Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 7283, the Safeguarding Treatment for the Restoration of Ecosystems from Abandoned Mines Act, also known as the STREAM Act.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act appropriated $11.3 billion to the Abandoned Mine Lands, or the AML, trust fund. This money is for use by State AML programs to address abandoned mine lands created before enactment of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.

This historic, fee-based AML program allows a State to set aside up to 30 percent of its annual AML grant in an interest-bearing account to cover the long-term costs of acid mine drainage, or AMD, facilities, which are often needed to address water treatment in historic coal mining states.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act reauthorizes the collection of the AML fee at a reduced rate, as well as a 30 percent set-aside authority for States. However, the IIJA neglected to grant parallel set-aside authority for the newly authorized $11.3 billion in Treasury funds for AML projects.

This is one of the many areas Congress will need to correct in the hastily passed IIJA bill, and it goes to show why we need to have regular order, why we need to have committee hearings, and why we need to take our time on these large bills.

That large IIJA bill never went through a committee in the House. It was sent over from the Senate, hastily adopted, and here we are today, trying to fix it. I am sure it won't be the last time.

The STREAM Act is a bipartisan bill that will make a technical fix to IIJA, clarifying that States receiving newly authorized funds for AML cleanup have the authority to set aside a portion of those funds for AMD cleanup purposes consistent with existing law. This will allow States to utilize AML funds according to their specific needs.

That said, the Department of the Interior recently released final guidance for States applying to receive funds authorized for AML cleanup that includes requirements over and above the letter of the law. DOI should allow States to make decisions on prioritizing AML sites and refrain from imposing unauthorized and heavy-handed requirements.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley), who is the Republican lead on this legislation and who is also a fellow engineer and knows a lot about coal mining.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers. I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of H.R. 5093, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler). This is a good bill, and I commend her for her leadership on this effort.

Skamania County in Representative Herrera Beutler's district is almost 77 percent federally owned. Unfortunately, because of the large number of public lands in the county, less than 2 percent of the county's land base can be taxed at full market value.

The presence of a large Federal estate is shared by many other rural counties in the West, and it makes it very difficult for communities to generate revenue needed to fund schools, roads, and vital public services, such as police and fire departments.

H.R. 5093 would transfer ownership of approximately 23 acres of the former Wind River Nursery from the Forest Service to the county to expand uses that will draw in tourism, provide economic opportunities, and create additional tax revenue for the county. The county estimates that this conveyance will ultimately lead to an additional $600,000 in revenue each year.

Skamania County has also already made considerable investments to restore this site with upgrades to water mains, full restorations to two residential buildings, and electric improvements to four additional buildings.

I, again, thank the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler) for her leadership on this bill. The legislation reflects a locally driven compromise that meets the needs of the community, creates additional recreation opportunities, and will lead to better management of Federal land.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Herrera Beutler).

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to visit Skamania County. It is a beautiful place, and I know that the people there will be great stewards of this land. It will be good for Skamania County, for Washington, and for the United States, and I urge adoption of the bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support of S. 3451. However, when we start sacrificing regular order to score political points, we are on an extremely slippery slope. Unfortunately, that is the course this bill sets us on.

It didn't move through the Committee on Natural Resources, the committee of jurisdiction. Instead, it was one of the many promises made by Democrat leadership to secure the votes they needed in the Senate to pass the CHIPS-Plus Act.

The irony of this, Mr. Speaker, is yesterday we were in an all-day long markup in the Natural Resources Committee on Chairman Grijalva's Environmental Justice for All Act, which is a bill that really doubles down on NEPA regulations. Obviously, we have differences of opinion on that, but we were having the debate. Democrats wanted to increase NEPA regulations, Republicans wanted to streamline regulations.

So you can imagine the shock when Chairman Grijalva's staff, almost simultaneously with my staff, told us to be prepared tomorrow afternoon because there is going to be a NEPA streamlining bill on the suspension calendar.

When I was told the bill was being added, I thought to myself, this bill didn't go through regular order, and this is something my colleagues across the aisle would normally really be opposed to. So I Googled the bill, and it turns out that S. 3451 is but a bargaining chip in the larger CHIPS debate.

This is what I found on the internet. It said, ``From yesterday's Roll Call, as they reported on the CHIPS-Plus package.'' A quote from that is: ``One of the Republicans who voted for the bill . . . had sought an amendment to fast track the permitting process for companies building semiconductor plants . . . instead he was promised that the House would clear his Senate-passed bill.''

This legislation, S. 3451, provides modest permit streamlining to expedite reviews of infrastructure projects concerning semiconductors, artificial intelligence and machine learning, high-performance computing and advanced computer hardware and software, quantum information science and technology, data storage, and data management, or cybersecurity.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support streamlining. In fact, for the last 18 months, Republicans on the Committee on Natural Resources have been calling to move legislation that would streamline the onerous NEPA process, cut bureaucratic red tape, and fight back against environmental activist litigants, the kinds of meaningful actions Congress needs to take to move our country forward.

I woke up this morning, and I was reading online my local newspaper back home. There was actually a story about the CHIPS Act that talked about this very bill that we have on the suspension calendar today. I found it interesting that someone from the Sierra Club was interviewed about it.

Now, normally if you are going to streamline NEPA, it sets Sierra Club's hair on fire, and they are calling all of their activists and putting alerts out. But it was interesting that on this one, the Sierra Club was going to study the text a little bit more, even though we are here this afternoon passing this on suspension.

These commonsense Republican solutions are crucial to improving the health of our Federal lands, repairing our crumbling infrastructure, constructing water storage projects needed to make our Western communities more resilient to drought, and developing America's domestic resources to secure our supply chain and our country.

In response, Democrats have repeatedly told us we were gutting bedrock environmental laws, and that we support pillaging the land from sea to shining sea.

Just yesterday, I spent, as I mentioned, over 10 hours in a Committee on Natural Resources markup where the Democrats advanced a bill--we not only debated it; we marked it up and advanced it--a bill to expand NEPA, create more burdensome red tape, and handcuff our great Nation from future development.

Now, today, after years of committee Republicans hearing how we are trying to destroy America, suddenly the exact same commonsense streamlining and reasonable sideboards on frivolous litigation are necessary to build semiconductor plants and America's future.

This bill is only part of the solution. While building domestic chip manufacturing facilities is important and we want to bring those jobs to the United States for American workers, the reality is there is not much domestic about a chip made with 100 percent foreign materials.

For instance, today, the United States is 100 percent reliant on other countries to meet our demand for gallium and indium, both of which are needed in semiconductors. China is the lead supplier for both.

Semiconductors also require a mineral called bismuth, 90 percent of which the U.S. imports. Again, China is the lead supplier to the U.S. of bismuth.

Semiconductors are among dozens of high-tech commodities, such as satellites, electric vehicles, and missile defense systems reliant on mineral resources to function. China unquestionably controls the market on nearly every one of the necessary minerals.

If we truly want to secure the supply chain for semiconductors and the huge array of other products dependent on critical minerals, it is imperative to ensure a robust domestic mining industry through an efficient, predictable mine permitting system here in the United States.

While the bill before us is a step in the right direction, it does not address the supply chain necessary to build our domestic high-tech manufacturing technology.

Republicans have the solutions. To name a few: H.R. 2604, the Accessing America's Critical Mineral Act, introduced by Congressman Pete Stauber, reforms onerous and duplicative steps in the critical mineral permitting process by requiring Federal agencies to adhere to timelines and improve coordination.

H.R. 2637, the American Critical Minerals Independence Act, introduced by Congressmen Michael Waltz and Paul Gosar, invests in recycling technologies and innovative mining and processing techniques, streamlines the permitting of critical minerals production, and requires that agencies analyze the mineral potential of Federal lands.

If Democrats were serious about streamlining and promoting a robust domestic manufacturing sector for semiconductors and other high-tech applications, they would be bringing these bills and others to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, S. 3451 is a modest step in the right direction, and I support the passage of this bill. Now that it appears Democrats have seen the error of their ways and they suddenly have done a 180 on streamlining environmental bureaucracy, I look forward to working with each and every Member who votes for this bill to advance many other Republican solutions to further address streamlining and secure a robust domestic critical minerals supply chain.

Unfortunately, while I would like to say that, with Democrats' newfound support of streamlining, the remaining Republican solutions will be coming to the floor quickly, something tells me Democrats' willingness to ignore environmental extremists and bring up commonsense policy solutions like S. 3451 has a lot more to do with politics than making good policy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, today, one in five Americans are affected by dyslexia, making it the most common learning disability. Yet, there are still children in U.S. school systems that go without being diagnosed. Instead, they are written off as having a lack of effort, or a plain lack of intelligence.

Despite misconception, dyslexia is not connected to one's level of intelligence. In fact, where students have a difficult time reading, they often excel in creative thought and critical thinking. My bipartisan legislation, the 21st Century Dyslexia Act, will Federally define dyslexia and label proper treatments and diagnosis, enabling teachers, students, and parents to assist aspiring students to achieve successful academic careers, and to ensure that all children are granted equal opportunity in the classroom.

Save Our Sequoias

Madam Speaker, 3,000 years; that is how long some giant sequoias have been alive. To put this into perspective, these trees started growing before the concept of democracy, the English language, and the birth of Christ.

The Mariposa Grove, the largest grove of giant sequoias in Yosemite National Park has been a source of inspiration for generations. When the Washburn Fire recently hit the Mariposa Grove, the fire's intensity dramatically decreased, thanks to 50 years of thinning and prescribed burns.

There is a stark contrast between areas that have a history of proper management and those that have been disregarded. While the fire subsided in the Mariposa Grove, surrounding areas that did not receive sufficient management were destroyed.

As a licensed forester, I take it upon myself to seek science-based solutions for the conservation of our forests. The Mariposa Grove serves as a prime example of how mechanical thinning and prescribed burns are necessary tools for proper forest management.

It is my hope that the grove continues its legacy of inspiration by encouraging a new generation of proactive forest management that will protect these iconic trees for the enjoyment of generations to come.

It is past time for the Natural Resources Committee to mark up the bipartisan Save Our Sequoias Act, and for the House to pass it to protect these iconic national treasures.

Great Basin Bristlecone Pine Trees

Madam Speaker, recently, we have talked a lot about the dire situation of some of California's most iconic trees, the sequoias. But we have yet to discuss the condition of California's oldest trees, the Great Basin bristlecone pine trees.

Great Basin bristlecone pines signify resilience, longevity, and perseverance. To cope in difficult times, they almost completely die off, leaving but a few strips of bark that can continue to grow along the ground or skyward for thousands of years. To ward off pests, bristlecone pines trap pests in their thick resin.

Due to severe drought, in mixed forests, bark beetles have been able to build up broods on other tree species

and overwhelm many bristlecone pines, which succumb to bark beetles in a way they have never before.

The good news is, in the past month, a Forest Service pathologist confirmed that Methuselah, the nearly 5,000-year-old bristlecone pine thought to be the oldest tree in the world, has yet to face bark beetle infestation.

There is still time to act on the drought in a timely, commonsense manner to protect our Great Basin bristlecone pines. We must follow the bristlecone pine's example of resilience and perseverance, adapting our laws to the needs of the natural world to stave off catastrophic wildfire and severe drought.

Devastating Year for Farmers and Ranchers

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the hardworking farmers and ranchers of Arkansas, who are being crushed by unprecedented drought and heat on top of out-of-control inflation that has created suffocating input costs for basic farming inputs such as fuel and fertilizer.

Although this devastating farm year can't be salvaged, hopefully the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress will realize how detrimental their actions have been on raising energy and food prices on those who can least afford it: low-income and fixed-income Americans.

There is still time to change directions on this dangerous path Democrats are leading our country down. I plead with my colleagues across the aisle to embolden common sense.

Mr. Chair, I was delayed by Speaker Pelosi's metal detectors. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 379.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to Neguse amendment No. 455.

This amendment would permanently ban mineral and energy development on over 1.2 million acres of public lands in northern Arizona and Colorado.

Not only will this amendment kill jobs in rural communities, but it will threaten our national security by making us more dependent on foreign adversaries like Russia. I can't believe we would consider adding this amendment when inflation is at 9.1 percent, a 40-year high; gas prices have been hovering over $5 per gallon; and one of our major adversaries invaded its free and sovereign neighbor.

This NDAA is meant to enhance our national security at a critical time in our Nation's history, not weaken it by taking critical minerals permanently off-line.

Instead, Democrats are adding this amendment in the dead of night, hoping that we wouldn't notice.

The Arizona component of this amendment permanently withdraws over 1 million acres from uranium mining. Currently, the domestic uranium industry is supplying less than 1 percent of the uranium needed to power the U.S. nuclear reactor fleet. Let me say that again. Less than 1 percent of what we need to power our fleet.

In 2019, roughly half of our uranium supply was sourced from countries that are hostile to the United States, including Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Chinese-owned mines in Namibia. Allies like Canada and Australia have slowly been accounting for less and less of this supply, dropping from 51 percent in 2017 to 39 percent in 2019.

Passing this mineral withdrawal will play into Putin's hands and weaken our mineral independence and national security. Proponents of this amendment will tell you that it is necessary to protect the Grand Canyon from destructive mining. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Nobody is mining in the Grand Canyon. Nobody wants to mine in the Grand Canyon. Nobody will mine in the Grand Canyon in the future-- never. There are already buffer zones in place, it is called the Grand Canyon National Park.

Unfortunately, this continues the disturbing trend--just today, technically yesterday at this point--committee Democrats passed a bill to permanently withdraw over 200,000 acres in northern Minnesota that constitutes 95 percent of our Nation's nuclear reserves, 88 percent of our cobalt, and 75 percent of our platinum reserves.

These are not the kind of policies we should be advancing, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I will strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which has no place in a bill that is supposed to bolster our national security, not harm it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the DeGette amendment No. 456. This amendment would add the text of the so-called Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act which would actually damage our environment and kill jobs in rural America. By the way, I don't understand really what this bill has to do with defense and why it gets made in order for the NDAA.

This amendment creates nearly 1.5 million acres of new wilderness and designates over 1,200 miles of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers. For perspective, the wilderness designated in

this bill is the same size as President Biden's home State of Delaware.

Just days ago we reached the ominous mark of over 5 million acres burned nationwide. This is double the 10-year average and nearly three times the amount of acres that were burned at this point last year.

One fire that has largely contributed to this total is the Hermits Peak Fire which is still burning in New Mexico as we debate here tonight. This fire, which is the largest in New Mexico's State history, has burned over 340,000 acres and racked up $278 million in fire suppression costs. This fire started in the Pecos Wilderness area which has not been properly managed and has significant fuel loads.

Instead of this being a wake-up call, congressional Democrats are trying to double down on the failed strategy of locking up lands and throwing away the key less than 100 miles from where the Hermits Peak fire is currently burning.

Creating new wilderness doesn't just mean catastrophic wildfires will be more likely. It means that these fires will also be more severe and put our brave wildland firefighters into harm's way. Many of these areas are too dangerous and burn too intensely to send firefighters in to fight.

In contrast, areas that have previously received treatments are often places identified by firefighters as areas they can enter to start attacking a fire safely. We have a problem in our national forests that is not going to be solved with handsaws and shovels. Now is not the time to rely on century-old management techniques stipulated by wilderness designations when over 80 million acres of Forest Service land is in desperate need of treatment.

If that weren't enough, this bill also designates land as wilderness in the wildland-urban interface.

This is a matter of life and death. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

Mr. Speaker, there is a place and a time to debate wilderness and wild and scenic rivers, but I don't think the NDAA is the place for that.

In conclusion, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which will harm our environment and do nothing to improve our national security.

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

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

Madam Speaker, after visiting the Mariposa Grove of giant sequoias, Teddy Roosevelt famously declared: ``A grove of giant redwood or sequoias should be kept just as we keep a great and beautiful cathedral.''

Madam Speaker, today that cathedral is on fire. The very grove in which President Roosevelt stood is enveloped in flames as we speak, threatening to destroy these iconic trees forever.

We are seeing the horrific consequences of decades of forest mismanagement play out in Yosemite, and it is time to act to save our sequoias.

Wildfires burn so hot and so intensely that they quite literally explode giant sequoias and create ``fire-nados,'' sending branches and bark hurling so far into the air that they have narrowly missed taking out our firefighting planes. If giant sequoias can't withstand these raging infernos, no tree stands a chance.

Time is not on our side, Madam Speaker. I urge immediate action on the Save Our Sequoias Act to give land managers in California the resources they so desperately need, preventing firefighters from having to resort to desperate measures to save these national treasures. This is the only way we can conserve America's most beautiful cathedral for generations to come.

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 291.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Allred (Gomez)

Boebert (Bishop (NC))

Bonamici (Manning)

Bourdeaux (Correa)

Bowman (Chu)

Bush (Williams (GA))

Carter (LA) (Williams (GA))

Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))

Cherfilus-McCormick (Williams (GA))

Cohen (Beyer)

Connolly (Beyer)

Costa (Correa)

Crist (Wasserman Schultz)

Davis, Danny K. (Gomez)

DeSaulnier (Beyer)

Dingell (Stevens)

Doyle, Michael F. (Pallone)

Fletcher (Pallone)

Frankel, Lois (Kuster)

Garcia (IL) (Beyer)

Gosar (Gohmert)

Guest (Fleischmann)

Hartzler (Bacon)

Hayes (Neguse)

Huffman (Gomez)

Jacobs (NY) (Smucker)

Jayapal (Gomez)

Jeffries (Neguse)

Johnson (GA) (Manning)

Johnson (TX) (Stevens)

Katko (Meijer)

Keating (Neguse)

Kirkpatrick (Pallone)

Krishnamoorthi (Neguse)

LaMalfa (Rouzer)

Lawson (FL) (Wasserman Schultz)

Moore (WI) (Beyer)

Moulton (Stevens)

Newman (Beyer)

Palazzo (Fleischmann)

Pascrell (Pallone)

Payne (Pallone)

Porter (Neguse)

Rice (SC) (Meijer)

Rogers (KY)

(Reschenthaler)

Rush (Neguse)

Salazar (Diaz-Balart)

Sires (Pallone)

Stansbury (Stevens)

Strickland (Neguse)

Suozzi (Neguse)

Swalwell (Correa)

Takano (Chu)

Tlaib (Gomez)

Walorski (Baird)

Watson Coleman (Pallone)

Wilson (FL) (Williams (GA))

Madam Speaker, our current national debt is not only huge, it is astronomical. As of today, the national debt exceeds over $30 trillion. To put that in perspective, that amount in $100 bills laid side by side would circle the Earth over 1,167 times. If stacked, it would reach the International Space Station 80 times.

The debt crisis is truly out of this world, and yet my colleagues across the aisle would rather spend even more money on unnecessary programs with unrealistic goals. Effects of the debt are already being felt in the form of record-high inflation and gas prices, but perhaps the greatest tragedy is that it will be our children and our children's children who will ultimately foot the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

I rise today to speak against H.R. 2543. This bill does not address the underlying causes restricting access to credit or inflation that has eroded many Americans' borrowing power. It is just a mixed bag of extra mandates on the Federal Reserve and new regulatory burdens on small businesses.

I don't hear my small businesses asking for more regulation, additional compliance burdens, or the imposition of a sweeping social agenda.

Families are struggling to afford food and gas. Small businesses are struggling to hire employees, and my local banks and credit unions are feeling the pinch of inflation and rising interest rates every day.

If the majority was serious about helping Americans, they would have made my amendments in order to examine the effects of inflation and bank consolidation on access to credit for those in low-income census tracts, rural counties, racial minorities, women, and veterans, the very communities that Democrat policies have hurt the most. My amendments would have been a step in the right direction, but the Democrat majority blocked them.

Mr. Speaker, digging the hole deeper is no way to get out of the crisis the Democrat administration and Democrat majorities in Congress have created.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, May 26, 2022.

Hon. Thomas Carper,

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

Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2372, the

Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2022.

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

pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Madeleine

Fox.

Sincerely,

Phillip L. Swagel,

Director.

Enclosure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

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

to regional associations of fish and wildlife departments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Pine Bluff native, Reverend Jesse Turner. Reverend Turner is the President of the Pine Bluff Faith Community Coalition Ministerial Alliance and a staunch supporter and leader of the ``Pen or Pencil'' program, which promotes a national mentoring initiative to reach students in violence-prone areas.

Reverend Turner's program has successfully served young adults whose circumstances have put them at risk for entry into the criminal justice system. Since 2005, the Pen or Pencil program is now in 12 states and 15 locations. It has enhanced and expanded mentoring services for youth to choose the ``pencil'' for education rather than the ``pen'' for the penitentiary.

Choosing education and a life committed to good when the community around you is suffering takes great courage, and it takes great leaders. Reverend Turner is such a leader in Pine Bluff, and all who have taken part in his ministry through the Alliance or through Pen or Pencil know that his work makes a difference.

I thank Reverend Turner for the good work he has done for generations of Fourth District Arkansans.

Madam Speaker, due to a schedule conflict, I was unable to cast roll call votes on Friday, May 13th. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 178, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 179, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 180, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 181, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 182.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life and service of Mr. Warren Wright Broome, a committed, retired member of the United States Navy and a beloved husband, father, and brother. Warren Wright Broome, 100 years old, passed away on March 21, 2022, in Camden, Arkansas. He was born on January 12, 1922, in Kathwood, South Carolina, to James Manford and Ruby Brinson Broome.

Warren enlisted in the Navy in June 1942 and served until his retirement in August 1972. During his thirty years of honorable service to our Nation, he fought in three Wars: World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. After his retirement from the Navy, he worked for RCA Service Company in Washington, D.C. Mr. Broome loved history, was a wonderful storyteller, and an avid book collector who enjoyed spending time in his library. He was also particularly dedicated to his faith and was an active member of the United Methodist Men and of Fairview United Methodist Church in Camden. Mr. Broome led a rich life filled with laughter and will be missed by all who knew him.

I take this time today to celebrate the life and service of Mr. Warren Wright Broome. I thank him for his dedication to our fellow citizens and our beloved Fourth District of Arkansas.