Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4350. We have maintained the bipartisan tradition of the Armed Services Committee. Now, while this administration promotes weakness abroad…
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4350. We have maintained the bipartisan tradition of the Armed Services Committee.
Now, while this administration promotes weakness abroad and tyranny at home, robust support for defense in this bill ensures that our adversaries understand that our military has the resources required to stymy their aggressive ambitions which will guarantee that our military will succeed if called upon.
This legislation will enhance readiness by funding the unfunded requests of the services and the co-coms. It will maintain our commitment to the nuclear triad and modernization and aggressively enhance our space capabilities. It protects our troops against punishment for personal politics, prohibits dishonorable discharge for COVID vaccination refusal, and requires a plan for exemptions. And it begins to hold the Biden administration accountable for Afghanistan.
Now, while this bill fosters U.S.-Israeli cooperation, including $300 million for multiple collaborative programs, anti-Israel Democrats have stripped the continuing resolution of $1 billion for the Iron Dome missile defense system.
What does it say about the Progressive Caucus that they object to Israeli citizens defending themselves from missile attacks?
It is reprehensible and anti-Semitic.
Nevertheless, this bill as it currently stands is a bipartisan bill.
I thank the chairman and ranking member for maintaining the collaborative nature of our committee. I want to thank especially the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee, John Garamendi, for his leadership and commitment to bipartisanship. I thank my readiness team, Ian, Dave, and Whitney, for their invaluable hard work during this process.
Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to this amendment to add a package of unrelated lands bills to the National Defense Authorization Act. Collectively, this pair of bills, this one and the next one, amendments, would impose unnecessary and harmful restrictions on more than 2\1/2\ million acres of lands in Colorado, California, and Washington, including nearly 1\1/ 2\ million of acres of new wilderness designating many miles of wild and scenic rivers and creating 100,000 acres of national monument expansion.
These restrictions will have the effect of greatly reducing opportunities for multiple uses of these lands and will restrict forest management practices that will render these lands more prone to catastrophic wildfires.
In Colorado alone, this amendment would designate approximately 570,000 acres of new wilderness areas, 23,000 acres of expanded wilderness, and 14,000 acres of potential wilderness.
Now, we already have 3.5 million acres of public lands in Colorado that are designated as wilderness, so that protection is already there.
Now, I do commend my colleague for her efforts to work with local stakeholders to address some of their concerns over the years that she has been working on this issue. But this package, unfortunately, does not come close to the kind of balance and consensus that should be required for a package of this magnitude. Many of the local communities impacted by this amendment and that I have heard from have raised significant concerns, including the loss of motorized access and recreation, which would threaten their local economy.
A wilderness designation also makes it much more difficult or even impossible to remove excess fire hazards or invasive species. There is no real management of the land. Future generations lose access to the land, at least for average, everyday people. In a true wilderness area, you can't even ride a bicycle.
This bill is inconsistent with previous designations and existing land uses by arbitrarily adding wilderness areas and wild and scenic river designations where those designations are not really appropriate. Supporting the declaration of areas that do not actually possess these characteristics undermines the integrity of the Wilderness Act and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for what was originally intended.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), who has a district where, actually, this designation would take place.
Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
I rise in opposition to this amendment because it restricts approximately 400,000 acres of land in Colorado, and although the stated goal of the language is to protect and enhance outdoor recreation--and I agree with that goal as stated--the practical effect of this amendment would not be that at all.
For one thing, the active management of land that is under wilderness designation to prevent wildfires is much restricted, if not made impossible. In a State with a lot of wildfire risk, that is simply not acceptable.
Rural county commissioners have talked to me and other opponents of this bill and have raised concerns about negative economic impact of the withdrawal of 200,000 acres of oil and gas land and what effect that would have on their communities.
This amendment would also lock away approximately 1 million acres of public lands in Arizona and permanently ban mining and other multiple- use activities in that State. This misguided and mistitled land grab has nothing to do with protecting the
Grand Canyon. Instead, it seeks to ban development of one of the largest tracts of uranium deposits in the country.
The result of this is to make us more reliant on adversaries such as Russia. We already import 97 percent of our uranium from foreign sources, and that would only become more precarious if this took effect. Since 2018, the majority of uranium imports have come from adversarial nations such as Russia.
What this amendment is doing in the National Defense Act makes no sense at all.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, let's actually hear from Representatives who live in these areas.
I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert). The gentlewoman is from the western part of the State where this would actually take place, and I believe she is in touch with the people in her district.
Madam Speaker, just like the previous amendment, this amendment was successfully added to last year's NDAA, but the conferees properly dropped it from the final conference report, so it ultimately failed. It is simply unacceptable that we would add an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that not only has nothing to do with national defense, but this actually hurts our national defense by empowering adversaries like Russia with their uranium production while limiting our own domestic national production of uranium.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.