Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act of 2026

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, how long should the American people have to wait for our prices to come down? Republicans promised that prices would come down on day one. That was 589 days ago, coming up on 2 years.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my Republican colleagues again: How much longer do we all have to wait? Are they going to tell us, or is it a big surprise? Is it another week, another month, another President?

Mr. Speaker, when are my Republican colleagues going to take responsibility for the fact that they are in charge of everything? Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the executive branch. Hell, Republicans even control the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, because of Republican policies, the affordability crisis in the United States of America is getting worse. It is getting worse, so how long until they acknowledge that their stupid tariffs and their illegal war with Iran are driving up prices and making life harder for people?

Mr. Speaker, how long until the Epstein files are fully released? Some of us still haven't forgotten about that one or the fact that the files remain hidden and that Trump's involvement is being covered up despite congressional laws to the contrary.

How long does America have to wait until Republicans stop blaming everybody else and acknowledge that they have failed? I, for one, am sick of the gaslighting and the projection. I am sick of the broken promises. I am sick of the lies. I am sick of the corruption, the grift, and the greed. The people who I represent are sick of it, too.

Mr. Speaker, I do a farm tour every year. I represent a lot of rural communities and hundreds and hundreds of small- and medium-sized family farms that have been on the same land for generations. I heard a story about one farmer who is being asked to pay an extra $25,000 for a single piece of essential equipment because of Trump's tariffs. On top of that, the price of diesel is ruining their livelihood.

That is what this administration is doing to rural America, to small towns, and to the family farms that I represent. This President and this Republican Congress are destroying them. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are destroying them.

It is just as bad for consumers because Trump's tariffs, trade wars, and higher gas prices are getting passed along to us, as well. Gas is still over $4 a gallon. Ground beef is up 9 percent. Tomatoes and apples are up over 10 percent. Turkey is up 8 percent. Fish is up almost 8 percent. Cars are more expensive. Clothes are more expensive. Utility bills are more expensive. Everything is more expensive.

Inflation is killing people, and this Republican Congress has a bunch of bills today which will do nothing, nothing, nothing to lower prices.

I am going to talk about those bills in a second, but first let me say: Do you know who is not getting destroyed, Mr. Speaker? It is the rich, the powerful, and the well-connected. Those people who hang out in Mar-a-Lago are not getting destroyed. They are doing better than ever.

The multimillionaires and the billionaires are doing great, thanks to all the tax breaks that they got. Big Oil, Big Ag, and Big Tech get massive giveaways from Republicans. Some of those giveaways are in the bills we are considering today, one of which is a giveaway to the mining industry, and I am sure their lobbyists will get a nice, big bonus for getting that one across the finish line.

It is really gross. It is really gross. The rich and the powerful are doing better than ever while everyone else is seeing double-digit price increases, but don't bother trying to get Republicans to do anything about it. Let's look at their priorities so far this Congress.

Here is what they have been doing while gas is $4 a gallon. Let's see what they have been doing. They have been pretending to rename the Gulf of Mexico, pretending to rename Lake Ontario, pretending to rename The Kennedy Center, introducing a bill to put Donald Trump on Mount Rushmore, introducing a bill to make his birthday a national holiday, introducing a bill to put him on the $100 bill, introducing a bill to name Dulles International Airport after him, and introducing a bill to name the Washington Metro after him. I mean, you can't make this stuff up.

These are actual bills that Republicans have introduced; and let us not forget letting the President pilfer taxpayer money to build a tacky ballroom, a stupid arch, and fix the airplane that Qatar bribed--I am sorry, excuse me, donated to him.

That is the focus of this Republican Congress. That is what this Republican Congress is obsessed with: worshipping Donald Trump, while you stress out about how you are going to pay your mortgage or your kid's tuition or your parents' medical bills.

So, I mean, while they worship Donald Trump, the American people have to struggle with how they are going to make ends meet. And they are not getting any help from anything that is going on in this Chamber.

The big Republican push this week is repassing a nonbinding resolution that condemns socialism. They already passed it, and it already does nothing. So I am not sure why they need to pass it again, but that is their big, important bill this week. You just heard it from the chairwoman of the Rules Committee.

What is their definition of ``socialism,'' you ask? What exactly are they condemning? I actually asked Republicans last time around in the Rules

Committee to define what they are condemning. To define socialism if you will. You all might be shocked. Social Security? Republicans condemn that as socialism. Medicare? That is socialism. Medicaid? That is socialism. Public schools? That is socialism. Food safety inspections? That is socialism. National parks? That is socialism. Public transit? You guessed it. You guessed it.

They must really think Americans are stupid. This is the same old Red Scare bs. By their definition, anyone in the United States who supports Medicaid is a socialist sympathizer. I mean, is Joe McCarthy coming back from the dead?

This is insane. It is literally crazy that this is the garbage that we are talking about while people are seeing their costs going through the roof. People can't afford to make ends meet, and this is what this Congress is focused on right now? I mean, come on.

While we are on the topic of condemning political ideology that we disagree with, let me ask: Where is their condemnation of fascism? I mean, the Trump administration weaponizes the government to silence opposition. It attacks the free press, wants to invade our allies, shoots innocent people in the streets, dehumanizes immigrants by saying that they ``poison the blood of our country,'' calls political opponents ``the enemy from within,'' and let's not forget they tried to overturn a free and fair election in 2020. Is that not fascism? Where is their condemnation of that? Silence. Silence. Nothing.

Mr. Speaker, I don't envy the gentlewoman's task today. She has to defend a pretty lousy agenda, and I think she knows it. But I just wish we could get some acknowledgment from the other side that things are not all fine and well in America right now.

Prices are up. Inflation is up. Bills are higher. Life is harder, and it is because of this President's policies. Instead of acknowledging it, it is like Republicans are living in an alternative reality. I mean, it is like what happened to the Republican Party? It doesn't exist anymore. It is like a cult.

We do have an affordability crisis. That is just a fact. Instead of working with us to address it, Republicans are pretending like it doesn't exist. Instead, we get more culture war nonsense and more giveaways to special interests.

But November is coming soon. Mr. Speaker, November is coming very soon, and I think my Republican colleagues are getting desperate. I think they know that the jig is up. I think they know that the American people are about to hold them accountable for all of their broken promises. I think that is why you are seeing this last-ditch attempt to throw the kitchen sink of culture war issues at the wall to see what sticks.

This is a lousy, awful, rotten rule. And by the way, it is totally closed. Nobody can offer any amendments to anything in this rule. It may even fail because we had a bipartisan vote yesterday in the Rules Committee against this rule, so we will see what happens on the floor. But, come on, people are hurting.

I would say to my Republican friends: Your constituents are hurting. They want us to do something to help them. They don't want this. They don't want this. They want something real. So if you can give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires and you can bail out the Mar-a- Lago class, how about helping the average person, the hardworking men and women who are trying to make ends meet. That is what they want. That is what they expect.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from North Carolina's explanation, and I know that those are the Republican talking points, but I have got news for you. Nobody is buying it.

I mean, I don't know whether my friend was home talking to her constituents over the break, but I was home talking to my constituents. I was in other States talking to voters, as well, and do you know what? Life has gotten harder for them. Prices of everything are through the roof. And to the extent that any working person got a small tax cut while the rich got these big tax cuts, millionaires and billionaires got all these big tax cuts, to the extent that they got that, any little tax break they received has been totally erased by the cost of living and by high gas prices because of this illegal, reckless war.

By the way, wouldn't you think that Congress would want to exercise its constitutional prerogatives and actually debate the war in Iran and actually vote whether to authorize it or not? We have been forced to try to bring privileged resolutions to the floor to try to get any kind of a debate on this. There should be hearings. There should be a full vote on whether to authorize this and whether or not people want to go on record as saying we are going to spend over $100 billion on this stupid, reckless war in Iran. By the way, that resulted in the Strait of Hormuz being closed, which was open before the war began. We are going to spend the money on that, but we are not going to spend it on helping alleviate the high cost of living on people in this country.

This Congress is the least productive Congress in history. This has been a total failure, a total failure.

I would just encourage my Republican colleagues, don't take my word for it. Look at every public opinion poll, including those coming out by FOX News and rightwing influencers. They will tell you: Nobody is buying it.

One of the things that I have heard over and over again during the August work period was that the American people are rightfully outraged that an out-of-control AI data center buildup is wreaking havoc on their communities. Data centers are driving up utility costs and polluting water supplies, all while Big Tech reaps record profits. Yet, now with November on the horizon, some House Republicans are acting as if they did not turbocharge the data center buildup.

I mean, a year ago, Republicans were bragging about giving tax breaks to Big Tech in order to build data centers across rural America. You can check it out yourselves. It is section 70421 of the big, ugly bill.

According to the Republican chairman of the tax writing committee, this provision would: significantly reduce barriers for large-scale, capital-intensive projects in rural areas, most notably, hyperscale data centers. That is the Republicans.

That provision alone cost the American taxpayers $40 billion. That is money that is going to Big Tech to build unpopular data centers instead of lowering the cost of healthcare and housing or groceries.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article titled, ``Big, Beautiful Success Story: Rural America Rebound on the Horizon with New Opportunity Zone Incentives.''

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

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

Let me just say to my friend, the chair of the Rules Committee: You can't fool people. You just can't. I mean, people go to the supermarket. They have to pay their utility bills. They have to pay their rent. People are trying to see where they can afford a home.

I mean, they know what the reality is. To somehow say they are being beautiful, I mean, come on. That is ludicrous. That is assuming that people don't believe their real-life experiences every day.

She talks about the most productive Congress. I mean, 104 laws were passed in this Republican Congress. When the Democrats were last in charge, we passed 365 laws.

The issue is what do these laws do. We passed bills to try to expand healthcare for people. We passed bills to try to make sure that children had access to Head Start and to daycare. We passed bills to actually protect our environment. We passed bills to try to keep the world out of war. That is a big contrast to what we are seeing in this Republican Congress.

I would just say this: What Donald Trump has done with the acquiescence of the Republican majority is they have added a new tax on average people, close to $4,000. There is a $4,000 Trump tax on almost every family in this country. The people who don't feel it are the ones who benefited from the trillions of dollars in tax cuts given to millionaires and billionaires and big corporations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent also to include in the Record an article from Politico titled, ``Amazon's tax bill plunges after GOP tax cuts.''

Mr. Speaker, I am going to also urge that we defeat the previous question. If we do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 738, the Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act, which would ensure that all eligible voters in America have the option to vote by mail.

Mr. Speaker, President Trump has issued an executive order to undermine the credibility of our elections and to make it harder or even impossible for millions of Americans to vote by mail. We learned today from a whistleblower that Trump officials are defying court orders and pushing ahead with these unconstitutional plans.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind you, President Trump personally loves voting by mail. He voted by mail in Florida as recently as 2 weeks ago. To everyone listening, Trump wants to vote by mail, but he doesn't want you to be able to do so.

Voting by mail has been proven to increase turnout and reduce barriers to voting, such as bad weather, illness, disability, and long lines. We should expand mail-in voting to make it easier for Americans to participate in our democracy, which is what this bill would do.

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

I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Salinas) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an article from the Associated Press titled: ``US consumer confidence falls to lowest level in 7 months with gas stuck above $4''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an article from NBC titled: ``How Trump's economic policies are widening America's wealth gap''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record an article from CNN titled: ``Trump's tariffs are bigger than his tax cuts for most Americans''.

I say to the gentlewoman that I appreciate her reciting the RNC's talking points, and I would encourage her to keep on reciting them and bring that message home, to go home and tell the American people that things are great, that things are unbelievably wonderful, and that you should thank the Republicans in Congress and Donald Trump for raising the prices on everything.

Go home and sell that message to the American people. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we won't have to do anything.

The bottom line is that things aren't good for people. As I said, there is a Trump tax of $4,000 on average Americans. That is what they have to pay in additional costs for everything, from rent to healthcare to groceries to you name it. That is the Trump tax.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentlewoman how many more speakers she has on her side? We haven't seen any other than her. I am just curious.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

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

Let me, first of all, respond to something the gentlewoman from North Carolina said about Republicans trying to protect our children. I would just ask, where the hell are the Epstein files? We have forced resolutions on this floor to be passed, to demand a release of these files.

Congressman Massie came to the floor. Again, he has another resolution. Still, we have no compliance with the law. We know that this administration is up to their eyeballs in the Epstein files. When is that going to happen? When is that going to be released? I mean, talk about protecting children.

Mr. Speaker, you know when Republicans send us home this week, what exactly will be cheaper? Will groceries cost less? Will rent go down? Will anybody's electric bill shrink? Will health insurance premiums come down? The answer is no. Not one damn thing on the agenda this week will address the affordability crisis. Nothing.

Congress will have condemned socialism again. Mission accomplished, I guess. You know that tells you everything about the priorities of this Republican majority. Whenever the conversation gets uncomfortable, they change the subject.

Why are groceries so expensive? Socialism. Why are healthcare costs so expensive? They showed socialism. Why did Trump start another new war in the Middle East? You must be a Socialist for asking the question. When are you going to release the Epstein files? When is that going to happen? Socialism, socialism, socialism. It is literally insane. It is Trump derangement syndrome.

Meanwhile, the President's big win this week is pretending to rename Lake Ontario after getting into a trade war with our closest ally and neighbor. This is nuts. This Chamber ceases to be a serious body when we don't call this stuff out and when we don't actually bring bills to the floor that address the real needs of the American people.

The American people are not stupid. They know who is focused on listening to their problems and who is focused on playing political games.

We should be working to lower costs, period. Contrary to what Trump says, affordability is not a made-up word, and it does have a definition. People cannot afford to pay everyday expenses. They can't afford their groceries. They can't afford their rent. They can't afford to fill their gas tank up. They want lower healthcare costs. They want lower housing costs. They want lower energy costs. They want lower grocery bills.

They want an end to the corporate giveaways and tax loopholes that let big companies jack up prices and gouge consumers. You know, they want an end to giving these corporations the ability to cheat on their taxes and to avoid accountability.

That is what people want us to do, not fight absurd culture wars and debate far-right fringe garbage. If our Republican colleagues want to have another debate about socialism, fine, let's have it. Waste more time passing more nonbinding resolutions. At the end of the day, people are going to vote based on their bank accounts, pocketbooks, grocery bills, and gas prices.

People look at life through their kitchen window. They are tired of all of this bs that is being talked about in this Chamber. They are sick of a Congress that debates trivial issues passionately but important ones not at all. They want to know when we are going to care about them. They are sick and tired of a Congress that gives tax breaks to entities, that gives big donations to political parties and political candidates. They want to know when they come first.

My friends, you have failed miserably to deliver on your promise to make life more affordable for people. People are counting on us. They want us to do better. You have a chance. We will work in a bipartisan way to try to deal with some of these high costs the people are faced with right now.

No, we come back after a recess, and this is what we are dealing with. This is garbage. This is a waste of time. This is an insult to this Chamber. It is an insult to the American people. They will remember in November.

Vote ``no'' on this rule.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Congress returned yesterday from a long district work period where most of us heard a lot of things from our constituents. They told us about the grinding cost of groceries, gas, and healthcare and the instability their small businesses face

thanks to President Trump's trade war with Canada.

What is the House majority prioritizing this week?

It is a bill that will push a critically endangered whale closer to extinction. I don't think many of us heard this as a priority from our constituents.

H.R. 9436 would extend the regulatory pause on North Atlantic right whale protections from fishing gear entanglements through 2035. This bill sells our fishing communities a false promise. We may hear that kicking the can down the road saves the Maine lobster fleet. In reality, this bill would lock in a broken status quo that guarantees disaster for both our historic coastal industry and the critically endangered right whale.

Right now, fewer than 380 North Atlantic right whales remain on Earth, with only 70 breeding females. Over 85 percent have experienced at least one fishing gear entanglement, and since 2022, at least 31 whales have suffered severe injuries or death because of entanglements.

In late 2022, Congress inappropriately paused all additional measures to protect these whales from fishing gear entanglements until 2029. This pause was advertised as a stakeholders' window of opportunity to give NOAA time to partner with fishermen, States, and technology companies to gather data to test and deploy safer fishing gear, namely, ropeless gear.

Instead, that pause becomes a license for complacency.

NOAA is lying down on the job, dragging its feet, firing staff, axing science, and deprioritizing ropeless gear, perhaps because they think Congress will bail them out and kick the can a little further down the road. All of this is illegal, and all of it is causing massive uncertainty for the lobster fishery.

Now, 2 years ahead of the deadline, this bill would add another 7- year delay.

Instead of holding NOAA accountable, House Republicans want to freeze action until 2035, abandoning accountability and setting up our fishermen for failure. The solution already exists. On-demand ropeless gear reduces deadly entanglements of whales without sacrificing catch. We can have this fishing industry. We can protect it for the long haul with this win-win solution. Fishermen are actively testing and using ropeless gear right now. They have landed over 1 million pounds of seafood using these methods.

This bill, though, would destroy the market incentives to deploy these safer and innovative technologies, damaging consumer confidence in the environmental sustainability of American seafood. It would unfairly place greater conservation burdens on the other Atlantic coast communities, from Florida to Maine, who are actively trying to do their part to save this whale from extinction.

Mr. Speaker, let's stop pretending that House Republicans and this administration care about the fishermen, coastal communities, or these iconic whales. If Congress can arbitrarily grant a decade-plus statutory exemption to bypass protections for a critically endangered species, then the Endangered Species Act is reduced to a hollow success.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to fight for strong, sustainable fisheries and to defend Federal wildlife protection laws, reject this dangerous precedent, and vote ``no'' on H.R. 9436.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from more than 30 community environmental and civic leaders in New York and New Jersey urging Congress to defend science-based management of the North Atlantic right whale and opposing this legislation.

August 31, 2026.

Dear Members of Congress: As community, environmental, and

civic leaders based in New York and New Jersey, we write to

express our strong opposition to H.R. 9436. This legislation

would delay urgently needed protections for the North

Atlantic right whale for seven years, freezing management

progress until 2035.

North Atlantic right whales are regularly seen in waters

off of Long Island, New York and the Coast of New Jersey.

Migrating over 1,000 miles from their northeast feeding

grounds to their southern calving grounds, they have already

been recorded in the New York Bight and southeast of Atlantic

City, New Jersey this year. In 2024, scientists from the New

England Aquarium recorded 82 Right whales--including 56 in

one day--forty miles south of Long Island. This represents

nearly a quarter of the total population.

Extinction is permanent, and the crisis facing the North

Atlantic right whale demands immediate, courageous

leadership. With fewer than 400 individuals remaining--and a

critically low count of roughly 70 breeding females--every

single year of delayed action brings this species closer to

disappearing forever. The science is undisputed: accidental

entanglement in vertical fishing lines is one of the primary

drivers of serious injury and death for these whales, with

over 86 percent of living right whales carrying scars from

past entanglements. These injuries and deaths are

preventable, but only if

our national policy allows science-based solutions to move

forward.

H.R. 9436 sets a dangerous precedent by locking our ocean

management into outdated status quo practices for nearly a

decade. Specifically, the bill would prevent NOAA Fisheries

from developing and implementing science-based management

measures that could reduce the risk of entanglements, such as

modifying fishing practices in areas and at times of highest

risk, and expanding new technologies that both protect whales

and maintain fishing opportunities. Protecting endangered

wildlife and fostering resilient coastal economies are not

opposing goals. Pushing safety measures off to 2035 stalls

the momentum behind collaborative ocean stewardship, science-

based dynamic management, and crucial federal resources that

help both whales and coastal communities thrive.

Communities in New York and New Jersey have consistently

supported forward-thinking, science-based approaches that

safeguard our shared marine heritage while ensuring our

coastal economies can adapt and flourish. Halting progress

for another seven years undermines the work our region has

done to promote a healthy ocean ecosystem.

The North Atlantic right whale cannot afford to wait until

2035, and neither can the communities that care about the

future of our oceans. We urge you to reject H.R. 9436 and

stand up for the recovery of one of the most endangered

species on Earth.

Sincerely,

New York

Candis Whitney, Executive Director, Amelia Island Whale

Ambassadors.

John Balet, MS, SUNY Master Science Teacher, Ballston Spa

High School, Ballston Spa, New York.

Diana Hernandez, Managing Director, Beyond Plastics,

Albany, New York.

Carolina Korth, Co-President, Beyond Plastics Queens,

Queens, New York.

Nancy Tudor, Climate Steward, Beyond Plastics Schenectady,

Clifton Park. New York.

Michael Rosenthal, President, Capital Region Vegan Network,

Albany, New York.

Adrienne Esposito, Executive Director, Citizens Campaign

for the Environment, Farmindale, New York.

Barbara Heinzen, Member, Clean Air Coalition of Ravena-

Coeymans, New Baltimore, New York.

Christina Rupp, Ecological Artist, Ulster County, New York.

Jean Citarella, Leadership Team, Forest Hills Indivisible,

Forest Hills, New York.

Catherine M. Filloux, Playwright, New York City, New York.

Sara Gronim, Co-leader, 350Brooklyn, Brooklyn, New York.

Jennifer Vogt, Sierra Club Atlantic Chapter, East

Northport, New York.

Carl Safina, Endowed Professor in Marine Science,

University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York.

Brody Eggert, Eastern Long Island Chapter Manager,

Surfrider Foundation, East Hampton, New York.

Natalya Khorover, Founder/Educator, Repurposer Collective,

Mamaroneck, New York.

Jessica Welshans, Volunteer Member, Rensselaer Enviro.

Coalition, Rensselaer, New York.

Chris Allieri, Executive Director, NYC Plover Project,

Rockaway Beach, New York.

Barry Pendergrass, Volunteer, Religious Action Center for

Reform Judaism, Albany, New York.

Mindy Block, President, Quality Parks, Port Jefferson, New

York.

Megan Wolff, Executive Director, P-SNAP Network, New Paltz,

New York.

Rob Weltner, President, Operation SPLASH, Freeport, New

York.

Gail Tierney, New York Field Representative, Oceana,

Brooklyn, New York.

Saman Mahmood, Director of Advocacy, NYC Bird Alliance, New

York City, New York.

Joseph Butera, President, NE Ecological Recovery Society,

New York.

Susan Schwarz, Board member, LWV Riverowns, Tarrytown, New

York.

New Jersey

Casey Deacon, President, Alliance for a Living Ocean Surf

City, New Jersey.

Allison McLeod, Interim Executive Director, New Jersey

League of Conservation Voters, New Jersey.

Gregory A. Remaud, Executive Director, NY/NJ Baykeeper,

Trenton, New Jersey.

Doug O'Malley, Director, Environment New Jersey, Trenton,

New Jersey.

John Turner, Conservation Policy Advocate, Seatuck

Environmental Association, Setauket, New Jersey.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the chairman and others here, the facts are these: Since 2022, 31 whales have died or been seriously injured by entanglements.

Entanglements are a huge problem. It is not even in serious dispute. Eighty-five percent of living whales have been entangled at least once, and 60 percent at least twice.

In terms of the alleged progress in the past year or so for this whale, they are not reproducing nearly fast enough to avoid an extinction trajectory. There are right now more Members of the House of Representatives than there are North Atlantic right whales living in our ocean.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I was confused a moment ago because the chairman suggested that the effort to develop all this data and perfect ropeless gear is going really well. These investments are rolling out and this is all being taken very seriously, but here we have a bill that would shut all of that down 2 years early.

This is about running out the clock, Mr. Speaker. We were told that the 6-year pause granted in 2022 was for all these same things, for data collection and to allow time for collaboration and open rulemaking process, and more.

Congress invested $20 million in ropeless gear development, testing, and deployment. The States and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission ran programs for fishermen to test the gear, but under the Trump administration, NOAA has shut this down. They have been telling the New England Fishery Management Council to deprioritize ropeless gear.

This is not a process that is being taken seriously or that is going well and, therefore, needs more time. This is a stalling tactic that has already begun and is about to receive 7 more years by virtue of the Republican Congress.

This administration has not provided Congress, by the way, with the annual reports on progress toward 2029. That is required in the law. They are ignoring it. They have 2 more years to do their job. States need to finalize that data collection. We don't need another 7-year extension. We especially don't need this to happen 2 years earlier.

Let's allow this process to run its course and see what it produces. Then, if there is a compelling reason for a further extension, we could talk about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure why my friend from Maine just cited data from 2009 through 2018 to suggest there has been virtually no mortality. The numbers I gave are a little more relevant. From 2022 until now, we know that 31 North Atlantic right whales have either died or been seriously injured by the very type of entanglements we are talking about here--entanglements that would, if this legislation passes, somehow secure a total pass from the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act regulations for a period of 13 full years. That is not honoring these environmental protection laws. That is not upholding them. That is gutting them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

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

Mr. Speaker, the data--31 deaths or serious injuries from entanglements since 2022--comes from NOAA. It is available to Democrats and Republicans alike.

Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to reject H.R. 9436. This bill moves the goalposts and risks the extinction of an iconic whale that calls our Nation's Atlantic waters home.

Instead of taking the next 2 years to address the progress that has been made and additional policy levers that may be necessary to support a thriving lobster fishery and recover the right whale, this bill legislates blindly. It throws away momentum amongst the States, tech companies, and many fishery participants, kicking the can down the road. This is a shame.

I recognize that fishing communities around this country are facing extreme levels of uncertainty, and this administration is doing nothing to help. In the lobster fishery, families who have fished these waters for generations are asking questions about what comes next. H.R. 9436 presents a false choice between saving a native species and protecting their livelihoods.

This delay would undermine massive public investment. Since 2022, Congress has devoted an estimated $280 million to right whale recovery. We are beginning to see results from these investments. Advancing monitoring technologies have improved mapping of right whale patterns. Vessels are using trackers to avoid conflicts and, most importantly for this debate, ropeless gear now has a near-perfect retrieval success record and a critical safety feature. The man overboard system is now open source technology for ropeless gear developers.

By removing the 2029 regulatory backstop, this bill creates a permission structure that discourages fishery participants from engaging in cooperative research to obtain the answers they say are needed. Worse, it punishes the forward-thinking fishermen who have spent money and time transitioning their gear in good faith.

Lastly, the bill would extend that waiver without authorizing additional money. By delaying action until 2035 without any new funding, NOAA would need to write rules using obsolete data from the early 2020s.

Democrats offered improvements to this bill to ensure that lobstermen and their families would get the support needed to confidently transition to this

new gear, but Republicans rejected these improvements.

Our suggestions would have authorized additional Federal investments for on-demand ropeless fishing technology to ensure fishermen can keep working, while removing the deadly vertical lines that entangle, injure, and kill these endangered whales.

True leadership invests in modernizing our fisheries, not freezing our conservation laws in place while marine life pays the ultimate price. Allowing a species to go extinct on our watch is a moral failure that we cannot erase.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous precedent, stand with science, and vote ``no'' on H.R. 9436. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as if we didn't waste enough time participating in yesterday's purely performative exercise at the Rules Committee, here we are again.

After zero floor activity for the last 5 weeks, House Republicans have brought to the floor a nonbinding resolution calling for enactment of the SAVE America Act.

I was recently asked by a constituent: ``What is a nonbinding resolution?'' And I effectively said: A nonbinding resolution is a statement of how Congress feels, but it does nothing.

So here we are taking up a nonbinding resolution of how we feel. And in an ironic twist that would be comical if it weren't so sinister, this resolution, this nonbinding feeling of Congress, stokes fears of a repressive totalitarian dictatorship while in the same breath affirms House Republicans' obsession with subverting Americans' right to vote-- the same House Republicans that have ceded entirely Congress' constitutional authority to one single person.

Absurd doesn't begin to describe this.

This resolution, this nonbinding resolution, asks the House to condemn government ownership of private industry, yet under Donald Trump's administration, the Federal Government has spent almost $28 billion of American money acquiring stakes in dozens of private companies--$28 billion.

Now, personally, I believe in capitalism, but if my Republican friends want to debate socialism, they should start with the shareholder in chief who sits in the Oval Office.

Mr. Speaker, after hearing from their own constituents about the affordability crisis in America and the corruption in this administration for the past 5 weeks, House Republicans are wasting time on a vote for a resolution condemning a political philosophy, a resolution which has already passed the House, and calling for the enactment of a bill aimed at making it harder for Americans to vote--a bill which I also note has already passed this House. This bill would make it harder for married women and veterans to vote, a bill that would essentially gut mail and online voter registration, a bill that would force States to hand out voter rolls to President Trump's Department of Homeland Security.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised we are here today because one thing is clear: As costs are skyrocketing for American consumers, Republicans are afraid to face their constituents at the ballot box. The White House and congressional Republicans have failed the American people, and the only remaining option is to try to keep Americans from voting at all.

They want bills like the SAVE America Act to disrupt election administration and keep millions of eligible voters away from the polls. The President has issued illegal executive orders to block ballot access for millions of Americans, including an unlawful attempt to weaponize the United States Postal Service and eviscerate vote-by- mail regimes in States across this country because the President says mail-in voting is fraudulent, even though the President himself voted twice in the last few weeks by mail.

This administration has defunded and gutted the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, CISA, and its support for election administrators. And of course, the President and his allies continue to actively spread mis- and disinformation about the integrity of our elections.

Maybe that is the point: to cause a lack of confidence in our election writ large and get people to question the very legitimacy of our long tradition of self-governance.

House Democrats will continue to fight back because, despite continued efforts by the President and his allies, our elections are safe and secure. State and local election administrators, both Democrats and Republicans, not the President, will continue to run elections in this country. States will do it. Local and State election administrators will do it, not the President of the United States.

The courts will continue to reject unlawful attempts by the Department of Justice to force States to turn over their voter rolls.

As of earlier this month, the Department of Justice's record in these cases now is 0 for 23. There were 23 cases brought in Federal court, and the Department of Justice has lost every single one of them in their effort to force States to turn over voter rolls.

House Democrats' objectives are straightforward. Every eligible American must have a meaningful opportunity to cast a ballot, and those ballots must be counted fairly and accurately. There is nothing more important in this moment than our collective efforts to ensure Americans are given every opportunity to render their verdict in November, and despite the best efforts of House Republicans, we are going to make sure that happens.

Mr. Speaker, in a recent poll, Congress was found to have a 15 percent approval rating. Mr. Speaker, 15 percent of the American people approve of the job Congress is doing today. Some might understandably think that number is low, but frankly, after participating in this absurd exercise, I am surprised it is that high.

With all due respect to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, would this entirely symbolic resolution Republicans are seeking to advance today do anything to lower gas prices? Would this pure messaging bill do anything to make your groceries less expensive? Would this resolution do anything to hold all the crooks in the White House accountable? The answer is simple. It would not.

Promises were made to the American people, but they have not been kept. The American people deserve better than this. I strongly urge my colleagues to reject this resolution.

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

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

When the gentleman began to speak and said this was a simple resolution on socialism, I thought perhaps he hadn't read his own resolution because it also creates incredible barriers to people registering to vote in America and engaging in self-government, which has been the whole point of this Republic for 250 years.

I am glad he did indicate, though, that this is also including efforts to make it harder for Americans to vote.

However, I would say this: I know this is so important that we pass this resolution, except I would also remind the body that we passed this resolution a year ago condemning socialism, so we are doing here just the same thing. I guess next week we will do it again and again and again, but we have already done this, and we have also passed the awful SAVE America Act several times here as well.

Rather than focusing on gas prices and the ill-advised illegal war in Iran, which has raised the price of groceries and gas, which has spent hundreds of billions of dollars not authorized by the Congress, we stand here talking about a resolution that has two parts, both of which have already passed. That is what we consider a critical measure to consider, a nonbinding resolution today on two things we have already done in the House, but I guess that passes for progress in some people's minds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

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

I will just note that in the text of the resolution it talks about how socialist ideology necessitates the concentration of power, but the whereas is essentially any form of socialism. I am just sort of curious, as I read it, it denounces socialism in all of its forms.

I just ask the question of my colleagues. The current administration has entered into 39 announced deals, has invested $28 billion of American taxpayer money, and $8.9 billion of that was to purchase 433 million shares of Intel. We now have a 9.9 percent stake in Intel-- which sounds like socialism to me, the government control or ownership of the means of production--15 percent of MP Materials, 5 percent of Lithium Americas, and another 5 percent of its joint venture with General Motors.

Frankly, if it comes to government ownership of private industry, which it does, as a capitalist I said this, I actually voted on the resolution when it came before the House before, but I wonder: If the United States Government gets into the habit of purchasing shares and ownership of a chip manufacturer, Intel, does that mean when it comes to procurement that we are somehow compromised?

Can we choose another chip manufacturer to the disadvantage of American taxpayers because we are part-owners of the company that is competing for our business?

How will we regulate companies now where we have a vested interest in the profitability because the American taxpayers are part owners of that company?

I would have taken a little more care with the resolution because you would have to argue that perhaps the most socialist President in recent memory is Donald Trump because he is having American taxpayers own shares of private companies. I would think there would be a number of Members on my friends' side of the aisle that would have distress about such a measure taken by an American President.

I can imagine if Joe Biden was taking ownership of Intel how we would have heard people screaming about it, but they are oddly silent because the would-be dictator of America, the would-be king, has decided that he is going to invest American money in private companies.

I just would be curious to see what people's response is to that.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I share with Chairman Steil many things we agree on. He is a good friend, but his suggestion that this is about the concentration of power--concentration of power? What we have seen in the last 2 years is the concentration of power at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and a Congress that has done little to nothing about establishing our Article I prerogatives. When it comes to appropriations, when it comes to the impoundment of money, when it comes to the illegal activities in Iran, which has put hundreds of billions of dollars of American money spent over there, which has made us less secure, cost the lives of 18 Americans, that is a concentration of power.

We ought to talk about that. We should be having that conversation about Article I powers and reestablishing Congress' rightful role.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to talk about concentration of power, Republican Members, including my friend, have made clear the SAVE America Act would take effect immediately upon passage. With just 63 days before this election, this bill would upend elections in every State across this country.

Regarding concentration of power, Members of this body know that States begin mailing millions of ballots just 3 weeks from now, and yet, we would pass this concentration of power to put further power concentrated in the hands of one individual at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. How are these election administrators supposed to comply with this new Federal law should it take effect?

It is election malpractice, frankly. The committee heard months ago from an election director on the ground who called this effective date unworkable.

The purpose of this change, which is in this resolution, is clearly to throw election administration into disarray, because elections in chaos are easier to disrupt and subvert.

That is why President Trump unleashed an angry mob on the building on January 6, 2021, to create chaos, undermine confidence in our election system, and literally create a dangerous situation, all in service of overturning an election that he lost.

This change is irresponsible. It is the ultimate move to concentrate power in the hands of one individual.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Ramirez), my friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this floor this afternoon, we should be debating legislation to lower gas prices. We should be debating legislation to lower the cost of groceries. We should be debating legislation to rein in the most corrupt administration in the history of this country.

That is what I heard when I went back home in Rochester and spent the last several weeks talking to people who are fearing for the futures of their families, who are fearing not being able to pay their medical bills, who fear not being able to pay their mortgage, who fear having to make tough decisions about childcare and putting food on the table.

Instead, we are debating a nonbinding resolution. It is a nonbinding resolution which they said gives the sense of Congress. We have already given the sense about socialism less than a year ago. It has already passed this body, but we keep doing it. I guess we will keep saying it because we have nothing else to do and because we are not prepared to address the rising costs of gas and groceries and the challenges that families are facing.

We are also calling for the enactment of a bill that has already passed the House. This is the important work this Congress is taking up today, passing a resolution that calls for the passing of a bill we have already passed and calling for the enactment of a resolution which we have already enacted.

By the way, that bill, the SAVE America Act, would restrict access to the ballot box for millions of Americans, in particular, women, rural voters, students, and people of color. The SAVE America Act would effectively

end vote by mail in the United States. It would force States to surrender private voter information to the Department of Homeland Security. If enacted today, the SAVE America Act would instantly throw the upcoming midterm elections into chaos.

Mr. Speaker, House Democrats will continue to fight back because, despite the continued efforts by the President and his allies, our elections are safe. They are secure, and there is nothing more important in this moment than our collective efforts to ensure Americans are given every opportunity to render their verdict in November. House Democrats will make sure that happens, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1499, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 1490) providing for the condemnation and denouncement of socialism in all its forms, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crank) for authoring this very timely resolution.

Mr. Speaker, let's set the stage. Socialism has no place in the United States of America. Hard work and merit are the backbone of American Dreams, not socialism in government outcome and government control.

Our Nation is at a crossroads. Across the country, socialist policies are increasingly dominating democratic politics. Members of this body openly support key elements of the Democratic Socialists of America's platform.

The mayor of our largest city is a socialist. The U.S. Senator who was a leading candidate for the 2020 Democratic nomination for President is a socialist.

America has a choice. We can go down the path of Big Government socialism, or we can keep fighting to shrink government and help the American people keep more of their hard-earned money.

The resolution condemns socialism, and it exposes the radical policies of the Democratic Socialists of America's platform.

Let's quickly look through the platform. It supports giving the right to vote to 12 million noncitizens and criminals who are currently incarcerated. It supports ranked-choice voting for all elections. It calls for abolishing the electoral college and the United States Senate. These are radical policies, and they would undermine the integrity of the American election and destroy our democratic system.

Now, contrast this radical agenda with what Republicans support. We believe that American elections are for American citizens only. We are focused on making it easy to vote and hard to cheat. Our goal is to strengthen election integrity. That is why we are pushing commonsense reforms like requiring photo ID and citizenship verification when individuals register to vote.

Socialists are opposing these commonsense ideas because they fundamentally oppose securing our elections. Mr. Speaker, socialism is easy to elect, but it is nearly impossible to remove. That is because socialist ideology concentrates power in a way that has led to totalitarian rule, time and time again.

Here at home, DSA leaders have repeatedly described our bicameral Federal Republic as inherently undemocratic. Make no mistake, if socialists are given the chance, socialists will abolish our democratic system.

Mr. Speaker, socialist policies are responsible for the death of 100 million people worldwide. This resolution rejects and condemns this dangerous ideology.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I note my colleague said this resolution allows Members to state how they feel, where they stand. I think that is actually reasonably true.

You can pull out the Democratic Socialists of America program, and you can flip to page 15 and read through some of the highlights: defund the Pentagon, free Palestine with Jerusalem as the capital, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of legal status.

This is a chance, as my colleague says, to show how we feel and where Members stand. The American people will get to see. Do they stand with the Democratic Socialists of America or do they stand with democracy and freedom and oppose the socialist policies that we are seeing from the radical left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crank), the author of this resolution, to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis) to speak on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, per the comments that this calls out socialism and not communism, it calls out socialism in all its forms. So if the gentleman who just spoke dislikes communism, he has a great opportunity to vote for this resolution.

Per the commentary about election law, this is a direct contrast between the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America who want to dramatically change the election process in the United States of America. The Democratic Socialists of America want to change how we elect the President of

the United States. They want to abolish the Senate. They want to dramatically transform the democracy of the United States of America.

Why?

It is because socialism concentrates power. What they want to do is establish socialism, which is easy to elect but very difficult to remove.

That is why this resolution is so important. It is so the American people will know where their Member stands.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) to speak on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman asked what we oppose. You can actually just pull out the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America, and it is like shooting fish in a barrel of what we oppose: defund the Department of Defense; free Palestine, with their capital in Jerusalem; provide amnesty to all immigrants, regardless of legal status. The list goes on. We oppose a lot of it. That is why this resolution is actually very relevant.

The radical left is taking over portions of the Democratic Party. This isn't your grandfather's Democratic Party anymore. This is a new radicalized Democratic Party that wants to install socialism right here in the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McDowell), no friend of socialism, to speak on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, socialism is a promise that is going to make everyone equal, equally poor. This is why it is so important to stand up and vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Mann) to speak on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock) to speak on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this important resolution. A lot has been said here on the floor, so let's try to re- encapsulate what has been discussed.

It was just referenced about the importance of the price of groceries and the importance of the price of gas, and I couldn't agree more with the importance. If we look at the contrast between the policies of those of us on the right and how we want to reduce those with those on the left, I think the contrast becomes quite clear.

My colleagues on the left and the Democratic Socialists of America want government-owned grocery stores. That will not lower the price of groceries. My friends on the left want a Green New Deal, and it is right here in the platform. They want to end the use of fossil fuels. That will drive up the cost of energy for hardworking American families.

Instead, we should be continuing our work to unleash American energy, to lower the costs for American families. It is a clear contrast between those that support the socialist ideals and the socialist ideas and the Democratic Socialists of America's platform with those of our platform.

We talked about election law. The Democratic Socialists of America start with the premise that America has never been a democracy. Mr. Speaker, America is the world's greatest democracy. The Democratic Socialists of America want to replace the popular vote for President with an executive chosen by Congress. That might be one of the scariest parts of the entire DSA platform.

They want this body to choose the President of the United States of America, not the people. They want to strip that power away from American citizens and instill that power here in Washington, D.C.

They want to allow noncitizens to vote. In their platform, they would allow all permanent noncitizens of the United States of America to vote. I believe, and my colleagues believe, that U.S. elections should be for U.S. citizens only.

If we want to see how this plays out, I can look right here in our Nation's Capital in Washington, D.C., where under current law noncitizens residing in Washington, D.C., can vote in municipal elections.

Let's just set this clear as to how extreme this is. An individual working in the Russian Embassy could walk out with a passport in their pocket, not need to show up because they don't require photo ID in our Nation's Capital, walk to the polls, and in 9 weeks from today cast their ballot for Mayor in Washington, D.C.

That is the current law. Noncitizens are allowed to vote in municipal elections in Washington, D.C., and the DSA platform lays out what their plan is to allow noncitizens, millions of noncitizens, to vote in American elections, but they want them all to vote.

How do we know that? You can turn the page to other sections of their platform where they want to provide amnesty for every illegal alien in the United States of America. They want to allow them to be a U.S. citizen then they can all vote.

We can see exactly what the playbook is of the Democratic Socialists of America.

The list goes on. They want aggressive taxes on successful individuals. They want to abolish the Senate. The list goes on as to where the Democrat ideas are, and they call it Democratic socialism, probably because stealing doesn't poll terribly well, Mr. Speaker.

This is a stark contrast between where the radical left and the Democratic Socialists of America want to take this country and where we believe and know this country needs to go. In particular, I am making sure that we have election integrity. We can see in the platform of the DSA exactly how they would gut the election integrity provisions that we rely on.

They want to allow noncitizens to vote. They want to drive forward a socialist agenda. As I remind everyone, it is very easy to vote socialism in. It is very difficult to remove socialism. It is why this resolution is so important so the American people know exactly where their Member stands.

Shortly here today, we will be able to vote on this resolution and everyone in the United States of America will know where their Member in the United States House of Representatives stands.

Do they stand with the Democratic Socialists of America who want socialism to drive forward in the United States of America, or do they stand with the freedoms and liberties that we know and cherish here in the United States of America?

Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for this resolution, to stand up against the evils of socialism, and to stand in support of the greatest country in the world, the United States of America.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1499, I call up the bill (H.R. 9436) to amend the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 to extend the time period for which certain regulations concerning the North Atlantic right whale are effective, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 9436.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 9436, the Northeast Lobsterman Protection Act, which will protect one of the world's most iconic fisheries and the American jobs, communities, and families that depend on it.

In Maine, lobster accounts for 75 percent of the total value of the State's commercial fisheries, supporting an estimated $2 billion in economic activity and 17,500 jobs.

While critical to the State's economy, a robust lobster industry isn't just about dollars and cents. It is about individuals, families, and communities whose stories and traditions are directly tied to this industry that has operated for more than 70 years.

However, Maine lobstermen have faced tremendous adversity over the past several decades. The American lobster fishery has been under attack from radical groups determined to end this way of life. These serial litigants have pushed for a regulatory regime that could shut down the entire fishery.

For nearly 30 years, the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team has overseen the Maine lobster and Jonah crab fisheries. They have implemented and updated a take reduction plan with extensive regulatory requirements designed to minimize the fishery's impact on North Atlantic right whales. What they are doing is working. For decades, the industry has led conservation efforts to reduce right whale entanglements in their gear.

Despite the American lobster fishery virtually eliminating its impact on right whales, the take reduction plan has faced repeated litigation, leaving the industry subject to regulatory whiplash. The American lobster fishery has been subject to four different biological opinions between 2010 and 2021, with ever more draconian restrictions.

When the National Marine Fisheries Service issued its most recent biological opinion in 2021, unsurprisingly, the radical groups remained dissatisfied and continued to litigate. At the same time, Maine's Democratic Governor, Janet Mills, and the lobster industry argued that NOAA failed to utilize the best available science.

Facing new regulations that threatened to shut down the entire fishery, the Maine delegation worked on a bipartisan basis in December 2022 to enact a regulatory pause for the American lobster and Jonah crab fisheries. This pause provided ESA and MMPA coverage for the American lobster and Jonah crab fisheries through 2028, providing the State and the industry more time to develop new gear innovations, prudent conservation measures, and conduct more research on the fishery's interactions with right whales.

Since then, the State of Maine, the industry, and other scientific and research bodies have made progress, investing more than $90 million in research. However, it is clear that more time is needed to gather the necessary data and incorporate it into final regulations. Representative Lawler's bill would provide MMPA and ESA coverage for these fisheries through 2035, providing the necessary time to get these regulations right without the threat of more frivolous litigation.

I thank Representative Lawler for carrying this legislation, and also I recognize the gentleman from Maine, Representative Jared Golden, for his tireless leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler), who is the lead sponsor of this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a link to letters of support from the State of Maine Department of Marine Resources, the National Fisheries Institute, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, New England Fishermen's Stewardship Association, Maine Lobstermen's Association, Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association, Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association, New Hampshire Commercial Fishermen's Association, and the Lobster Advisory Council: Https:// naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/binder1. pdf

Mr. Speaker, I will say that what is happening in Maine is working. We should be celebrating this. We have seen a slight 2.1-percent increase in the population of right whales over the past 4 years. There has been one right whale death in the last, I think, 20 to 25 years attributed to Maine fishing gear. This is an example of how government and industry can work together to protect the fishery, plus continue this economic activity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), the chair for the Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, NOAA is in the process of building out an acoustic network that can provide near real-time whale locations along the entire East Coast. Meanwhile, NOAA has contracted with a private company to evaluate 11 technologies that have real potential to reduce threats to whales and identify their locations in real time. While several of these are fully mature, many promising technologies are close but need more time.

My colleagues across the aisle would have you believe that the only solution

is immediate deployment of ropeless gear, which creates unnecessary safety risks for lobstermen.

We can protect America's lobstermen and the right whale. This bill strikes the right balance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Begich), who represents our country's largest and most productive fishery.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am confused by arguments coming from the left. They started off today talking about high prices and the cost of food. What is their solution? They want to shut down another U.S. industry. They want to shut down seafood production.

We are already 80 percent dependent on foreign imports. Their solution is to reduce penalties on Canada and other countries that are our seafood suppliers, shut down 17,500 American jobs, shut down a $2 billion industry in the State of Maine, and ship more of our money overseas to other countries and let them supply our seafood. They don't have near the protections that we have for our other species. There is a lot of flawed logic in the argument that they are trying to make.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden), who understands Maine lobster fisheries more than anybody else probably in this town.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the argument for the motion to recommit reminds me of what President Reagan said--this is the Democrat philosophy--if it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops, then subsidize it.

Unfortunately, if it stops, who we are going to be subsidizing are foreign countries that we are importing seafood from.

To correct the record, it is not 1,700 jobs in Maine; it is 17,000 jobs in Maine--over 17,000 jobs.

We are talking about a serious economic impact, and we are also talking about the fact that what is happening right now is working. Why continue to regulate it? Why put more burdens on Maine lobstermen who are in a tough situation, as fishermen are, around the world?

So the solution is to regulate them more? It is like, hey, we see you are having a hard time, so let's put some more regulations on you. That doesn't work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden).

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today would provide much- needed certainty to one of the United States' most important and iconic commercial fisheries, Maine lobster.

When I visited that beautiful State, I loved what they call it there, lobstah. When you think of lobster, you think of something that is woven into the fabric of the history, the ambiance, the beauty of Maine. When people from other States think of Maine, a lot of times what comes to their mind is lobster.

Passing this legislation will give NOAA more time to craft regulations to protect the North Atlantic right whale and will ensure that these regulations are based on the best available science and ensure long-term operational certainty for the American lobster and Jonah crab fisheries.

The legislation before us helps to advance the goals laid out in President Trump's executive order, ``Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness.'' The Trump administration has issued a Statement of Administration Policy expressing support for identical legislation, which I include in the Record.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 8509--Amending the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 to Extend

the Time Period for which Certain Regulations Concerning the North

Atlantic Right Whale are Effective, Rep. Golden, D-ME

The Administration strongly supports passage of H.R. 8509,

which would extend the time period, from 2028 until 2035, for

which the Department of Commerce's National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS) Final Rule amending the regulations

implementing the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (86

Fed. Reg. 51970) is deemed sufficient to ensure the continued

authorizations of the American lobster and Jonah crab

fisheries are in full compliance with the Marine Mammal

Protection Act of 1972 and the Endangered Species Act of

1973. It would also extend the requirements for the NMFS to

promote the innovation and adoption of gear technologies in

the American lobster and Jonah crab fisheries and promulgate

new regulations for the American lobster and Jonah crab

fisheries using existing and innovative gear technologies

until 2035. This bill aligns with the Administration's

priorities in Executive Order 14276, Restoring American

Seafood Competitiveness, to promote the adoption of new

technology and the productive harvest of our seafood

resources.

If H.R. 8509 were presented to the President, his senior

advisors would recommend that he sign it into law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Lawler for his leadership on this issue and recognize Representative Golden of Maine for his tireless advocacy for this critical industry on behalf of his constituents and his State that he loves.

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