is painful to hear a Member of Congress talk about reckless spending when that spending is what was necessary during the pandemic.

Is it reckless spending to allow people to receive some sort of help when they couldn't go to work, Mr. Speaker?

My colleagues across the aisle would not have helped the American people who were out of work during a pandemic because it would be reckless spending.

Is it reckless spending to keep people in their homes and not allow them to be foreclosed on?

My colleagues across the aisle would have allowed people to be evicted and their things thrown in the streets because to them, helping people in a time of crisis is reckless spending.

Is it reckless spending to put food on the table of people who can't go to work?

Is it reckless spending to make sure babies and children who are going to school get proper schools that can protect them during a virus and a pandemic that was killing people worldwide?

We put money into schools. We put money into police departments and fire departments. But that is reckless spending to my colleagues across the aisle.

They are the best on the planet at doing nothing. Do-nothing politics is what that is all about. They find clever ways to find an opportunity to do nothing by saying things that mean nothing to the people who need help.

Reckless spending. How dare they call it reckless spending when people are suffering and need help.

Now, let me continue with the Brookings Institution with my final minutes.

This is from the Brookings Institution: ``Efforts by Black Americans to build wealth can be traced back throughout American history. But these efforts have been impeded in a host of ways, beginning with 246 years of chattel slavery and followed by congressional mismanagement . . . `'

Let me repeat that: by congressional mismanagement.

`` . . . of the Freedmans Savings Bank, which left 61,144 depositors with losses of nearly $3 million in 1874, the violent massacre decimating Tulsa's Greenwood District in 1921, a population of 10,000 that thrived as the epicenter of African-American business and culture, commonly referred to as Black Wall Street, and discriminatory policies throughout the 20th century including the Jim Crow Eras `Black Codes' strictly limiting opportunity in many Southern States . . . . `'

Mr. Speaker, today has been the best evidence we need of why invidious discrimination exists in this country, because there are people across the aisle who will tolerate it and who will come to this floor and talk about Americans as though you have to be White to be an American, as though people of color don't count, as though the LGBTQ- plus community doesn't count, and that women don't count. To them, Mr. Speaker, if you are a White man, you are an American.

But what about the rest of the people in this country who suffer?

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day to hear my colleagues across the aisle speak of reckless spending when people were suffering.

I thank God that we have the courage to help people in a time of need. If I could do it again, I would do it because I saw the suffering. Perhaps they don't see the suffering that I see. But I saw it, and I was prepared to do something about it.

I believe that in the final analysis, those who refuse to tolerate the kind of invidious discrimination that we suffer each day in this country, they will be vindicated. They will be vindicated.

I am grateful for the time, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 1170, I offer amendments en bloc No. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, the 23 amendments offered in this en bloc are a terrific example of a working legislative process, a process through which well- considered legislation is further strengthened by the intellect, experience, and values of the House Democratic Caucus.

These amendments broaden this package's commitment to equity by ensuring that information is gathered regarding loans made to veterans, people with disabilities, and the LGBTQ-plus community, which will help reveal unfair or discriminatory practices against these communities.

We also have amendments that will ensure economic data are disaggregated within racial and ethnic groups, in recognition of the lived experiences across different communities.

The package is further bolstered by timely and necessary reporting ensuring that communities of color and low-income communities have access to wealth-building opportunities, including purchasing their first home and accessing capital.

Furthermore, this package includes amendments that will help us to better understand and address the country's growing affordable housing and homelessness crises that have disproportionately affected people of color.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments being considered en bloc.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, this is not another mandate. This is simply a requirement that the Fed fulfill its two mandates, the dual mandates to all of its people, to make sure that all people have price stability. This is what it is about.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Houlahan).

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

Mr. Speaker, according to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research report, the racial wealth gap is on track to grow wider in the coming decades. It is estimated that the White-to-Black wealth ratio will increase from 5.6 to 1 in 2019 to 8.4 to 1 by 2200.

The time to act is now. These amendments will help ensure that everyone will have a fair chance, and in too many instances, a first chance at economic opportunity.

I thank our colleagues for offering their amendments, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of these amendments because these amendments are principally about transparency.

If you have nothing to hide, you celebrate transparency. If you have something to hide, you want to eschew transparency.

These amendments seek to provide transparency so that we can get a better understanding of how we can better cure the invidious discrimination that has plagued our country for centuries.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 1170, I offer amendments en bloc No. 2.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Republican amendments presented here today stand as a testament to Republican values; namely, a tolerance for wealth inequality and racial discrimination.

Let's be clear. The amendment from Mr. Timmons will strike large portions of the bill and make no attempt to improve it.

As for the amendment from Mr. Davis, it will strike provisions requiring the reporting of small business lending data, effectively allowing banks to continue to hide the extent to which they are denying small business owners of color access to affordable credit.

According to a Fed survey, 46 percent of Black-owned firms that applied for financing received none of the financing they sought compared to just 22 percent of White-owned firms. We need more granular data on these trends to root out discrimination in lending once and for all.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, what we have been witnessing today is the behavior of persons who chose not to help the American people in a time of need.

When the American people were being evicted from their homes, they chose not to help. When schools were plagued by a virus and needed funding so that they could secure our children from the virus, they chose not to help. When people were out of work and needed help to put food on the table, fuel in their cars, they chose not to help.

Because they chose not to help, they have to call any help that was given reckless, and they have to call it bad policy.

But the truth is, if you do nothing, you put yourself in a position such that you cannot appreciate the suffering of people who are in the midst of a worldwide pandemic. They chose not to help. We choose to help, and we continue to help.

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day when people will call saving homes and keeping children safe from a virus reckless policy.

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

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