Floor Statements

Mr. Chair, I was detained on my way to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 699, Ogles Amendment No. 6 to H.R. 5933--DETERRENT Act.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is a simple amendment.

Earlier this year, as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, we enacted for the first time ever an Administrative Pay-Go. We put a provision in place that said if this administration is going to try and put regulations in place that cost in excess of $100 million, then they have to offset those costs, meaning they have to rescind other regulations, to offset that cost on American taxpayers, therefore, the net cost would be zero.

If you are going to put $100 million in new burden-requiring regulations in place, impacting American households and businesses, you have to rescind $100 million worth of regulations on American families and American businesses.

This amendment takes it to the next level. When our constituents elect us to office, they expect us to be here representing them, yet during this administration's first 2\1/2\ years, they attempted to put additional costs or heap additional burdens to the tune of $1.5 trillion on American taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, I want you to think about that for just a minute. It is effectively the President of the United States, one person, unilaterally spending $1.5 trillion. That is effectively what we are going to spend in discretionary spending this year and it is one person doing it without any action by the Congress.

What this amendment does is, it says it is fine. If you want to put regulations in place, that is fine, but if you are going to propose something that is going to cost over $100 million, it has to come to Congress. It has to come before the Representatives that were elected by the people to approve it or shut it down.

I think this is a simple amendment. It is complementary to amendments that have passed the three other appropriation bills. It is complementary to what President Biden signed into law earlier this year on the Administrative Pay-Go.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, certainly being a Representative that represents thousands and thousands of seniors, I would never do anything that would adversely affect Medicare.

As a matter of fact, I would argue that this actually helps to protect Medicare. As we all know, the solvency of the Medicare trust fund is in jeopardy. By being more efficient, being

more judicial with the limited dollars that the trust fund has, this is actually a step in the right direction.

Let me be clear on what I am saying here: If the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is going to try and impose a new regulation that is going to cost additional dollars in excess of $100 million, all that would happen under this regulation, Mr. Chairman, is that that regulation would then come to Congress for an approval before it would be implemented.

It doesn't stop it from happening. It simply ensures that it is consistent with the wishes of the American people. This does nothing to jeopardize Medicare. It does nothing to impede or prevent services to seniors. We all represent thousands and thousands of seniors, and I certainly would not do anything to jeopardize that care.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to reaffirm that Louisiana does have the best muffulettas in the United States. I would be happy to have this conversation in depth with my friend from Connecticut.

Mr. Chair, I am going to say we should support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, when our constituents go to the ballot box and they vote for their Member of Congress, they expect that it is going to be someone that actually represents them, represents their values, and represents the community.

What we have seen in this administration is bureaucrats--people that are unelected and unaccountable--draft new regulations that impose incredible financial hardship on the American people.

In fact, during the first 2 years of the Biden administration, there are estimates that show that hundreds of billions of dollars in new regulatory costs were heaped upon American businesses and heaped upon American families.

Let me say that again. Hundreds of billions of dollars in additional regulatory compliance costs. Otherwise said, it is a hidden tax.

Mr. Chairman, this is not you and I--these are not Members of Congress--that are approving and drafting these regulations. They are bureaucrats. What our amendment simply does is it says that those bureaucrats can continue to draft the amendments. If their regulation is going to cause over $100 million in compliance costs, then it must be submitted to the Congress to allow for their elected Representatives to either affirm or deny that regulation--that cost on the American people.

Mr. Chairman, it is a very simple amendment. I make note that this amendment has been included in previous appropriations bills. I hope my friends on the other side agree that we need to be representing our constituents, not unelected bureaucrats.

I hope that they share the concern I have that hundreds of billions of dollars in invisible taxes being heaped upon American businesses and families is inappropriate.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns, but let's go ahead and think about what his concerns are based upon. The gentleman raised concerns that if this amendment passes, it is going to prevent the Biden administration from unilaterally implementing regulations 100 times that each cost over $100 million to comply with.

I am sure my friend shares the concern that these really need to be actions of the Congress. We come in and affirm congressional intent. We come in and affirm the interpretations of law.

If a bureaucrat is going to impose that kind of cost on American businesses and, most importantly, on American families that are already struggling with record-high energy costs, interest rates, and inflationary costs that are all being imposed on these family members, this harms those who can least afford it the most.

It really seems like my friend could reconsider the objection, that we could simply allow for Members of Congress to represent their constituents as opposed to unelected bureaucrats.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say I regret that the gentleman is opposed. Earlier this year, he voted in support of an administrative PAYGO provision that takes a very similar approach here that puts in a threshold that requires that additional scrutiny be applied to any regulation, or it be offset with additional costs. I think this is compatible with that. It takes the next step to ensure that American citizens are represented by their Members of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for offering this amendment.

Let's be clear: The only entity that has not done its job is NHTSA.

They were directed by Congress to do a study to establish standards and failed to do that. Rather than them being punished, they are now taking it out on manufacturers and dealers.

As Mr. Gooden said, this is not a safety issue. States have already studied this. We should not be coming in and imposing penalties and restrictions on manufacturers and dealers whenever it is NHTSA that has failed to do its job.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, my amendment simply comes in and establishes a threshold by which Congress must be involved in actually approving costs that are imposed upon our constituents.

Mr. Chairman, we all represent somewhere in excess of 700,000 people, and whenever we have unelected bureaucrats carrying out regulations that may impose costs on our constituents, we should have a say in that.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply says that any regulation that has a cost in excess of $100 million must be approved by the Congress. That is what representation looks like.

Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't be allowing unelected bureaucrats who are sitting in dark cubicles in Washington, D.C., and who don't have a clear understanding of what it is like across America, making these decisions.

This is our job. If we support these regulations, if they provide a positive cost-to-benefit, put us on record supporting it.

To put things in perspective, Mr. Chair, in the first 2 years of the Biden administration, these very bureaucrats wrote regulations costing Americans $200 billion. These are hidden taxes, Mr. Chair, that the families we are representing have to pay.

In comparison, during the Trump administration, they actually withdrew regulations costing the American household $11,000 per household. They withdrew or reduced the costs, yet under this administration, we are watching as thousands and thousands of additional dollars are being heaped upon these same households.

Let me say it again. That is a hidden tax. If folks want to vote for a tax, put them on the record doing it. If they want to break the backs of American families, put them on the record doing it. Unelected bureaucrats should not be making these decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to put a face on it. The National Association of Manufacturers says that the average business has $10,000 in regulatory compliance costs per employee. If it is a manufacturer, it is actually double, or $20,000.

To put a face on it, Mr. Chairman, the National Association of Home Builders has estimated, in a May 2021 study, that the average home costs $93,000 more--almost $94,000 more--for the average single-family home as a result of complying with regulations. As a result of this administration's policies on energy, the supply chain, and labor, they estimate that there is an additional $36,000 to $38,000 cost on top of that $94,000.

Mr. Chair, I can't say it enough: We can't afford this administration. Whether it is the energy policy, the regulatory policy, their inflation as a result of $10 trillion in excess spending that they have imposed over the last few years, we simply can't afford it. American families can't afford it.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, since the Biden administration took office, in just the first 2 years, they implemented or imposed costs on the American public exceeding $300 billion.

Mr. Chairman, when I was in school, I learned there were three branches of government. There was the judicial branch, executive branch, and legislative branch. Apparently, there is a fourth branch of government, and it is the bureaucrats. It is this entity out there that is writing rules, writing regulations, and imposing costs on American families--I will say it again--to the tune of over $300 billion in just the first 2 years of this administration.

What does that look like at home? It looks like regulations that are killing small businesses. The U.S. Census Bureau has quantified that one in every four households in America has had to choose among costs like groceries, utility bills, gasoline for their cars, or medical costs.

These are false choices, Mr. Chairman. American families shouldn't have to choose among costs like that. These are necessities. Again, we shouldn't have to choose between groceries, utility costs, and things like rent and a mortgage.

The average American family is paying 40 percent more right now for energy costs like gasoline and utility bills because of the policies of this administration.

What our amendment does is it simply restores the role of Congress, the role of Representatives. It says that any new regulation that is estimated or quantified to cost in excess of $100 billion cannot move forward without actual action by the Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a commonsense amendment. I think it is consistent with what the Founders intended the role of their Representatives to be. It is consistent with what the Founders intended as the role of the legislative branch of Congress, that we have a role in ensuring that regulations being carried out are consistent with congressional intent and that we are not going to go out there and impose taxes, fees, or bureaucratic red tape on American families when they can afford it the least right now.

The Ways and Means Committee has estimated that 17.4 percent is the percent that inflation has gone up under this administration, the additional cost being placed on American families. We cannot allow this mysterious fourth branch of government that has no accountability to continue to impose costs on American families.

Again, this restores the role of the branch of government that we all are here to represent. It restores the functionality of Congress.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. Unfortunately, those comments aren't really relevant to this amendment.

Let's be clear on what this amendment does. It prevents agencies from imposing regulations that exceed a compliance cost of $100 million or more.

If the gentlewoman is concerned about spending and debts and deficits, I share those concerns with her. As a matter of fact, as a result of this administration's legislation like the CHIPS Act, IRA, ARP, and the infrastructure bill, an additional $10 trillion in spending has been incurred as a result of their reckless and irresponsible actions.

Mr. Chair, what that translates to is that 50 cents of every dollar we are going to borrow over the next 10 years is going to go to pay interest on the debt. Over the next 10 years, we are going to spend $10 trillion on interest payments on the debt.

Mr. Chairman, you represent areas in Ohio. I represent areas of Louisiana. We have representation here for Idaho and Maine. We have constituents that have real needs. We are flushing money down the toilet by putting $10 trillion just toward interest payments.

This helps to improve the efficiency of the Federal Government. It is complementary to the deregulatory agenda that we saw under the previous administration.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, this amendment is a funding restriction. Let me give you a little bit of background. What happened is the Federal Government was sued by a group of extreme environmental organizations claiming that a new species of whale was in the Gulf of Mexico and that its habitat needed to be restricted in order to ensure the survivability of the species.

Mr. Chair, it sounds like a reasonable approach. The problem is that what happened is that they didn't provide any opportunity for public comment, and they did not provide any opportunity for peer-reviewed science. As a matter of fact, the sensors that are supposed to be detecting these species did not even detect species in the area where they are trying to impose restrictions.

Mr. Chair, as a result of this sue-and-settle operation by the Federal Government, by the Biden administration, 6 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico have been taken effectively offline or put with significant restriction in the Gulf of Mexico.

What this does is this further complicates U.S. energy security. It further restricts opportunities to produce energy domestically.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Madam Chair, I certainly do appreciate the gentlewoman from Maine's concerns, and I appreciate her understanding of one of the two components of what we are discussing today. The component that my friend from Maine is discussing pertains to recreational vessels and port traffic. That is one component, and the gentlewoman is correct.

However, the component that my friend from Louisiana and I are raising concerns about is the energy component that has impacted 6 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico. This is actually a bifurcated decision or approach. One component was rejected, the gentlewoman is correct. The component that we are discussing actually is very much alive and very much relevant.

I certainly share the concerns that the gentlewoman has recognized. I appreciate that component, but that is not what this amendment pertains to; therefore, I again insist upon this amendment.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, once again, as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) and I have noted, we have watched as this administration has carried out energy policies that are some of the most inexplicable, incomprehensible energy policies I have ever seen, policies that are resulting in a 40 percent increase in energy costs for American families, making one in every four families choose among costs like groceries, utilities, rental payments, and other things that are simply false choices.

We can continue down this path that allows Iran to profit $60 billion above the amount they were making before the Biden administration took office, allowing Venezuela to profit $65 billion above the amount that they were making prior to the Biden administration, or we can simply produce American energy, some of the lowest carbon-intense barrels in the world, and actually have American energy security, returning us to American energy security as we saw under the previous administration, rather than these policies that are so punitive on American families, especially those that can least afford it.

Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Fleischmann and Ranking Member Kaptur for their cooperation here.

Mr. Chair, dating back to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, there was funding that provided important advancement of projects known as the Comite project, which is north of my hometown of Baton Rouge, as well as the West Shore project in the River Parishes.

Mr. Chairman, these projects date back, in the case of Comite, date back all the way to the early 1980s, one of these awful Army Corps of Engineer projects that has been stalled for so long. We had a record flood in 2016, by some measure a 1,000-year flood that would have been tempered or mitigated if this project had been constructed, and thankfully in BBA 2018, the project was fully funded. The folks were excited and believed that we were going to be moving forward on this project.

Similarly, Mr. Chairman, the West Shore project actually started before I was born, literally, 1970, 1971. That project had been stalled and had not advanced at all until we were able to get the authorization passed through Congress in 2016 and we were able to get the project what we believed was also fully funded in BBA 2018.

Mr. Chairman, what we found today is that these project costs have skyrocketed. In the case of the West Shore project, it is approximately $1.3 billion short now and in the case of the Comite project, it is about $447 million short. What this amendment does, this is an increase/decrease amendment of approximately $1.75 billion and it is designed to complete these projects.

Mr. Chairman, it is kind of like being a little bit pregnant. The project just doesn't work. It is either completed and it is functional, or it is not. We have got to finish these projects. We have to ensure the resiliency of these communities. I know that my two colleagues here being the chair and the ranking member of this committee, the subcommittee, with the Corps of Engineers knows the importance of investment in resiliency or mitigation efforts and certainly know the importance that they share.

I thank them again for accepting our amendment and look forward to continuing to work with you.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, we have been here for 8 months with one of the tightest majorities in modern history. Yet, look at the accomplishments of this majority, this conservative majority, with the majority of Republicans voting for:

The strongest border security in my lifetime.

Fighting against this incomprehensible energy policy that is driving up energy costs 40 percent, utility and gasoline payments, pushing Americans into energy poverty.

We passed legislation to unleash America's energy resources, pushing back this administration's brainless policies on energy.

We passed legislation to pull back, to stop spending, $4.8 trillion, that--I want to make note--my friends that are carrying this motion to vacate opposed.

We passed legislation to streamline regulations permitting environmental laws for the first time in 40 years. Again, my friends here opposed.

We strengthened work requirements for welfare to get people back into the workforce. Again, my friends over here opposed.

I keep wondering, what is going on? Are we redefining what conservative is? What is going on in this country today? What is going on in this body?

We have FreedomWorks, Heritage, Chip Roy and Jim Jordan say something is conservative and these folks say it is not, and they are right.

All of a sudden, my phone keeps sending text messages, saying: Hey, give me money.

Look at that. Oh, look: Give me money. I filed a motion to vacate.

Using official actions, official actions to raise money; it is disgusting. It is what is disgusting about Washington.

Mr. Speaker, we have watched as these folks right here that have brought up this motion to vacate have refused to pay our military servicemembers, refused to pay them.

I would quote my delegation member, my Senator from Louisiana, John Kennedy. If we are not going to pay our servicemembers, if they are not going to be there to protect us, the next time someone invades America, ``call a crackhead.'' Let me know how that works out.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard people talk about bad faith here. I have heard them make reference to this January agreement--my friends from Arizona, Virginia, and Florida.

Let me be crystal clear: Not a single one of them was in the room.

You know what? The Speaker didn't meet the targets of that January agreement, he exceeded them. The greatest savings in American history. The greatest savings in American history.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't about fundraising. This is about our country. It is about our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, we need to stand behind this majority. We need to stand behind the greatest Speaker in modern history that has delivered the best conservative wins for this country.

Mr. Chairman, I start by thanking my friend, Chairman Diaz-Balart for his hard work on State and Foreign Operations appropriations legislation. I know he and his staff have worked tirelessly over the last several months to get this bill in the position it is in now, and I thank them for their hard work on this.

Mr. Chairman, earlier this year, May 24, my constituent, Cameron Robbins--

along with probably hundreds of other high school graduates from the Baton Rouge area--went on a trip to The Bahamas to celebrate his high school graduation. Tragically, Cameron went overboard on a sunset cruise a few hours after arriving.

Mr. Chair, I think we got the first call around midnight. We were on the phone until 4 a.m., working, literally overnight, waking up admirals and captains and all kinds of folks from the United States Coast Guard, and working with the Royal Bahamas Defence Force to ensure there were appropriate search-and-rescue efforts to find Cameron.

Regrettably, Mr. Chairman, despite the efforts of the United States Coast Guard and the Royal Bahamas Defence Force, Cameron's body was never found.

You can imagine the tragic impact on the family, on the students, and on the entire community.

Mr. Chairman, the Bahamian Government is our friend. We are allies. We are obviously very close, and we have close economic relationships.

The police in The Bahamas conducted a very extensive investigation. They interviewed students who were nearby to find out what happened. They interviewed the captain of the vessel; interviewed everyone who was involved.

Mr. Chairman, you can imagine the family at this point.

We simply asked: Could you please just share your investigation report? That is it. Just share the investigation report. The family just wants to learn as much as they can about this tragedy.

I am going to say it again, Mr. Chairman: Cameron's body was never recovered.

Unfortunately, the Bahamian Government and the Royal Bahamas Police Force have not provided anything, have not provided any answers.

We sent our Coast Guard over to do search-and-rescue missions. We had surface ships, we had helos, we had aircraft over there. The Bahamian Government has provided nothing. They have been totally unresponsive. They haven't responded to me, and they haven't responded to the State Department.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter to Prime Minister Davis of The Bahamas.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, September 4, 2023.

Hon. Philip E.B. Davis,

Prime Minister of The Bahamas, Harold DeGregory Complex,

Freeport, Grand Bahama.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister: Your direct help is needed to

acquire the police report on Cameron Crossley Robbins (DOB 1/

11/2004), a United States citizen who went missing off

Paradise Island on 24/5/2023. Mr. Robbins and his family are

constituents who I represent.

While on a boating excursion aboard the Pirates Revenge an

accident ensued that caused Cameron Robbins to go missing. We

are aware that the Royal Bahamas Police Force interviewed

most of the passengers and crew of the Pirates Revenge, among

others. We believe the Royal Bahamas Police Force and the

Royal Bahamas Defence Force have comprehensive, helpful

information regarding the incident.

As you may know, the Royal Bahamas Defence Force initiated

search and rescue efforts, then quickly requested the support

of the United States Coast Guard to lead the search and

rescue, which they did for three days until The Royal Bahamas

Defence Force called off the search. The United States Coast

Guard has provided us all the information they have gathered

regarding the incident and search.

We believe the Royal Bahamas Police Force has the authority

to share their report with the Robbins family, and we

therefore respectfully request that you do everything in your

power to help provide the family with the police report.

I am sure you agree that it is inconceivable how any of

this information should remain inaccessible to the family.

Thank you in advance for your courtesy and cooperation. It is

greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Garret Graves,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I do have an amendment that would restrict funds for the Bahamian Government contingent upon their cooperation of simply sharing information and discussing this with the chairman and the ranking member of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I will not offer that amendment right now, but I would ask the chairman and the ranking member to please work with us on this matter.

I will say it again. The Bahamian Government is our friend. They are our allies. However, this is a tragic situation.

I would ask the chairman to put himself in the place of the parents, and work with us to help us get the information that the family is looking for.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, in 1996 this Congress came together to work on a bipartisan basis and enact work requirements for welfare programs.

Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear. The United States needs a social safety net. We need a social welfare program--let me say it again--as a safety net, as a program that is there to help those on a temporary basis at a time of need to offer a handout.

Under President Clinton, under Republicans and Democrats working together in 1996, and I make note, Mr. Chairman, then-Senator Joe Biden voted in support of installing work requirements for welfare programs such as for the SNAP program, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.

Under the program or under the law change, the work requirements simply meant that you needed to go to a job assistance center, a job training center, somewhere to gain the skills to connect you with available jobs.

More recently, Mr. Chair, just months ago, Republicans and Democrats--and I want to make note the majority of Democrats in this Chamber, the majority of Republicans in this Chamber and our President Joe Biden signed into law strengthening those work requirements; for example, raising the requirement up to age 55 that work capable individuals without dependents would be responsible for 20 hours of work in order to be eligible after an extended period for programs like food stamps.

This body came together and established a hard cap on the percentage of individuals that a State may be able to exempt.

What has happened is we have watched as the States have abused a loophole, a loophole that simply says if there are insufficient jobs, you don't have to comply with the work requirement. Eighteen States today--18 States--have said that they have insufficient jobs. Mr. Chair, that is ridiculous.

We have one of the lowest workforce participation rates in modern history. We have 8.8 million jobs available according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Jobs are available. Let's be clear. For those who are going to come out and say that this is mean, this is mean-spirited, this is cruel--let's be clear, Mr. Chair, the objective of work requirements--I am certain that Bill Clinton had as President, that then-Senator Joe Biden supported, that more recently President Joe Biden signed into law--the objective here is following models that have shown getting people to job assistance centers, job training centers, volunteering in

their community, volunteering in their church, going to school helps improve employability. It helps get people back in the workforce, taking them off of government dependence and becoming members of our society that determine their own future.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

Mr. Chair, I will respond to my friend's comments. I actually agree with what he said, and, fortunately, he is not making any reference to my amendment.

Let's be clear on what happens here. These are Federal funds; so, yes, absolutely, the Federal Government should be determining it. This has nothing to do with State's rights. We don't let the States cut the check for the Federal Government. That is inappropriate.

Number two, no one is taking these benefits away. Let's keep in mind, taxpayers are funding these programs, and all we are doing is we are simply asking for 20 hours a week of volunteer time in return for receiving these very generous taxpayer-funded benefits.

Lastly, Mr. Chair, the outcomes show, study after study shows this results in getting people back in the workforce. This should be our objective. Why in the world would we want to force people to stay on social welfare programs? That is cruel. We shouldn't be doing that to anyone. It is entirely inappropriate.

Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is related, as you heard, to the duck stamp.

In 1932, President Roosevelt signed into law legislation that authorized the duck stamp that allowed for hunters to get this stamp in order to go hunt waterfowl.

This program has been incredibly successful over the 90-year period, selling today approximately 1.6 million stamps every single year. This has generated approximately $1.1 billion, and all of these proceeds have been invested back into conservation, into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. This has benefited over 600,000 acres of our National Wildlife Refuge System and benefited conservation. I will say it again, this program has been wildly successful.

Mr. Speaker, in 2013, legislation was signed into law that created an electronic duck stamp. The thought there was that with the internet and with the ability to improve access to compliance, we would allow for a digital duck

stamp to provide 45 days of authorization to go hunt.

The problem was that the physical paper stamp often missed that 45- day window. Someone would pay to get a duck stamp, and they had a 45- day authorization window, but the physical stamp didn't come in until after the end of that period. So, the hunter would be out of compliance, yet they did everything right.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is very simple. It just allows for the digital authorization, the electronic authorization, to be extended throughout the season.

Importantly, Mr. Speaker, it still preserves the physical stamp that so many people treasure and collect annually, so it does require the stamp be physically mailed later on.

Mr. Speaker, I give a huge shout-out to the cosponsor of this legislation, Congressman Mike Thompson, a fellow sportsman from California. I thank Senator Boozman and Senator Manchin, who have cosponsored the Senate companion bill, and I thank Bruce Westerman, the chair of the committee, and Ranking Member Grijalva, for working with us to clear this legislation. It is really important that this move forward.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I will share how this came about. I love it whenever you are out there in the field, meeting with constituents back home, and people bring up ideas. In this case, it was actually a sportsman in our office, Taylor Playforth. We call him ``Bailer'' because he sunk his boat, but that is a whole other story. Taylor Playforth, who is an avid sportsman, actually came up with this idea.

We were able to get this turned into legislative text, worked with Senators to introduce it, and worked with the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and others, which ultimately yielded this legislation. I am hopeful that my friend from Arizona is going to ensure that we pass this legislation unanimously today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all the folks who worked on this. I thank Vivian, Sandra, and the staff of the Committee on Natural Resources, and I urge adoption of this legislation.

Mr. Chair, I thank my friend, Congressman Rick Larsen, for yielding.

Mr. Chair, yesterday, I had a chance to talk about this legislation and talk about the fact that there has been an input process that has gone on for well over a year. This legislation is in excess of 840 pages and has achieved numerous bipartisan wins on things that are advancing aviation safety and the aviation industry in the United States.

There are a number of people behind the scenes who have put tremendous hours of blood, sweat, and tears into this bill. I will take a minute to thank the following folks: Hunter Presti, Laney Copeland, Julie Devine, Chris Senn, Andrew Giacini, Will Moore, Jack Ruddy, Corey Cooke, Abby Wenk, Leslie Parker, Brian Bell, Alex Menardy, Liz Forro, Adam Weiss, Kathy Dedrick, and Stanton Johnson, as well as our own deputy chief of staff, Maggie Ayrea, for all the work that they did to put this legislation together.

I remind this body, Mr. Chairman, that this bill passed out of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on a unanimous vote. I will be the first to admit that, certainly, there are some imperfections--and my friend from Pennsylvania believes he has identified one--but this legislation is really just a tremendous step forward for the aviation industry in the United States.

I, again, thank Mr. Larsen. Sam Graves did an amazing job, as well as Congressman Cohen for their partnership on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation reflects the input of Members of Congress, of the flying public, and stakeholders to the tune of over 2,000 unique submissions that we processed, that we put together. Ultimately, it yields a bill that is in excess of 840 pages.

This legislation is the result of hundreds of meetings and dozens of hearings dating back years. Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, this legislation passed the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with unanimous bipartisan support.

This legislation takes important steps in ensuring that we have continuity and consistency within the FAA. It makes fundamental organizational changes, taking a 1970s organization and updating it for today. It establishes a deputy administrator for safety and operations, and an assistant administrator for rulemaking and regulatory improvement. It establishes an Office of Innovation, an FAA ombudsman, and many other important changes in the organizational structure of this antiquated and slow-moving agency.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is focused on the passenger experience. You can imagine these families traveling and going to satellite parking lots, taking shuttles to airports, trying to check in bags, trying to go through security, dealing with concessionaires at the airport, getting on the airplane, and on the back side, effectively doing it all over again at your destination airport.

We have to have someone who looks at this entire process to ensure that it is consistent, that it is complementary, that it is streamlined. This bill does just that: improving upon that passenger experience; ensuring that we are deploying the best technology, the most updated technology, as quickly as possible; pulling back the veil on air traffic control and other operations that often result in a negative or adverse passenger experience.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation addresses many of the very concerns that we hear from the flying public. We have areas where we have shortages in personnel on the government side or on the private sector side, as the ranking member noted.

We ensure that we incentivize new entrants into this growing workforce, to make sure that we have the pilots, the air traffic controllers, the A&P mechanics, those that are operating new entrants into the market, to ensure that that customer experience is positive.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation also takes significant advances in an area I care a lot about--new entrants into the market. The FAA was really established or set up for a scenario when we had a few airplanes per week that were coming off assembly lines. Now, we are facing a scenario where you are going to have thousands and thousands of unmanned systems that are coming out on a weekly basis. We have to make sure that our regulatory and our statutory environment is one that actually facilitates these new entrants in the market.

Title 7 facilitates these new technologies, everything from allowing for drones to be used for delivery, making decisions on beyond visual line-of-sight, ensuring that we are operating a risk-based framework for safety.

It codifies the part 107 waiver process to ensure that we are standardizing the waiver process and provides transparency. It ensures the designation of critical infrastructure related to drones--something that should have been done, I want to remind my FAA friends, in 2016-- and establishes a mandate for that action.

It helps to streamline the environmental process. It clarifies and eliminates burdensome rules regarding the delivery of certain products. It allows for unmanned systems to be used for wildfires, and it includes the DIIG Act for infrastructure inspections.

In the advanced air mobility space, it creates certainty for eVTOL, electric vertical takeoff and landing equipment. It ensures that the process, the notice of the proposed rulemaking that is going through, is completed and provides certainty moving forward.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to go through everything in this 841- page bill, but I do want to make note that the leader of this bill, the leader of this committee, Sam Graves, is the most knowledgeable aviation expert that has ever led this committee. His hand was involved in every page of this legislation. We would not have this great bill without his leadership, without the leadership of our ranking member, Rick Larsen, who represents a large manufacturing and innovation community, and our ranking member, Steve Cohen, who represents one of the largest cargo logistics hubs in the world.

I have flown before, so I thank all of the leaders of the committee. I also want to give a shout-out to all the staff. I will go through and name them in a little while.

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark Building Safety Month 2023 and to recognize the more than 63,000 members of the International Code Council (ICC) who have dedicated their careers to ensuring public safety throughout the built environment--whether in our homes, offices, schools, or houses of worship. One of those members is International Code Council President Michael Wich, the Director of Building Code Administration and Chief Building Official for the South Central Planning and Development Commission--who just happens to be my constituent from Houma, Louisiana.

The Code Council brings together local, state, and federal government stakeholders, as well as those from the private sector, to develop model codes and standards that protect the occupants of the buildings in which we live, work, and play. Those standards are then implemented year-round by building safety officials, the fire service, architects, engineers, builders, and other skilled tradespeople to ensure the safe construction and maintenance of buildings.

Building Safety Month was created by the International Code Council and its partners to remind the public about the professionals who ensure buildings are safe, resilient, efficient, and livable. This year's Building Safety Month theme is ``It Starts with You,'' which encourages the public to recognize the critical role of our local code officials who work around the clock to keep our communities safe and mitigate the risks posed by natural disasters.

Building codes and standards include important safeguards to protect the public from hurricanes, tornadoes, snow and ice storms, and earthquakes. As Americans rebuild following these events, we recognize and thank those who implement and enforce building codes for protecting lives, property, and businesses, and ultimately ensuring our communities are resilient to future events.

Development, adoption, and implementation of up-to-date codes and standards has enabled Louisiana to rebuild stronger following the devastation stemming from Katrina and Rita in 2005; Gustav and Ike in 2008; Lee in 2011; Isaac in 2012; the Baton Rouge flooding of 2016; Harvey in 2017; Laura, Delta, and Zeta in 2020; and Ida in 2021.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in thanking ICC Board President Michael Wich, as well as ICC's Chief Executive Officer Dominic Sims, the International Code Council leadership, and ICC's Members and staff as they recognize Building Safety Month 2023.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give a quick shout- out and recognition to our guest chaplain today, Deacon Dan Borne.

Not to take anything away from the Almighty Father, but I think Deacon Borne's voice is often confused with the Almighty in Tiger Stadium in ``Death Valley'', as over and over again fans hear, ``First Down, Tigers,'' ``Chance of Rain? Never,'' and ``Touchdown, Tigers,'' to the frustration of our guest teams.

Borne has been a longtime friend, along with his wife, a Catholic schoolteacher. His son, Jason, was one of my best friends in high school. David and Elizabeth are the other kids in the family. Deacon Borne has been leading them in a life of faith and is now leading our entire community as deacon in the East Baton Rouge Catholic Church.

I appreciate him being here. I welcome him and certainly welcome his prayer, as we need much more of that here today.