Streamlining Aviation for Eligible Veterans Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), one of the most passionate and knowledgeable champions for wolf preservation in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquence and thoughtfulness, which stands in such contrast to the Kristi Noem school of animal welfare that we see reflected in the legislation before us.

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

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

Throughout this Congress, my Republican colleagues have tried at every turn to weaken our bedrock environmental laws. The Endangered Species Act has, of course, been one of their favorites to attack.

Once again, Republican leadership has taken an opportunity to vilify an endangered species today, here on this floor, to sacrifice it to their precious industry groups. Guns, oil, and polluters has come to be what this GOP stands for, at least in this Congress.

Last summer, they rushed to the House floor with bills to increase the extinction risk of the lesser prairie-chicken and northern long- eared bat. Today, it is the iconic gray wolf.

Do my Republican friends truly have nothing better to do with their time, with the time of this body? We should be working on issues that make a difference to everyday life in America, but this Congress has been mostly about Republicans fighting with each other in a circular firing squad. The only time they seem to take a break from that is when they want to do something to enrich the wealthiest Americans, harm the environment, or, now, to kill wolves.

This bill is falsely named. It is called the Trust the Science Act. It would legislatively delist the gray wolf in the Endangered Species Act in the lower 48. That is not something that is done based on science. It is something this bill would do by political fiat.

The gray wolf is one of America's most iconic species. While it is making a comeback, the science and the facts on the ground tell us that it still needs help.

This bill would make it so that not a single gray wolf in the United States, in the entire country, would be protected by the Endangered Species Act.

Yes, it is true that the Yellowstone National Park wolf reintroduction is one of the great success stories of the ESA.

We saw that as apex predators, wolves help to rebalance and revitalize vibrant ecosystems and flourishing wildlife populations in one of the crown jewels of our National Park System.

The ESA has kept the wolf from going extinct. We have gone from several hundred wild wolves in America, and these were inhabiting the northern parts of Michigan and Minnesota, to approximately 7,500 wolves today with populations in at least 11 States.

That is the ESA in action. It is a great success story, but that doesn't mean that we can just unfurl a banner and declare, ``mission accomplished.'' We certainly cannot do that when the folks who took wolves to the brink of extinction are ready to rev up the wolf-killing machine once again and put us right back on that path to extinction.

Wolf numbers have grown in the Western United States, but the ESA rightly requires more than just population counts for delisting. Otherwise, we can quickly devolve right back to where we started.

There are still a lot of factors that go into species recovery; habitat destruction, disease, the regulatory and recovery efforts by States that would have to take over management of the species if it is delisted, and a lot more.

The ESA requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service use the best available science to assess all of this, not just population numbers, before they make any delisting decisions. Importantly, the Fish and Wildlife Service must consult with Tribes.

Right now, the service is following these processes and developing a recovery plan, but if this bill was signed into law, all of that would be skipped. They would have to ignore any scientific evidence of remaining threats to the wolf. This is the danger of legislatively delisting a species.

While I believe my colleagues are capable of going on to Google and pulling up some population numbers on gray wolves, it is pretty brazen to suggest that they, as Members of Congress, are more qualified than the scientists and experts with years of training to determine if a species is actually recovered.

The ultimate goal of the ESA is to recover species and then set them up for success post-recovery. We need durable, not temporary outcomes.

Passing this bill would simply call wolves recovered, but that does not make it so. The bill ignores science, and it sends a species back down the path to extinction by reinstating a Trump-era delisting rule that the courts have overturned because it violated the Endangered Species Act, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act.

This bill ignores the careful analysis of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over the past year. It ignores the fact that although wolf populations are doing well in some places, they haven't met recovery goals in others.

It does nothing to require Federal consultation with Tribes, and on top of that, there is nothing in the bill to push States to improve their conservation measures for wolves.

When wolves were delisted in 2011 and 2021, some States raced to approve the killing of significant portions of their wolf populations, even using harvest quotas.

States in the Northern Rockies actually incentivized hunting. They paid hunters to kill wolves. This does not demonstrate a commitment to conserving the species once it is delisted.

All of these State policies would simply further villainize wolves and reward the type of killing that caused the population to crash in the first place. So no, a simple head count is not a scientifically sound basis for declaring open season on the gray wolf.

My Republican colleagues know that what they are trying to do will never stand up to scrutiny in the courts.

It would never stand up to consideration of the best available scientific and commercial data, and that is why this bill prohibits judicial review. That really gives the game away. If you really trust the science then you shouldn't be afraid of a little scrutiny.

Based on the talking points that we have heard throughout this legislative process, this is all just so people can shoot more wolves.

Why would Congress invest millions of taxpayer dollars in recovering this iconic species just to turn around and let States start killing them all over again?

We will hear a lot in debate today about how these apex predators, which are vital to our ecosystems, are scary, cold killers. That is ancient ignorance, not science.

If we are lucky, we may even hear some of the wild conspiracy theories that we have heard in previous debates about larger, faster, more aggressive Canadian gray wolves. We have heard practically everything except the claim that these Canadian wolves have laser eyes.

Congress shouldn't be overriding conservation decisions made by scientists. Fortunately, when we saw this type of extreme and baseless language a few years ago, a dozen Republicans trusted the science and voted against it.

I urge my colleagues and fellow conservationists to actually trust the science and to vote ``no'' on this trust the ignorance act.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when you call a bill the Trust the Science Act, you probably shouldn't rely so heavily on narratives that seem like a mix of Little Red Riding Hood and YouTube conspiracies about the chupacabra.

You should actually listen to wildlife managers and scientists, and you should also be thoughtful about lessons that we have learned in the past when Federal delisting led to State management that adopted many of those stubborn anti-predator myths.

We know what happens in many of these States when Federal delisting occurs. In 2021, Idaho passed legislation allowing for 90 percent of their gray wolf population to be culled by nearly any means, including killing pups.

In Wisconsin, one hunting season alone wiped out over 30 percent of that State's gray wolf population. In Montana, they allowed increased bag limits and hunting of wolves just outside of national parks, a quota of 40 percent of the State's wolves.

These States in the Northern Rockies pay hunters up to $2,500 per gray wolf, and they have authorized expanding killing methods including traps, snares, night-vision equipment, bait, and motorized vehicles and dogs to track and kill wolves.

States have legalized the hunting of wolves under the guise of predator control, and with this designation, malice toward wolves is actually precluded from animal cruelty laws.

This has led to some disgusting acts of torture and abuse. Just last month, we saw that a man in Wyoming hunted down a wolf, struck the animal with a snow machine, muzzled the maimed wolf with duct tape, and brought it in to show his buddies in a bar while it was suffering.

This is the kind of tender mercy that apparently my colleagues across the aisle suggest for thoughtful management of the gray wolf.

The punishment of this individual, by the way, a $250 fine; not for the gruesome abuse of an animal but for wrongful possession of live wildlife. If he had simply killed it, there probably would have been no punishment at all.

Wolves in Wyoming can be hunted year-round without a license. The identity of the hunter who kills the wolf is protected by State law.

Hunting down the wolf and purposefully hitting it with a vehicle, that is also considered just hunting in Wyoming.

House Republicans love to point to State management as the solution to our biodiversity crisis. I think we all can agree that we should celebrate when species are successfully recovered and management is returned to States.

However, this bill would turn over management to States that have proven an unwillingness, a stubborn unwillingness to conserve the species further, and that would put wolves at risk in the lower 48 States.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Colorado brought up Tribes in her opening remarks, and I am glad, because we should be talking about and thinking about Tribes on this subject.

Tribes are not interested in scaring people into killing wolves. For many Tribes, wolves are sacred. They are an integral part of the land- based identity that shapes their communities, beliefs, and customs. Like bears, wolves are considered closely related to humans by many North American Tribes, and the origin stories of some Northwest Coastal Tribes tell of their first ancestors being transformed from wolves into men.

In Shoshone mythology, the wolf plays the role of the noble creator god, while in Anishinaabe mythology, a wolf character is the brother and true best friend of the culture hero. Among the Pueblo Tribes, wolves are considered one of the six directional guardians associated with the east and the color white and associated with protection, ascribing to them both healing and hunting powers.

Wolves are also one of the most common clan animals in Native American cultures. Tribes with wolf clans include the Creek, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Chippewa, Algonquian Tribes like the Shawnee and Osage, the Pueblo Tribes of New Mexico, and Northwest Coastal Tribes.

It is essential that the United States Government uphold its trust responsibilities to engage in meaningful, good-faith consultation with all affected Indian Tribes.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Tribes were not consulted as the treaty and trust responsibilities required when the Trump administration delisted the gray wolf. That is unacceptable. Ignoring Tribal voices erodes Tribal sovereignty.

After the wolf was delisted, Tribes sued the State of Wisconsin for violating Tribal treaty rights by authorizing the hunting of hundreds of wolves in 2021. No wonder this bill attempts to bar judicial review.

Tribes should be allowed to lead in identifying conservation measures for the wolf populations that are culturally sensitive. If this legislation is enacted, Tribes will have been left out of the process yet again and will face further violations of their treaty rights by State actions.

During the hearing on this bill, the Fish and Wildlife Service reaffirmed its commitment to consulting with Tribes during the species status review. I was glad to hear this commitment. I believe the United States Government's relationship with Tribes, and the conservation of wolves, will both be better for it.

This bill, which reinstates the Trump rule, which Tribes opposed and were not consulted on, would further erode our government's trust responsibilities to Tribes while putting the gray wolf at risk. We should reject this political attempt to sidestep science and Federal trust responsibilities and instead let the Fish and Wildlife Service do its job, go through the species status review in meaningful consultation with Tribes, and follow the best available science.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friends across the aisle have a pretty selective interest in numbers. They seem to want to take a single aggregate number for the wolf population in the United States and legislatively delist that population in a way that contravenes science, contravenes the way the Endangered Species Act is supposed to work, but they ignore a lot of other numbers.

Let's talk about some numbers. First of all, when we try to scare people about wolves, we should probably acknowledge that you are far more likely to die falling out of bed than from a gray wolf attack. My colleague, Mr. Beyer, explained that not once in the last 100 years has someone died from a wolf attack in the United States.

Wolves rarely attack people, and in the majority of documented cases, which are very few, humans ended up provoking the wolf or feeding it to cause that encounter. Further, wolves are a minimal threat to livestock, despite the hue and cry that we hear about this. Wolves are responsible for the loss of fewer than two-hundredths of a single percent of livestock every year.

Dogs and coyotes are responsible for far greater numbers of livestock losses, and even those losses fall well behind losses due to illness or weather. While there is inherent risk in raising livestock in wolf habitat, the losses are small. Importantly, ranchers are compensated for any financial loss due to wolf predation.

We need to base listing, delisting, and all other wildlife management decisions on science, not conspiracy theories, not unfounded fears, not myths, not political whims.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today would take a significant step backward in protecting gray wolves from extinction by legislatively delisting the species across its entire range without any scientific analysis.

As I said before, every one of us in this room probably has an opinion on whether wolves should be delisted, but in many ways, that shouldn't matter. Congress has no business listing and delisting species. We aren't the scientific experts tasked with assessing population numbers, recovery goals, and continued threats to those species.

Unfortunately, if Congress delists the species, States that have so far demonstrated a stubborn unwillingness to conserve the species will be left responsible for leading recovery and management efforts.

The gray wolf was nearly eliminated from the landscape because these types of anti-predator laws decimated the population, leading to the listing of the species under the Endangered Species Act in the 1970s.

For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee.

If the House rules permitted, I would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill to provide a necessary backstop if Congress legislatively delists the gray wolf. At the very least, the infrastructure needs to be in place to stop excessive killings or any other threats to wolves if they start decimating the population and sending it back toward extinction.

My language would create that backstop. It is simple. If the population declines too much, then emergency list the species, providing 240 days of protection, while the Service conducts a status review.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 764. As we have heard today, this is a bill based on fear, ignorance, and conspiracy theories that condone the inhumane killing of wolves.

Our Republican colleagues have made it clear that they intend to convince the Nation that wolves are just cold killers. Maybe that is good politics in some places to vilify wolves, to stoke the inhumane killing of wolves--running them over with snowmobiles and trucks, trapping, torturing, and finally shooting them, maybe after you put duct tape around their mouth and brought them in as a trophy to show your buddies at a bar.

All of that might work in some places, but most Americans understand the value of wolves. They understand that these creatures are foundational to ecosystem functions. They keep prey in check. Most Americans admire the intricate social structures of the wolf pack. They want to live in balance with nature, including predators.

This bill ignores the science, turns a blind eye to Tribal treaty rights, and removes judicial oversight of the delisting process to reinstate a faulty Trump-era rule. The gray wolf was listed as endangered because the predator control methods of the past had nearly eliminated the wolf from the landscape. Reinstating the Trump- era delisting rule will bring those anti-predator laws and policies right back into action and put us right back on the path to extinction.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this sham legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the VET-TEC Authorization Act of 2023, as amended. In 2020, when our country experienced record unemployment, VET-TEC was a bright spot of veteran employment.

To date, nearly 5,000 veterans have found employment from the program at a salary of over $65,000 a year.

Today, veterans are employed at record-high levels. The Biden economy has brought veteran unemployment to the lowest level ever on record. Let me say that again. The Biden economy has brought veteran unemployment to the lowest level ever on record.

The legislation before us adds 5 more years to the VET-TEC program, providing VA an additional $337 million to get more veterans hired in the high-technology field.

This program was created by Speaker McCarthy in the Forever GI Bill, and I respect the fact that it is a big priority for the Speaker and my friend Chairman Bost. While I support the legislation, I wish to share my concern about moving a bill with such a large cost

when we have so many provisions awaiting action by this Congress. The $413 million price tag of this bill dwarfs the costs of many of the bills we must pass to address veteran homelessness.

This is an expensive bill in a fiscally uncertain time. While we all appreciate veteran employment programs, veteran unemployment is the lowest ever on record. A VET-TEC extension is nice to have, but with veterans experiencing homelessness and food insecurity, there is action on those programs that we must have.

As ranking member of this committee, I have the responsibility of weighing priorities and choosing between worthy policies that help veterans. I know the chairman and his colleagues on our committee share my goal of ending veteran homelessness.

When we considered this legislation in our committee, I offered an amendment to this legislation to make permanent some basic authorities which lowered veteran homelessness by 11 percent during a public health emergency. This amendment cost only $6 million in mandatory spending.

Last year, the chairman himself made it clear: ``No veteran should be without a place to call home. I am glad that the most recent estimate showed fewer veterans living in homeless shelters last year. That is why we must continue our work to ensure that the rubber is meeting the road and every veteran has access to safe, stable housing and the help they need to thrive.''

Chairman Bost is correct. The work must continue. We must continue the ongoing work, which has already helped so many veterans and can help so many more.

The reason given for not moving this bill was that it implicates the Toxic Exposure Fund, or TEF. I understand the chairman is concerned about how the Congressional Budget Office scores bills with TEF implications. I am concerned too, and I have spoken extensively on this.

However, there has yet to be a solution proposed for the TEF that does not undermine its purpose, which is to protect funding for toxic- exposed veterans and acknowledge this as a cost of war.

In light of this, I am asking that we come together and work on mutual priorities so that we can responsibly and equitably pass legislation using the limited offsets available to us.

I think the chairman believes, as do I, that providing basic needs for homeless veterans deserves to be on that priority list.

Therefore, I ask my colleague, the chairman, if he will commit to bringing Representative Cherfilus-McCormick's bill, H.R. 645, to the floor without delay,

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of a colloquy, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost), and ask if he will commit to this.

Mr. Speaker, I am reclaiming my time.

Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for the answer.

Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.

Mr. BOST: Mr. Speaker, I am committed to addressing the veterans homelessness.

Mr. Speaker, I am reclaiming my time.

I simply ask the gentleman whether he will work with us to bring Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick's bill to the floor. That is the question that I will yield for an answer.

Will the gentleman work with us?

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

I am grateful that I hear some kernel that they will work with us in a bipartisan way. What does worry me is the gentleman mentioned over the next few months. I can maybe tolerate the next few months in terms of can we come to an agreement by the fall when the temperatures start to fall, but even the hot summers, in some parts of the country, would require us to work much more expeditiously.

These pandemic authorities that expanded our ability to help veterans who are homeless expired on May 11. For the last 11 days, VA and its community partners have operated with fewer authorities and less funding to help homeless veterans.

VA's ability to quickly bring a veteran in off the streets and get them the services they need to put them on their way to stable, permanent housing has been greatly diminished.

Prior to the pandemic, we were maintaining the status quo. The number of veterans experiencing homelessness had remained basically stagnant year after year for quite some time. For every veteran housed, another veteran would fall into homelessness.

During the pandemic we approached the homelessness crisis head on and with the urgency it has long deserved. It is incredible to me that we were able to reduce homelessness during COVID-19 by 11 percent. During the darkest days of that pandemic, VA actually reduced homelessness by 11 percent. It permanently housed over 40,000 veterans last year alone. We know these authorities accelerated VA's progress in ending veteran homelessness, and we can't lose that momentum.

I am pleased to hear the chairman wants to work together to extend these authorities and get homeless veterans into housing.

Mr. Speaker, I just say let's prioritize H.R. 645 in the coming days, not the coming months, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Khanna), my friend and colleague from my home State who serves on the Armed Services Committee and the Oversight Committee.

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

I commend General Bergman for the section of the VET-TEC bill which includes addressing this issue related to burials and the cost that the veteran's family has to bear, but I find it peculiar that the majority would take pains to include this legislation, which I have no quarrel with and support, but could not deal with and chose not to deal with the expiring authorities to deal with our homeless veterans.

Americans care deeply about the homeless veterans in our country and are offended that we would have anybody who wore the uniform of the United States be homeless.

There are elements of this bill that came up in markup. They brought the bill to the floor, the VET-TEC bill, which includes many elements, but they specifically chose to leave out addressing the expiring authorities that we have used to bring down homelessness by 11 percent. I am afraid we are going to lose momentum.

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

Mr. Speaker, I realize the chairman and all of us in the veteran space have had our differences with the way the Congressional Budget Office scores the TEF. However, I would assert that we cannot use that as an excuse for why we don't address veteran homelessness.

Mr. Speaker, the expansion of VET-TEC as a program is to the tune of nearly one-half billion dollars--$413 million--at a time when my colleagues on the other side are looking to make draconian cuts to the nondefense side of the ledger, which veterans do fall within. They are expanding a program that addresses veteran employment at a time when veteran unemployment is at its lowest.

What I want to compare is the $6 million to the nearly one-half billion dollars that the Republicans want to expand this program by. I, too, stand behind veteran employment programs and effective ones at that. However, should we be expanding it and authorizing for 5 years this program, VET-TEC, when we are allowing a $6 million program to care for homeless veterans, to get them off the streets, to expire?

It is a rather rich situation that my colleagues want to expand spending and spend more on a program whose urgency is really in question because the Biden economy, as I explained, has brought veteran unemployment to its lowest levels ever. They want to expand spending in that program by an enormous amount, yet they want to eliminate $6 million in authorizations to take care of our homeless veterans. This makes no sense at all to me.

I support the chairman's bill, but I hope he will work with us to solve this problem in a matter of days and not months.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call up the bill (H.R. 764) to require the Secretary of the Interior to reissue regulations removing the gray wolf from the

list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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 insert extraneous material on H.R. 764.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 764, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert). This bill instructs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue its 2020 final rule delisting the gray wolf from the endangered species list in the lower 48 States.

Defining success under the Endangered Species Act is crucial not only for species but also for landowners. Understanding recovery goals and accurately measuring progress informs management actions needed to improve a species' health and habitat. When a species is recovered and is a candidate to be delisted, the achievement should be celebrated.

Mr. Speaker, by every definition, the gray wolf is a recovered species and should be celebrated as an ESA success story.

Gray wolf populations are healthy and thriving in every region where they are currently found. The Great Lakes region has the largest concentration of gray wolves in the lower 48 States, with approximately 4,200 wolves that inhabit the States of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The recovery plan and criteria for delisting the gray wolf in the Great Lakes is clear. The region must have a stable or increasing population of wolves in Minnesota and at least 200 wolves outside of the Minnesota population.

According to former wildlife biologist at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Nathan Roberts: ``These goals have been met since at least 1994.'' He went on to say: ``It is remarkable to note that given the natural lifespan of wolves, every wolf on the landscape in the Great Lakes region was born long after recovery goals were met.''

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

Backing up this record of success, in February, the Service announced it had denied two petitions related to the gray wolf, one calling for wolves to be relisted in the Northern Rocky Mountains ecosystem and another calling for wolves to be relisted in the entire Western United States. In denying these petitions, the Service stated wolves are ``not at risk of extinction in the Western United States now or in the foreseeable future.''

The Service also stated that wolf populations in the Western United States had a healthy abundance, retained genetic diversity, had the ability to respond to high mortality events, and maintained adaptive capacity.

This announcement, coupled with the fact that most wolves in the Western United States are in States where they have already been delisted, shows that States are responsibly managing their wolf populations.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the House of Representatives debated wolf management. In 2011, Congress directed the Service to reinstate a 2009 rule that delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana and prohibited judicial review.

In fact, delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48 States has bipartisan support. In 2013, the Obama administration proposed delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48 States. The Biden administration is currently appealing the Federal court orders that are preventing the 2020 delisting rule from taking effect. This is a rare occurrence where the Biden administration is actually defending an action taken by the Trump administration.

In 2018, the House of Representatives passed language similar to the bill before us today with the support of nine Democrats, some of whom are still in Congress. Yet, we are here again, pursuing a delisting that should have been accomplished long ago.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to celebrate the recovery of the gray wolf and support its delisting and the legislation that is before us today. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to point out that although the accusations have been made that hunting would adversely affect the populations of wolves, that is contrary to proven data that we have from all species that are hunted.

In particular, in each State where wolves have been delisted, there is a State management plan in place that has been proven to be effective in managing wolf populations. Each State recovery plan calls for wolf populations to remain well above recovery goals, and science from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proves that wolf populations remain healthy post-delisting.

While States may vary on population and size management, they all plan for and set policies to have a sustainable and secure population. To be clear, a reduction in population size is not the same as eliminating a population. Each State recovery plan calls for wolf populations to remain well above recovery goals.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert), the sponsor of the legislation.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the only rule or the only science that this bill would maybe not hold up to is the political science that is being pushed back and forth in this Chamber today.

If you look at real wildlife management, we know that maintaining healthy populations of wolves also affects other species.

I would say if you could talk to an elk or a deer, you might ask them if a wolf is a violent killer or talk to somebody's cattle because they do kill. They are apex predators.

We need them in the ecosystem, but we have to manage those numbers. Just because a species hasn't been recovered in its native range doesn't mean that that species should be on the endangered species list. If that were so, we would have black bear and elk on the endangered species list.

The real science data shows that delisting the wolf and letting States manage the wolf population, and we are not talking about wiping out the wolf population, we are talking about maintaining it at healthy levels, that is what would be best for the wolf and for all others concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

Mr. Speaker, running down any kind of animal and running over it with a vehicle is not considered hunting in any jurisdiction that I know of.

That is illegal, it should not be tolerated, and it shouldn't be used as an example of why wolves shouldn't be managed using traditional hunting methods and letting States manage those populations.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. The gray wolf is a recovered species. The administration is ignoring the facts. They are derelict in their duties, and it is time for Congress to act.

As we have heard from Members today, the impacts of an unmanaged wolf population are growing and will continue to grow as long as the administration doesn't take action. That is why Congress must take action.

I want to emphasize that passing this bill does not declare open season on wolves, as some would have you believe. Rather, it puts the management of wolves where it should be, with State game and fish departments. They are the ones who are best able to manage the wildlife in their State.

My colleagues across the aisle talk a big game about supporting State fish and wildlife agencies, but as we see here today, when the rubber meets the road, really talk is all that it is.

Today, by passing this bill, Congress would celebrate an ESA success story and confirm what three successive Presidential administrations of both political parties have tried to do. It is time for every Member of this Chamber to reject the political science, examine the facts, trust the facts, and delist the gray wolf.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Boebert for her leadership on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1669) to amend title 38, United States Code, to make permanent the high technology pilot program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1669, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Representative Ciscomani's bill, H.R. 1669, as amended. The bill would enhance the fund, the VET- TEC pilot program at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VET-TEC pilot program was coauthored by Speaker McCarthy and Congressman Ro Khanna in the Forever GI Bill in 2017.

Now, this program provides post-9/11 GI Bill-style benefits to veterans so they can attend short-term training that leads to jobs in the information technology sector. The education and employment program has been a wildly successful program. It has helped thousands of veterans not only find a job, but a career and a promising future in the technology sector.

This program is an example of a government program that truly works for our veterans. VET-TEC has an 80 percent graduation rate, a 62 percent employment rate, and an average salary of $65,000 a year. Veterans using this program are going into careers with the best tech companies in the world.

The reason this program works as well as it has, I think, is that the schools only receive the full amount of the tuition and fees when the student gets a job in the tech industry.

Now, this level of accountability is honestly something I think we should be looking at for other Federal Government programs. Thousands of veterans achieving the career of their dreams has proven to me that it is time to expand VET-TEC.

Now, Representative Ciscomani's bill makes important changes to the pilot program to make it even stronger so that it can continue to help even more veterans find their American Dream. Improving VET-TEC program has the full support of the VA and many veteran service organizations.

Three weeks ago, VET-TEC providers told us that the program had run out of funds and they are no longer allowed to accept new students. Over 2,500 student veterans will miss out on the chance for a better career this year if Congress is unable to fix this problem. It goes without saying, the time is short and the need to help our veterans continue to access this training is great.

Even with record-high inflation and soaring interest rates, because of the Biden administration, veterans using this program have shown that they can still achieve high-paying jobs.

Representative Ciscomani's bill, as amended, also includes several other bipartisan bills, including General Jack Bergman's bill, H.R. 234, which would allow survivors of veterans to receive the burial allowance benefit if their loved one passes away at home while receiving VA Hospice care, rather than in a VA facility.

Representative Arrington's bill, H.R. 1169, would also allow veterans to receive their GI Bill electronic notifications virtually.

Representative Obernolte's bill, H.R. 746, would include nondegreed pilot programs into the Veterans Readiness and Employment program.

Representative Van Orden's bill, H.R. 1798, would protect the spouses of servicemembers from GI Bill debt.

Representative Kiggan's bill, H.R. 1635, would eliminate a nearly 70- year-old rule that limits the GI Bill payments that survivors and dependents receive in the Philippines.

With the inclusion of these bills in H.R. 1669, we would make great improvements in how our veterans can use the GI Bill benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Student Veterans of America, Veterans of Foreign War, The American Legion, the VET-TEC Working Group, and Disabled American Veterans for supporting the proposed legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1669, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I understand the concerns expressed by the minority, I point out that the program has been a huge success in helping veterans gain meaningful employment.

We have been very successful in recent years in reducing veterans' unemployment, and now is not the time for us to take our foot off the gas. I believe a successful education program, such as this one, is one of the best ways to reduce veteran homelessness.

Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that the minority has had ample time and opportunity to express their concerns of legislation hearing on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am getting to my answer.

Mr. Speaker, they were also given a chance to submit markup at a full committee markup, and yet, the first time I have heard these concerns was late last week.

The bill, through regular order, as amended, was offered for the minority Representative, Mr. McGarvey, to reduce the length of time in the program. That amendment was accepted and included in the bill.

The length of the program was subject to bipartisan agreement. I recognize that the minority has valid concerns about spending and limited resources that we have worked with. The problem was made worse with the passage of the Toxic Exposure Fund, the PACT Act, that requires mandatory spending for many of the VA programs.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat my plea that my friends on the other side of the aisle join me in developing a resolution to the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I will address veterans homelessness, as I have always said I would. It is very concerning to me. We are currently working on a package to address the issue, but I am not going to pit one group of veterans against another. I would like my friends in the minority to work with me to develop legislation to address veteran homelessness in a bipartisan, fiscally responsible way over the next few months.

The answer is yes, we will work with you, but we have got to actually sit down and work together to figure out the problem of the expense and knowing how it is and where it is that we make the investment that still balances. That is the answer that I will give to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I will, and we will, work on this priority. What we can do is chew gum and walk at the same time, and that means we can go ahead and not only work on homelessness but also this bill, as important as it is. I appreciate the gentleman's concern, but believe me, our side of the aisle has just as much concern about our homeless veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani), the sponsor of the main part of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).

Mr. Speaker, one thing that needs to be very, very clear, the Bergman bill does not have a TEF issue, a toxic exposure fund issue. That is where the concerns are.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to say a couple of things that I have said on this House floor before. I am going to say them again.

The gentleman referred to our cutting veterans. Actually, we are increasing over the President's budget. We will get more into that later this week in committee.

Let me also say this, Mr. Speaker. I will repeat my plea right now that our friends on the other side of the aisle join me in developing a solution to an issue that he has decided is not anything more than a political ploy, trying to say that we are going to cut benefits by straightening this problem out.

We are not. We will not. Let me say this again on this floor: Veterans are not being cut, period.

This is a good piece of legislation. It is bipartisan.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all the people on our side of the aisle and on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I don't think I have encountered such an amazing display of ignorance regarding the nature of a wolf until this afternoon. A wolf is not a pet dog. It is not some schnauzer, golden retriever, or dachshund. It is, truth of the matter, a natural-born killer. That is what it does for a living. That is how it stays alive. It kills things. It eats them. It does not kill them in a kind and humane fashion. It is a wolf. We would be led to believe otherwise by what we have been hearing from the other side of the aisle.

It is obvious to me, from those who have suggested, ranchers are apparently not to be concerned about. Having not grown up on a ranch, as did I, they don't have a clue about what it is like to have to get up in the middle of the night to try to go out and protect your livelihood from nocturnal killers like wolves. They don't get it. They don't want to get it. They don't want to understand it because they don't have to.

The people I represent do have to deal with wolves back in Oregon. It is some of the most awkward situations. Highway 395 cuts my district basically in half. My district, by the way, Congressional District Two in Oregon, is bigger than the State of Washington. It is bisected by this highway. On one side the wolves are listed, and on the other side they are not. In some places, this highway runs right through the middle of a single-ownership ranch. Hence, you can imagine when the wolf kills an animal on one side where it is protected and runs to the other where it is not or vice versa. That is hardly a situation that benefits folks trying to make a living.

To suggest that there is a balance in Yellowstone, you haven't read the most recent report about Yellowstone apparently. You should. There is some argument that the wolf brought some sort of natural balance back to Yellowstone. Not true. Read the report.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question: How many wolves is enough? We have about 250, something like that, wolves in Oregon, 25 packs. That has been determined to be adequate for the survival of the wolf. That is enough under the ESA. We have 2,500 to 3,500 in Minnesota. That is a few more than I think is necessary, don't you, Mr. Speaker?

We have 60,000 wolves in Canada, and the number is growing because it is almost impossible to slow the growth down. We have 5,000 to 6,000 wolves in Alaska.

Mr. Speaker, how many wolves is enough? That is really the question we should be asking, because the Endangered Species Act doesn't require an abundance of these natural-born killers. It requires enough that we still have them around. No one is disputing that.

To suggest that 90 percent of the wolves were killed in Idaho, not true. There are over 1,000 wolves still in Idaho to this day. The exact count is difficult.

Wolves are smart. They are intelligent creatures. They learn, and it becomes more and more difficult to control them. The reason they need to be delisted is so that we have some means of controlling an apex predator. An apex predator is one of these things that once you have them, they are very hard to control. Being listed makes it almost impossible.

It is odd when we have language in the report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that states unequivocally--I will read you page 15 of the report dated February 1 of 2024: ``Specifically now and into the foreseeable future, wolves are likely to retain a healthy level of abundance. Given the assumptions in our model, our analysis of our model projections indicates that there is no risk of quasi-extinction in the next 100 years under any of our future scenarios.''

This is U.S. Fish and Wildlife talking: ``More specifically, according to the population protections for the forecasting model, which incorporates Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming's minimum management commitments since delisting, we project there would be at least 739 wolves throughout Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming for the next 100 years.''

Mr. Speaker, of course we need the delisting. It is the way that we are going to be able to protect, if at all, and control the number of wolves that now inhabit the United States.