Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 548) to take certain Federal lands in Tennessee into trust for the benefit of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 548, the bill now under consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 548, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Historic Lands Reacquisition Act, introduced by my friend from Tennessee, Congressman Fleischmann. H.R. 548 places approximately 96 acres of Tennessee Valley Authority land and permanent easements into trust along the shores of the Little Tennessee River and Tellico Reservoir in Monroe County, Tennessee, for the benefit of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

These areas include the Sequoyah Birthplace Museum, the Chota Memorial, the Tanasi Memorial, and land to support these properties and cultural programs.

The parcels placed into trust under the bill will primarily be used to memorialize and interpret the history of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is one of three federally recognized Cherokee Tribes and is the only federally recognized Tribe in North Carolina. Their ancestral homeland includes substantial parts of seven eastern States, including Tennessee.

The 57,000-acre Qualla Boundary is the name of the Cherokee Indian Reservation in North Carolina. In 1979, after the completion of the Tellico Dam by the Tennessee Valley Authority, or TVA, the Tribe approached the TVA about lands that are of historical significance to the Tribe that were impacted by the dam.

The Tribe and the TVA informally agreed to allow the Tribe to manage two easements in 1984 and 1986, including the Sequoyah Birthplace Museum.

H.R. 548 helps this cause by transferring approximately 76 acres of historically significant lands from the TVA to the U.S. Government to be held in trust for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.

It also places two permanent easements over TVA property to be held in trust for the Tribe to create recreational trails between the sites.

This legislation will give the Eastern Band greater control over their historic homelands and the opportunity to memorialize the history and culture of the Cherokee people.

Gaming pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act will be prohibited, and the bill also ensures that the TVA will be able to continue its river control and development activities to power the Tennessee Valley region.

I urge adoption of the measure, and I commend the gentleman from Tennessee for his continued work on this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann), the sponsor of the bill.

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

Again, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for introducing this bill, and I appreciate his tireless work on it. I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico and the minority support on this piece of bipartisan legislation.

I will say that H.R. 548 is a commonsense bill that facilitates greater control for the Eastern Band of Cherokee over their sacred and historic homelands in Tennessee. It ensures the protection of their timeless heritage, culture, and tradition, and gives them the opportunity to memorialize the history and culture of the Cherokee people.

The Tribe has worked with the Tennessee Valley Authority for more than three decades, and this legislation is long overdue.

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Fleischmann for his leadership and fulfilling a vital constituent service. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 423) to take certain land located in San Diego County, California, into trust for the benefit of the Pala Band of Mission Indians, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 423, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 423, the Pala Band of Mission Indians Land Transfer Act, introduced by my good friend from California, Congressman Issa, places approximately 721 acres of land the Pala Band of Mission Indians currently owns into trust.

The Pala Band of Mission Indians are in the southern California town of Pala, with the reservation totaling approximately 12,000 acres. While the Tribal economy is largely supported by agricultural enterprises, the Tribe also operates a 86,000-square-foot Class III casino and resort.

In the early 1990s, San Diego County voters approved a plan to establish the

Gregory Canyon landfill project on a 1,700-parcel of land along State Route 76 west of the Pala Band's reservation.

Plans for development of the landfill ceased when the original owner of the property fell into bankruptcy in 2014.

A successor company began exploring other development opportunities and began meeting with the Tribe to sell a portion of the land to the Tribe for cultural preservation as it contains cultural sites and components meaningful to the Pala Band.

In 2016, 721 acres were purchased by the Tribe. Pala Band Chairman Robert Smith testified to Congress that these acres were historically occupied by Native peoples and are the site of an ancestral village, rock art paintings, and ancient artifacts.

H.R. 423 does not affect any current land and water rights, nor does it impact any rights-of-way or rights-of-use that are currently permitted. The bill also prohibits any gaming pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on these lands.

Madam Speaker, I thank Congressman Issa for his leadership on this issue. I support the bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), the sponsor of the bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his tireless advocacy on behalf of his constituents, and particularly the Pala Band in this instance. I know he has worked on this more than just this year.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 423 is commonsense legislation, just like the previous bill that we looked at. It will enable the Pala Band of Mission Indians to protect their sacred land and ensure the protection of the Tribe's timeless heritage, culture, tradition, and history.

I thank my colleague, Mr. Issa, for his leadership and for fulfilling a vital constituent service.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the 1973 Vaster High School Basketball Team. Vaster High School was in Moscow, Arkansas, in Jefferson County, and at the time, had a population of around 600 people. Although a small community and school, this team had tenacious grit in the State Overall Championship tournament.

Back in 1973, the State of Arkansas decided state champions through an overall state tournament instead of having a state champion by different classifications, as it does today. In a 3-day tournament, Class B Vaster beat Morrilton, a Class AA school on Thursday, then beat Conway, a Class AAA school on Friday, and on Saturday, Vaster faced the Class AAAA, defending state champion, Central High School from Little Rock. It was described as a David versus Goliath matchup going into the game, and everyone expected a blowout win for Central. In the end, Central won the game by only 1 point. Though a heartbreaking loss, Vaster had put itself on the map, had persevered, and exhibited pride in the school, the town, and in the Cinderella run with its first-year head coach and group of fantastic players.

There is an event today honoring the 50th Anniversary of Vasters runner-up bid, and while Vaster High School is no longer in existence, the memory of the School shall always be bright because of the 1973 team who fought Central High for the state title. I would like to finish with naming the members of the 1973 Vaster High School basketball team.

Herbert Pryor (Head Coach), Andrew Carr (Assistant Coach), Cleveland Allen, Erick Biley, Samuel Biley Jr., Reddic Barkins, Rodney Crawford, (Trainer), Jimmy Dade, Carl Evans, James Evans, Tommy Evans, Roy Franklin, Jimmy Gladney, Ronnie Grice (Manager), Homer Jackson, Melvin Jackson, Jacob Jones (Trainer), Charles Petty, Rodney Ryce, Thomas Tarty.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank those who have remembered and are celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the 1973 Vaster High School Basketball Team. These young men will forever be remembered in the history of Arkansas sports.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service of Ms. Catherine Cook of Hope, Arkansas.

Ms. Cook has honorably served the city of Hope since 1990 and has been City Manager since 1996. Local officials like Ms. Cook are the backbone of America, as they assess and address the needs of their communities. As City Manager, she was instrumental in maintaining and improving the infrastructure of the City of Hope. She has also been active in the community outside of her work as City Manager. This work helped Hope flourish, and the impact of her projects are being felt daily by local families and businesses. Thanks to all that Ms. Cook has done, future generations of Hope residents will have a legacy they can build on and be proud to share.

Mr. Speaker, I thank City Manager Cook for her 32 years of service and dedication to the people of Hope.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the Fiftieth Anniversary of the creation of DeGray Lake. The 13,400-acre DeGray Lake was created when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) built DeGray Dam on the Caddo River for the purpose of flood control, electricity generation, and drinking water supply for the city of Arkadelphia.

DeGray Lake is vital in the economy of Southwest Arkansas. Thanks to the cooperation of USACE and the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism, DeGray Lake Resort State Park, is responsible for more than $36 million in economic activity and hundreds of jobs related to tourism in the surrounding area. DeGray Lake provides more than just economic and infrastructure benefits to the local populace, however. The lake also provides recreational opportunities such as swimming, hiking trails, camping, golfing, and horseback riding which are enjoyed by many Arkansans. And as we all know, the more time the public spends out in nature, the more we realize how critical it is to be good stewards of conserving our natural resources and the beauty of places like DeGray Lake.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for building DeGray Lake to serve the people of Southwest Arkansas and the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism for its work in helping preserve DeGray Lake.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the service of Mr. Joe C. Wise, Jr. of Sheridan, Arkansas. Mayor Wise is an institution in the city of Sheridan. He began his service as city Treasurer in 1971 and was first elected Mayor in 1988. For a total of 52 years, Mayor Wise has honorably served the citizens of Sheridan.

Local leaders like Mayor Wise are the backbone of America, as they assess and address the needs of their communities. Mayor Wise has been instrumental in the growth and prosperity Sheridan has experienced. One of Mayor Wise's top priorities throughout his time in office has been to improve Sheridan's infrastructure. This work has included expanding the city's wastewater system and paving all the streets in Sheridan.

Developing recreational opportunities for the people of Sheridan has also been a big priority for Mayor Wise. During his time as mayor, he created a system of walking trails and expanded the city's fantastic community center. To ensure the longevity and continued development of these investments in the community, Mayor Wise also focused his energy on working closely with Sheridan's police and fire departments to ensure that public safety was at the core of Sheridan's growth. This work has helped Sheridan flourish, and the impacts of these projects are being felt daily by local families and businesses. Thanks to all that Mayor Wise has done, future generations of Sheridan residents will have a legacy they can build on and be proud to share.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mayor Wise for his life of service and dedication to the people of Sheridan.

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

Madam Speaker, introduced in July 2022, H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act, would authorize a federally sponsored plebiscite to occur on November 5, 2023, and it would dictate to the voters of Puerto Rico three and only three choices: independence, sovereignty and free association, or statehood. If no one option receives a majority vote, there will be a runoff on March 3, 2024.

I cannot support this measure because of process concerns and wide- ranging policy changes that involve the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee, along with several

other House committees that haven't even seen this bill.

The Committee on Natural Resources has not held a hearing on this bill, nor have the other committees with expertise on complex issues of U.S. citizenship, taxation and entitlement programs, foreign policy, and many other matters. None of them have been given an opportunity to openly consider, debate, and amend this bill.

The question of Puerto Rico's political status is a life-altering decision for the people of Puerto Rico. Just as we would expect the people of Puerto Rico to deliberate its questions, understand its consequences, and accept responsibility for the choice, so should Congress.

These issues are far too important for this body to act without proper deliberation. Because of the hasty and secretive process that was used to develop this bill, it contains many concerning and unresolved issues.

The bill contradicts itself, offering Puerto Rico the promise of independence while prescribing actions that should be taken by the newly sovereign nation. How can you be independent yet have another nation dictate what your actions will be?

It promises the trappings of U.S. citizenship without the responsibilities of being a part of the United States.

It is unfortunate that we are here considering this legislation on the House floor after the majority has held backroom negotiations instead of open, transparent hearings and markups. A regular and open legislative process would have allowed Members of this body and the people of Puerto Rico--more than 3 million United States citizens--to fully assess what this bill proposes and what it means for this and future generations.

In fact, the majority made changes to the bill that had even less consideration than the version ordered to be reported by the Committee on Natural Resources in July, cutting backroom deals as recently as this week.

We learned this bill would be on the floor even before we had the text from the Rules Committee. We didn't even know what we would be debating when we learned this bill would be on the floor.

Madam Speaker, there is a favorite Latin expression of mine. It is lux et veritas. It means light and truth. This body, this Congress, and this Federal Government could use a lot more light and truth.

You see, without light, when you are in the darkness, you don't know what truth is. If you don't know what truth is, then you make bad policy decisions.

Unfortunately, the lack of transparency seems to be par for the course in Congress anymore. This bill should have been debated. It should have had light shone on it.

This is just bad policy. I don't see how anybody could read this bill and think that there are not problems with it, that there is not a lack of logic. There is incoherence in the text of the bill, and it is taking us to a position where we would make bad decisions.

Here we are, just a week after this Chamber was left guessing what would be in the final NDAA and while we are currently guessing what will be in a last-minute omnibus spending bill that will, no doubt, be rolled out in the dark of night. This is another example of what is so broken about this process, what is so broken about the way this majority has led.

If this majority were interested in helping Puerto Rico, we would be advancing legislation to address the reliability of the island's energy grid, ensure its fiscal solvency, repair its infrastructure, or meet any of the other tangible needs for the people of Puerto Rico.

We should be treating these U.S. citizens with respect and letting a full and robust legislative process in the light of day take place to address the status question and the many implications for the people of Puerto Rico and for all Americans.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 8393, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to be as crystal clear as I can. I think this is not only my position, but I believe it is the position of everyone in the minority--the whole Republican Conference and I would hope it would be the position of all of the Democratic Caucus--that America is not a symbol of darkness.

America is still a shining city on a hill. America offers more hope and more protections for freedom than anybody in the history of the world has offered and will continue to offer that. A country that is founded on the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot be considered a country that is a symbol of darkness.

I heard a lot of talk about colonialism. But passing a bill that tells a sovereign nation what its laws should be sounds a lot like colonialism to me.

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I thank the distinguished gentleman, the leader of the Democratic Party, for his remarks. I agree with many things that he said. I think all of us would agree with many of the things that he stated. I was with him right up there until the part about using D.C. statehood as a metaphor with Puerto Rican statehood. If the gentleman wanted to talk about the residents of D.C., we can talk about taking those residential neighborhoods and commercial neighborhoods in D.C. and putting them back with the State of Maryland if that is an issue. D.C. statehood is totally different from Puerto Rican statehood, and it shouldn't even be brought into this discussion.

The gentleman talked about the inherent right to self-determination. He said it is something that shouldn't be dictated by the Congress of the U.S. to the people of Puerto Rico. He said the decision belongs to the people of Puerto Rico. Their destiny belongs to them. I think we would all agree with that in principle, but that is not what this bill says.

Section 102 talking about the independence option. I am reading directly from the bill: ``The constitutional convention under section 101 shall formulate and draft a constitution for Puerto Rico that guarantees the protection of fundamental human rights . . . ''

We all agree that should happen, but if they are an independent nation, what right do we have to tell them that? It says it shall include: ``Due process and equal protection under the law; freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion; the rights of the accused; any other economic, social, and cultural rights as the constitutional convention may deem appropriate and necessary; and provisions to ensure that no individual born in the nation of Puerto Rico shall be stateless at birth.''

I don't disagree with that, but if they vote for independence, what right do we have to dictate to them how they write their constitution and what is included in it?

The other option of free association, section 202 of the bill: ``The constitutional convention under section 201 shall formulate and draft a constitution for Puerto Rico that guarantees

the protection of fundamental human rights . . . ''

Again, if they have the sovereignty under a free association, what right does Congress have to dictate what their constitution will say? The leader's words that their destiny shouldn't be dictated by the U.S. Congress. Their destiny belongs to them. Yet, this bill tells them what they shall do if they vote for either of those options.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

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

If there is one thing that I think has come out in this discussion is that there are problems with this bill. It is not a ``perfect piece of legislation.'' It needs work done on it.

But we have to look at what the bill says. The way this bill is written, if it were to pass today, if it passes out of this House and it went through the process in the Senate, signed by the President, then we have abrogated all of our responsibilities and authority, because it doesn't come back to Congress for any kind of approval.

So both sides have agreed, in a bipartisan manner, that this bill has problems, yet we are voting on it today to

say, with problems, that is okay; we are just going to go ahead and move it through the process, even though we have all recognized that there are problems with the bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

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

Our neighbors in Puerto Rico are American citizens. They are afforded the protections under the Constitution of the United States. I am from Arkansas. Arkansas was a territory at one time. There is a process for becoming a State.

The American citizens in Puerto Rico deserve the respect to have a process that has actually been thought out, that has been debated, and that gives them an opportunity to enter statehood in a way that is more common to the way other States have entered. This bill is not that. This bill has serious problems with it.

We are right here at the end of Congress. To me, this just looks like a political ploy as we are waiting to pass a massive spending bill before we go home for Christmas and start the new Congress.

Madam Speaker, in closing, it is obvious there is bipartisan support for Puerto Rican self-determination. That is not the issue. The issue is the process, and this is a bad process.

If this is so important to the majority, then I ask: Why today? Why today?

Less than 20 days before this Congress ends and Democrats transition to the minority, why bring this bill today?

Was there not time in the past 4 years to have hearings on this bill, to have other committees look at this bill?

But yesterday, we get notice of an emergency Rules Committee meeting to consider this bill that all of a sudden is so important, but it wasn't important, certainly not in this Congress. We didn't have a hearing on this bill. We had a markup, a markup without a hearing.

The committee spent more time talking about big cats. We had hearings on big cats, then we talked about Puerto Rican status. There are 10,000 big cats in the United States, and there are over 3 million Puerto Rican citizens.

That is why we are not supporting this bill today, and that is why it is disingenuous to bring it to the House less than 20 days before the end of this Congress when both sides have agreed that there are problems with the bill, problems that need to be worked out, but there is no recourse in this bill for Congress to have a second look at it.

We can't control the Senate, but I doubt very seriously the Senate is going to be taking up this bill. So that leads me to conclude that what we are doing here at the end of December, discussing Puerto Rican status, is simply just a political ploy on the backs of the

Puerto Rican citizens of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the exemplary work and upcoming retirement of Joe Liles, a law enforcement officer with the Ouachita National Forest.

Joe has faithfully served Arkansas for 30 years, going above and beyond in each mission to loyally serve the people of Arkansas.

Throughout his successful career, Joe received many awards, including the ``Delivering Benefits to the Public'' award at the 2019 Regional Foresters Honor Awards for his heroic efforts in locating and recovering a lost hiker in the Caney Creek Wilderness.

Joe's humble nature and hardworking spirit made him a vital part of the Ouachita National Forest. I speak for all Arkansans when I say thank you for your service and wish you the best in retirement.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the exemplary work of Mr. Troy Heithecker of the U.S. Forest Service and to thank him for his service to the great state of Arkansas. For 25 years, Troy has dedicated his life to protecting our beautiful national forests, and we were privileged to have him for the last three years as the Forest Supervisor for the Ouachita National Forest in Hot Springs, AR.

As the only licensed forester in Congress, I can confidently say that Arkansas is blessed with one of the most beautiful, well-managed national forests in the country, and that would not be possible without leadership from individuals like Troy. Throughout the course of his career, Troy has achieved many major accomplishments through his work in national forests across the country. Notably, he worked with the State of Arkansas and other partners towards co-managing both forest and recreation resources on the Ouachita National Forest. He also led efforts to successfully restore the Red Cockaded Woodpecker habitat, established national hiring reform for the USDA Forest Service, and completed two collaborative landscape scale project decisions on the Tongass National Forest in Alaska.

Troy was recently selected to serve as the Associate Deputy Chief for the National Forest System in the United States Department of Agriculture's Forest Service in Washington, D.C. Arkansas's loss is certainly Washington's gain. I am grateful for Troy's service to the Ouachita National Forest, and I look forward to working with him in the future. I thank Troy for his dedication to leaving our forests better than he found them, so that they may be enjoyed by all Americans for generations.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in celebration of William ``Chip'' R. Murray, for his retirement after a stunning 47-year career in service to two of our Nation's greatest resources: our forests and the millions of Americans who own and manage them.

After beginning his career at the U.S. Department of the Interior, Chip found his way into forestry in 1989. Chip focused on forestry issues for more than 20 years at the American Forest & Paper Association, where he served as Deputy General Counsel and Executive Director of Forestry. In that role, he oversaw forestry programs that helped forest owners manage their land to meet the objectives of the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. Chip also spearheaded important improvements to various legislation impacting the forestry sector.

In 2010, Chip joined the National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) as Vice President for Policy, and General Counsel. His work at NAFO over the last 12 years has focused on ensuring that policymakers understand and appreciate private forestry's deeply rooted culture of sustainability and the vast environmental benefits private working forests provide--from climate mitigation and clean air to clean water and wildlife habitat.

Chip's work on wildlife conservation is perhaps his most enduring legacy. Chip led the development of the Wildlife Conservation Initiative, a pioneering partnership between private landowners and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to conserve at-risk and declining species on private forestlands. Under Chip's leadership, NAFO's Wildlife Conservation Initiative has become the gold standard of collaborative species conservation. Today, NAFO members and the USFWS are partnering on voluntary conservation projects in every legacy USFWS region in the country.

Throughout his career, Chip has led and participated in a wide variety of forestry sector organizations and coalitions. He is widely known for his encyclopedic knowledge of forestry, his rich institutional memory, and the passion he brings to any issue he touches. Chip is generous with his time, insights, and mentorship, to the great benefit of several generations of forestry professionals.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the outstanding career of Chip Murray, spent in service to our nation's abundant privately owned forests. Today we honor Chip and the lasting impact he has had on the forestry community, both inside and outside of government. We wish him and Ellen well as they start the next chapter of their lives--enjoying many adventures that undoubtedly will include time well spent in the forest.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Robert Ficklin, forestry professor at the University of Arkansas at Monticello, for receiving the Society of American Foresters (SAF) Fellows Award. The SAF Fellows Award is the highest recognition in the forestry profession. It is a testament to Dr. Ficklin's lifetime of service to the industry and the Society of American Foresters in particular. Dr. Ficklin is only the third forestry professor in the history of UAM to receive this esteemed honor.

Dr. Ficklin has made extraordinary contributions to the forestry industry at a local, state, and national level. His service and leadership over the last twenty years at UAM has left a lasting impact on his students. His former students now hold professional forestry and environmental management positions in state and federal agencies, as well as various academic positions. Dr. Ficklin was recognized for his impact in the UAM forestry program by being the first forestry faculty member to become a finalist in the Hornaday Outstanding Faculty Award.

In addition to his impact on students, Dr. Ficklin has been instrumental in research and innovation. His research on forest soils in the Ozark uplands, the Western Gulf Coastal Plain, and the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley have been presented nationally. His research has resulted in numerous publications, papers, reports, abstracts, and presentations that will be used for many years.

I am proud to recognize Dr. Ficklin today for his many accomplishments and to thank him for his commitment, dedication, and service to the forestry industry. Dr. Ficklin's contributions to the forestry sector will be felt for years to come. Arkansas is the gold standard when it comes to forestry, and that is in large part due to forestry leaders like Dr. Robert Ficklin.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill along with the other suspension bills that we have worked with Chairman Grijalva to get on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to recognize the dedicated service of one of my staff members, Terry Camp, who will be leaving us next month.

Known affectionately as ``Turbo'' by his colleagues, he has certainly lived up to that nickname. Since starting on the House Committee on Natural Resources in 2015, Terry has had a hand in nearly 60 bills that have been signed into law. This total doesn't even account for the countless bills he has been a part of that have been enacted as part of various legislative packages.

While this is an impressive total, it doesn't even come close to the number of now-famous Capitol tours he has given, which he offers in both English and Spanish.

As our national parks staffer, he has visited numerous national park units throughout his tenure, frequently stopping by any nearby units on family vacations. That dedication has led to the creation of many new bills, including the Save the Liberty Theater Act which was signed into law earlier this year.

Terry's passion for public service is perhaps surpassed only by his passion for the Utah State University Aggies.

Terry exemplifies the guiding principles of my office by always abiding in love, competing to win, and succeeding through service. While we will miss him in the Halls of Congress, we wish him, his wife, Kayla, and their son, Elijah, all the best as they start the next chapter of their lives back in their home State of Utah.

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

Madam Chair, I am glad we are finally here on the floor today talking about an issue that is important to our whole country. I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado and his concerns about wildfires. I wish that we could work together on actually solving these issues in a manner and with policy that would actually do something.

I learned in engineering school that expending effort is not work. For example, you can push on a boulder all day, but until something moves, no work has been accomplished.

To put it another way, there is a saying that you should never confuse motion with action, which is exactly what the legislation before us today does. This bill is more than 550 pages yet does absolutely nothing to prevent wildfires or significantly improve our resiliency to drought.

This bill will actually make our wildfire crisis worse. Perhaps that is why my Democrat colleagues named it the Wildfire Response Act, instead of naming it the wildfire prevention act, which is what we should be focusing on because we will have to respond to all the wildfires that are going to happen anyway and the new ones that this bill creates.

Here is a little bit of forestry 101. There are two ways to reduce wildfire risk: thinning and controlled burning. This bill mentions thinning zero times. Not once does it mention thinning, but it mentions environmental justice 165 times. That should tell you what this bill is really about.

Instead of streamlining environmental regulations and addressing frivolous litigation, which delay vital forest management projects across the country, this bill would add mountains of new red tape on our Federal agencies that will grind their already glacial pace of treatments to a complete halt.

It would throw out the Forest Service's 10-year strategy to reduce hazardous fuels and make them completely redo this work less than 6 months after they started implementing their current strategy.

This makes you wonder if congressional Democrats disagree with the work of the Biden administration or if they have found the administration's work product is deficient and unreliable.

It would lock up 58 million acres of land into new roadless areas, despite research showing that more than half of all fires, including most of the largest fires on Western U.S. national forest lands, burn primarily in roadless areas, areas where land use restrictions mean that we can't thin and can't do management.

Instead, the bill would fund environmental volunteerism and provide N-95 masks and smoke inhalation equipment for homes, which I am sure will be of little comfort to people as their homes are burning to the ground.

Democrats will tell you this legislation raises wildland firefighter pay to $20 per hour. The only problem with that is that firefighters already make at least $20 per hour, meaning this so-called raise is an empty promise.

In the long term, the bill would write a check that it can't cash by setting up this new minimum pay rate with no actual money to back it up. The Forest Service has told us this means they would have to lay off over 610 wildland firefighters. Let me say that again: The Democrats' bill could result in the firing of more than 610 wildland firefighters who are putting their lives on the line to protect communities. This is a disgrace and will hurt our fire preparedness and response.

As if that weren't enough, the bill would create new pay disparities by leaving out 10,000 brave men and women fighting fires from receiving new benefits. That is roughly 40 percent of the Federal firefighting workforce.

Some of my Western colleagues will soon speak about the water provisions in this bill, but I want to say that the bill misses the mark on drought as well by proposing $4 billion in new authorizations and has unlimited mandatory spending.

Once again, the other side of the aisle is passing on more debt to our future generations, and we see what uncontrolled spending has done to our economy with inflation, high energy prices, high food prices, and, really, higher prices across the board.

According to conventional economics, we have had two quarters of economic decline, and we are in a recession. Why would we want to put more government funding and debt on our constituents? I do not understand.

It would also devote some of these dollars to studies, research, and environmental water restoration projects that will not provide any water in the near term.

It picks winners and losers in water projects, ignoring the need for expanded water storage reservoirs, the kind of infrastructure investment that has made the West what it is today and is necessary to ensure a drought-resilient future.

This bill offers a one-dimensional approach to solving the Western drought that has impacted the entire country through decreased agricultural production. Reservoirs operated by the Bureau of Reclamation provide needed water to 10 million acres of farmland that collectively grow 60 percent of the Nation's vegetables and one quarter of our fresh fruit and nut crops.

By throwing money at an issue and not recognizing that regulatory streamlining to expand water storage and efficiency of operations to promote drought resiliency should be part of this equation, this bill fails not only the West but everyone who buys food nationwide. Put another way, this bill fails every American household. This is bad policy and bad process.

Democrats cobbled together this 550-plus-page bill behind closed doors, and not one wildfire provision was marked up in the Committee on Natural Resources.

Republican Members made real attempts to provide alternatives and additions to this bill. Dozens of regulatory streamlining amendments that could have helped provide water or immediately prevented wildfires were submitted to the Rules Committee by Republicans, only to be ignored. Even the majority of bipartisan amendments were rejected.

This is an abomination of process, but it is nothing new that we are seeing on this House floor. If you were here last night, you know that a Senate NEPA streamlining bill was parachuted in at the last minute. It was put on the suspension calendar.

I hope this bill passes during the next voting series, but we should be doing NEPA revisions through hearings, through markups, and through regular order. If it takes getting one dropped in on the suspension calendar by the Senate, I guess we will have to take what we have got. But it would be nice if we could actually debate these and come up with more NEPA streamlining.

In the midst of historic drought conditions and what is on track to be the most devastating wildfire season on record, we simply cannot afford to confuse motion with action.

Madam Chair, I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this partisan package and, instead, work together on real solutions to prevent wildfires.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to point out those weren't my words. That was the information we got from the U.S. Forest Service that said there is no funding in this bill. If this bill passes without additional funding in the future, they will have to lay off 610 wildland firefighters.

Maybe there is going to be a bill in the future to pour more money into the Forest Service, but this bill doesn't do it.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture.

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

I know there is a lot of talk about the IIJA and what a great bill it was. It was the largest infrastructure bill passed in the history of the world. It was so important that it never even went through a committee here in the House. It came right to the House floor, and it seems like all we are doing is fixing it. We have a suspension bill we will be voting on later that fixes a problem that was in the IIJA.

I am confused why my colleague is pushing this bill that would undo much of the core work in the IIJA, including the $170 million that would go to his district under the current 10-year strategy.

I think it is another example of why we have to do regular order and why we have to bring these bills to committee.

We want to solve these problems, but you have to have real solutions to solve a problem. There are examples of how we can do bipartisan work to fix forestry.

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), who is working on bipartisan forestry legislation.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Madam Chair, many of the water and power users in the Colorado basin were not consulted on this $500 million Colorado River provision and don't even know what it would be used for. That is another reason why we should actually work on these issues in committee and have a bipartisan markup.

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

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

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

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

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

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Madam Chair, I know the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Hoyer, has left the Chamber, but I did want to personally thank him for putting the Senate NEPA streamlining bill on the suspension calendar today. I hope we can work on more issues like that in the future.

Madam Chair, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao).

Madam Chair, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

A poet named Joyce Kilmer wrote his most famous poem called ``Trees,'' and it begins with, ``I think that I shall never see a poem as lovely as a tree.''

Trees and forests are poetic. They tug at our heartstrings. They evoke emotion. And I sincerely appreciate the emotion that my colleagues across the aisle have. I really believe we want to get to the same place of having healthy trees and healthy forests.

It was that that motivated me to go to forestry school and study forestry. Little did I know that I would have the honor and the huge responsibility of standing on the floor of this august body and speaking for the trees.

We want to do the right thing. We know how to do the right thing. We know how to take care of these trees and take care of these forests.

Unfortunately, what is in this bill doesn't do that. What is in this bill doesn't help the water situation. We should not pass this bill.

Let's work together, come up with real solutions, pass them out of this House, and get them signed into law to help our forests, our firefighters, and our drought conditions.

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

Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), I offer amendment No. 1.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment.

Madam Chair, Leader McCarthy's amendment presents a commonsense solution. As he knows all too well from his efforts resolving water issues, communities in California and elsewhere in the West are running out of water for families, farms, communities, and many other needs thanks to natural and manmade drought.

This has a dramatic impact not only to those areas, but it negatively impacts food production which affects every one of us. In the case of some California communities, wells that are used to provide drinking water have or will run dry.

This amendment seeks to provide some relief to rural communities through the creation of a new grant program aimed at constructing new wells and waterlines designed to deliver drinking water to these communities. I thank Leader McCarthy for introducing this amendment and for his longstanding leadership on bringing balance back to western water policies.

Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's kind words about the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Conway).

Madam Chair, this is a commonsense, good amendment that the leader has offered. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to Schrier amendment No. 2 which would fund additional research for post-fire weather assessments.

This amendment suffers from the same shortcomings as the underlying package because it is overly focused on wildfire response rather than even making an attempt at wildfire prevention.

We know what is causing catastrophic wildfires, and it is not a lack of government agencies studying wildfires, tracking weather, and producing additional reports. Our forests are burning now, and we need to focus on real solutions; namely, accelerating, thinning, and prescribed burning. Adding more duplicative bureaucracy and unnecessary research will do nothing to stop our forests from going up in flames year after year.

Madam Chair, the forests really don't care what we say in this body. They are out there doing what Teddy Roosevelt said they do. They are the lungs of the Earth. They breathe in the carbon dioxide and they breathe out oxygen. We produce a lot of carbon dioxide in this Chamber, but it is not doing anything to help our forests.

Frankly, it is unserious that, out of the dozens of substantive wildfire amendments that were offered to the Rules Committee, this is the only one that was made in order. The Rules Committee even rejected bipartisan amendments such as the bipartisan Save Our Sequoias Act. We have lost 20 percent of the world's giant sequoias in the last 2 years, and perhaps the most famous giant sequoia grove, the Mariposa Grove in Yosemite National Park, was on fire earlier this month.

What saved that grove? It wasn't weather assessments. It was proactive treatments from land managers that we need to use as a model across all 76 giant sequoia groves.

Unfortunately, the underlying bill and amendment before us would do nothing to help protect our giant sequoias or move the needle on the wildfire crisis at all.

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

Madam Chair, more and more of or forests are going up in flames. More forests are being categorized as subject to catastrophic wildfire.

We are losing this fight. We need a new game plan. We need work on this in a bipartisan manner. There are a lot of areas that need to be addressed, but this bill, and this amendment doesn't address those.

I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to this amendment, even though I might not necessarily oppose it.

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

Madam Chair, I support this amendment and appreciate the solution it presents for a pressing problem. Currently, the Small Business Administration only requires collateral for disaster loans if the loan amount is above $25,000. This authority is set to sunset in November, and the minimum amount will revert to $14,000. This amendment would permanently lock in the amount at $25,000.

I thank the ranking member of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, Garret Graves, for his leadership on disaster issues. His home State of Louisiana has suffered through many disasters, and he has been an unwavering champion for his constituents.

And it is a good thing he is leading on this issue. Affordable disaster loans could be in high demand because the underlying bill does nothing to protect the landscape, people, or property from devastating wildfires. I would like to emphasize, the underlying bill would only respond to wildfires, not work to prevent them.

Throughout this debate, my colleagues have tried to claim that this is not the case and that their bill will actually support increased forest management practices like thinning and prescribed burning.

But look no further than their own one-pager, which says derisively: ``We can't simply cut our way out of wildfire risk.'' This should tell you everything you need to know about how they feel about scientific forest management.

The truth is that thinning is not only an essential tool to reduce wildfire risk, but there is a scientific consensus that we must increase thinning in our forests to turn the tide of this crisis.

The fact that this bill mentions thinning zero times is no mistake. It is because Democrats refuse to agree with the scientific consensus that both thinning and prescribed burning are essential tools to reduce wildfire risk.

Affordable disaster loans provided by this amendment will also be necessary because of the wildfires that will occur as a result of throwing out the Forest Service's current 10-year strategy.

My colleagues have claimed that their bill would simply codify this current 10-year strategy. They have also said that the infrastructure bill made historic investments in that strategy and have funded its initial projects.

This simply makes no sense. My colleagues think the infrastructure bill is so nice that they want to pass it twice, but that is not how any of this works. If we funded a project in the infrastructure bill, we don't need to authorize funding for it here because that money has already gone out the door.

And if the administration released a strategy 6 months ago and started implementing it, they don't need this bill to codify it.

Truth be told, the plain reading of the text shows that the current wildfire strategy is getting thrown out the window, and nothing in this text codifies it or even mentions the projects currently happening.

Unfortunately, if this bill passes, a lot of small business owners will be able to make good use of affordable disaster loans provided by this amendment as they recover their businesses from the impacts of catastrophic wildfire. The least we can do is help them with disaster loans after these fires inevitably occur.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, again, I support the amendment. It is going to be needed as these fires continue to rage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 263. There are a lot of things the gentleman from Hawaii said that I think me, and a lot of other Republicans would agree on about what needs to happen as far as the outcomes of regulating big cats. But the devil is in the details, and that is what I hope to show today, that the details and the process and the procedures that the policy will create with this Democrat bill are not what is best for this policy.

Today's consideration of H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety Act, follows action last month by the Committee on Natural Resources, where this bill passed on a party-line vote after 2 days of lengthy markup.

At a time when gas prices were setting record highs on a near daily basis, the Committee on Natural Resources considered big cat legislation, once again, failing to address the economic and energy crisis facing Americans. At that time, committee Republicans offered several amendments aimed at reminding our majority that we should be focused on reducing energy and food prices, not on exotic pet ownership.

Rather than address the real crisis of the day, Democrats shut down debate on our amendments and forced a vote on final passage of this bill.

So here we are, once again, considering this big cats bill in what looks to be a very crowded legislative week, a week that does not focus on energy prices and inflation, even when gas is still averaging an unbearable and unacceptable $4.50 per gallon.

Versions of this bill have been around since the 112th Congress, begging the question of why, if it is such a good idea, has it not been enacted over the last decade. Two clear reasons are that it would create a new regulatory framework and strip away States' rights.

The bill before us today is aimed at regulating the private ownership of so-called big cats by creating a new and duplicative regulatory authority at the Department of the Interior.

The legislation is a considerable expansion of Federal regulation under the Lacey Act. In 2003, Congress amended the Lacey Act to make it illegal to import, export, buy, sell, transport, receive, or acquire certain live big cats across State lines or the U.S. border. Interstate trade. The bill proposed by my friends across the aisle regulates big cats from the Federal level or an intrastate level, an area where State laws are already in place to handle this.

The Lacey Act historically deals with interstate and international commerce on endangered or injurious wildlife, and the 2003 provisions specifically state that nothing in the act will supersede State laws, but here we are today taking another step to supersede State laws.

This bill would expand the Lacey Act by blatantly overriding State law and enforcing intrastate regulation of big cats.

It would require big cats exhibited at USDA-licensed or USDA- registered facilities be at least 15 feet from the public or behind a permanent barrier, irrespective of State laws. It would end new private ownership of big cats, and it would mandate all big cats be registered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within 180 days or risk having the Federal Government confiscate their animal and impose criminal fines and penalties.

It would require big cat owners to certify that they will not breed, acquire, or sell any big cats, and would prohibit direct public contact.

All these mandates would supersede State authority and duplicate existing Federal Government regulation.

Not only would this bill expand the Fish and Wildlife Service authorities, but it would overlay the U.S. Department of Agriculture's responsibilities, which already regulates the treatment of big cats in research and exhibition pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act of 1966.

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, at the USDA already has inspectors and law enforcement officers in place that are experts in animal welfare issues. But this bill ignores that existing regulatory framework and would create a new regulatory system that the Congressional Budget Office estimates would lead to $80 million in foregone revenue from current USDA licensed facilities.

The result of this bill would be that USDA-licensed facilities will be regulated by both APHIS under USDA and the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Department of the Interior.

My staff and I have spent considerable time on this issue. One of our first questions was: Why not just work with the House and Senate Agriculture Committees under the jurisdiction of the Animal Welfare Act?

The response we received was an admission that the bill's outside proponents would rather work through the Committee on Natural Resources than the Committee on Agriculture. This is a classic case of venue shopping.

Creating two regulatory frameworks and dual Federal agency management superseding existing State regulation will create confusion, waste taxpayer dollars, and risk failing to adequately regulate these facilities at all.

There is a simple fix to the issues that exist. For that reason, I offered an amendment at our markup that will move the authorities proposed by H.R. 263 into the current USDA framework without superseding State authorities. That commonsense alternative was, unfortunately, rejected on a party-line vote, and unfortunately, it was not allowed to be considered today during the debate in the full House of Representatives. I would dare say that had we adopted that amendment, this bill would be on the suspension calendar.

While I agree that we want to reduce dangerous encounters between the public and big cats, I cannot support this bill because it is an overreaching, duplicative, and precedent-setting proposal that has already served as a blueprint for pending legislation on other species.

We need to work within existing authorities, not create new and duplicative ones. More importantly, we need to focus on the crises facing Americans, including staggering inflation and the high price of energy, not big cats.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 263, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we were just wanting a hearing on addressing the energy crisis that is facing our country, and we have yet to have that. We have continued to see development of energy on Federal lands put to a halt by this administration, and we are still waiting for when we are going to have that first hearing to address that issue.

While it is unfortunate that 18 big cats and 49 animals escaped and had to be put down by police officers in Zanesville, Ohio, that was in 2011. It is unclear how this bill would have prevented the situation, for the owner committed suicide after letting all of his animals out of their pens.

Actually, if this bill was based on putting the authority under APHIS, where they already have law enforcement and the infrastructure and the structure in place to enforce the regulations, it probably would have had a better chance of stopping this than the language in the current bill does.

No one wants to have people put in danger through escaped big cats, but enacting duplicative Federal authorities under the Lacey Act and a new agency is totally unnecessary. Any new authorities at the Federal level should rest with APHIS.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), who serves on the Agriculture Committee and can talk about why this bill should have been under APHIS.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, for making a point that we have made, and that is that there are bigger issues to talk about.

Unfortunately, the issues that my friend mentioned are not under the jurisdiction of the House Natural Resources Committee. But energy production on Federal lands and Federal waters are big issues that are in the jurisdiction of our committee. So is mining all the critical resources, the elements and minerals, that are going to be needed to electrify the economy.

Regarding the big CHIPS bill that was just passed on the floor here, a lot of the ingredients that go into those chips actually come from China. One hundred percent of them come from China. So there are bigger issues that we need to talk about.

Really, this bill shouldn't be taking all of this time, and it wouldn't have taken all of this time if the majority had just worked with us a little bit.

If they had done the commonsense thing and had put the jurisdiction of regulating these cats under APHIS where it belongs, as I said before, we would probably have this bill on the suspension calendar and we would all be talking about what a good piece of legislation it is and how it will benefit the country.

But when we take a simple issue and create a new Federal bureaucracy and give authorities to an agency, that I don't even think wants these authorities much less needs these authorities, is something we have to make an issue of.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice).

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

Mr. Speaker, I find this a bit amusing that the proponents of this bill are rolling out all the law enforcement agencies that are supportive of the bill.

And why wouldn't they be?

Why would they care which Federal agency deals with it?

They just don't want to have to deal with the problem themselves. So, sure, they support this bill because it addresses a problem that they are having to deal with now. But I doubt they have looked past the point that it is creating a new Federal agency that doesn't affect their budgets, it is creating a new Federal agency that makes things duplicative, it doesn't affect their operations, and I am quite certain, had we put the amendment in to put this under APHIS, we would still have all those law enforcement agencies supporting this bill. So, Mr. Speaker, you have to take that for what it is worth.

H.R. 263 is a template that is already being used to regulate other animals. This is the weaponization of the Lacey Act. USDA does have jurisdiction over privately owned cats. The USDA-licensed facilities are not government-owned. So every time the logic trail that you go down about why should this regulation be under U.S. Fish and Wildlife or under the Department of the Interior, it comes back to there is no logic. It is just that somebody had an agenda to put it under an agency that is not equipped right now and doesn't have the personnel right now to enforce it.

So it is creating a new authorization that, I believe, is going to have happen to it what happens to many well-intended laws. They get weaponized to go after something that they originally weren't set up to go after.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

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

I just want to point out that it has been argued that we have got a hodgepodge of laws across the State, or across the country, and that is what makes America great is that we can have different laws that are tailored to different regions of the country.

But there are two Federal laws regulating exotic animals, and they are already on the books. The Captive Wildlife Society Act governs interstate commerce of big cats, and the Animal Welfare Act governs big cat enterprises.

H.R. 263 would overlay existing exotic animal laws, further complicating Federal law and explicitly superseding State laws. If a new Federal law is necessary--I will say it again--the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, within USDA, has the expertise and knowledge to carry out these responsibilities.

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

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

Again, this is a simple issue. It is an issue that we shouldn't even be having to debate like this. It should be on suspension; but it just shows you how there has been an unwillingness to work on commonsense solutions to a simple problem.

It took up 2 days of committee debate when we could have been talking about energy; when we could have been talking about high inflation prices; when we could have been talking about a water crisis in the West, the drought.

Mr. Speaker, there are 600,000 acres of land laying fallow in California this summer because they don't have water. That has not even come up for one debate in our Natural Resources Committee.

The gentleman talked about the crisis at the southern border. Forty percent of the southern border is public lands, which falls under the jurisdiction of our committee. We have not had a single discussion about it.

We spent 2 days talking about big cats. We are spending valuable floor time before we split for the August break debating big cats. And we are debating an issue that could have been resolved simply.

I hope that going forward, I hope we can work on these issues in a way that is better for the country; that is not trying to create some new bureaucracy that can be used to achieve other goals. And I hope that my colleagues will vote against H.R. 263.

If it somehow gets out of the House, I hope the Senate will not pass it and maybe, in the next Congress, we can come back with commonsense legislation that addresses this issue; puts the jurisdictions under the right authorities; and we can, once and for all, move on from big cats, and we can start talking about real issues that matter to our constituents and to the hardworking taxpayers across the country.

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

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