Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unable to cast the following vote. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call 108.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in celebration of the life of John Young, a remarkable community leader and activist who spent more than 30 years uplifting underserved communities in the North Bay Area.

John was born on October 25, 1952 in San Francisco, CA. He grew up in Marin City and attended Tamalpais High School and College of Marin. John went on to study public policy at San Francisco State University, where he developed a passion for social justice.

Recognizing the need to confront economic, health, and education inequities, John committed his career to championing more inclusive social policies. At the Marin City Community Development Corporation, John went to bat for the community that raised him, helping to plan and launch critical revitalization projects. The Canal Neighborhood in San Rafael benefitted from John's talents as an organizer and housing specialist for the Canal Community Alliance. John also successfully managed more than $5 million in grants for programs supporting low economic and disadvantaged populations across the Bay Area.

John was a skilled problem solver who was able to effect change by bringing people together. In founding the Marin County Grassroots Leadership Network, he assembled a coalition for underrepresented residents to unite and speak with one voice. This helped secure more equitable policy outcomes, including housing, transportation, labor, and voting rights. In addition, more than 300 rising leaders were mentored and trained through the organization.

Friends, family, and colleagues knew John for his big personality that could brighten any room. With a deep sense of compassion and a people-first attitude, John embodied all the qualities of a fierce community organizer. Although he will be sorely missed, John's legacy will live on through the lasting positive impact he had on our community and beyond.

John's hard work made a transformative difference in the lives of many. Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that you join me in extending condolence to John's family and friends and in expressing our deep appreciation for John's extraordinary career and life.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Adam Politzer upon his retirement from a distinguished 20 year career in service to the City of Sausalito.

Adam was born and raised in Sausalito, and he graduated from Tamalpais High School. His career in local government began in 1987 as a recreation manager in Palo Alto. He later joined the City of Sausalito in 2000 as a parks and recreation director and quickly moved up the ranks to become the City's chief administrator. Upon his retirement Adam was the longest serving City Manager for Sausalito.

During his tenure with the City Adam produced substantial improvements to the quality of life for the City's residents and visitors. Among his numerous achievements, Adam successfully led efforts to revitalize Robin Sweeney Park, Dunphy Park, Martin Luther King Jr. Park, and Southview Park; oversaw the consolidation of the Sausalito Fire Department with the Southern Marin Fire District; and managed development projects for new public safety buildings. Adam was also valued by the city council and staff for his skilled stewardship of taxpayer dollars and helping the City maintain financial stability throughout economic challenges including the COVID-19 pandemic.

Over the years Adam became a strong mentor for the next generation of municipal leaders, launching the Southern Marin Management Academy to help train aspiring public servants. Adam is well-known by Sausalito and Marin County residents, business owners, and colleagues for his thoughtful leadership and willingness to thoroughly explore and pursue the best solutions to complex problems.

Adam's commitment to the community of Sausalito has been, and will continue to be, productive and enduring. Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that you join me in expressing gratitude to Adam for his extensive public service and extending to him congratulations on his retirement and best wishes on his next endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I am excited to be one of the sponsors of this great legislation, and I am grateful that it includes, as title II, my bill, the

Northwest California Wilderness, Recreation, and Working Forests Act.

This bill addresses some lands in my district that are some of the most biodiverse ecosystems and exciting outdoor recreation opportunities you will find anywhere in California. These areas are home to old-growth trees critical for carbon sequestration, rivers that provide fish habitat and unparalleled recreation, and mountain trails that offer hiking, biking, and other unique experiences.

Being active in the outdoors and experiencing wild places is a way of life in my district. Over the past year, with lockdowns and isolation, we have seen how important getting outside has been for our well-being. We all depend on the ecological, economic, and mental health benefits that our public lands provide, and that is why my legislation takes a multifaceted approach to public land management.

First, it includes an ambitious restoration plan to improve forest health, promote fire resilience, and protect communities.

Second, it recognizes the importance of the outdoor recreation economy by increasing recreational opportunities and tourism. Investing in our public lands means we are also investing in communities near our public lands, and that is why there is so much broad support in my district for this bill.

Then, finally, this legislation protects important wild places. These areas include critical habitat and ecosystems as well as some of the best fishing, hiking, and white water runs in the State. It takes conservation seriously because it is urgently needed for the future of our planet.

I would also like to explain the process. I believe good process leads to good policy, and we have worked very hard on this bill, starting when I first got to Congress. We have asked stakeholders about policy issues that should be addressed in public lands legislation. The legislation was further refined over more than 5 years of work. I have repeatedly sat down with constituents at public meetings and otherwise. We have discussed all the concerns that were addressed by local officials.

I believe that this comprehensive, carefully developed bill reflects that good process in the fact that we have such broad support, including conservation organizations, outdoor recreation groups, dozens of businesses, community leaders, adjacent landowners, and former and current elected officials from all the affected counties. It also drew bipartisan support in the Natural Resources Committee, which is a rare thing for a wilderness-related bill.

This bill is focused on a future for northwest California, where public lands are resilient and our outdoor recreation economy grows while we preserve environmental values for future generations.

Madam Speaker, I rise today, with my colleague Congressman Mike Thompson, in memory of Joseph A. Myers, who passed away on December 29, 2020.

Born January 16, 1940 in Cloverdale, Mr. Myers was a native Pomo Indian. He began his career as a law enforcement officer and was the first known California Indian to serve in the California Highway Patrol. He earned both his undergraduate degree and Juris Doctor from UC Berkley.

Mr. Myers became a revered leader in the Native American community and developed a reputation for working effectively to preserve Native American history through education and activism. He served as the Associate Director of the American Indian Lawyer Training Program where he mentored advocates on tribal law, and notably joined a lawsuit against the Bureau of Indian Affairs that successfully reversed the termination of 17 Rancheria communities in California. Mr. Myers later founded the National Indian Justice Center to help tribes strengthen governance capacity and improve the quality of life in Indian country. He was also a founding board member of the California Indian Museum and Cultural Center.

Mr. Myers shared his knowledge of Native American issues at UC Berkley as a professor in the ethnic studies department. The University named the Joseph A. Myers Center for Research on Native American Issues as a tribute to Mr. Myers contributions to the community including the Native American students on campus.

Along with his hard work ethic and commitment to making a positive difference for others, Mr. Myers was known for his good sense of humor, compassion and wit. Although he is already greatly missed, there is no doubt his legacy will continue to be an inspiration for many.

Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that you join Congressman Mike Thompson and me in expressing deep gratitude for Mr. Myers and his many years of selfless service to the Native American community and the entire North Coast, and in extending condolences to his family and many friends.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Diana Bishop as she retires from a distinguished career in law enforcement spanning more than three decades and culminating in her role as Chief of the San Rafael Police Department.

Chief Bishop grew up in Los Altos, CA. She earned a bachelor's degree in public administration from the University of San Francisco followed by an executive master's degree in public administration from Golden Gate University. She went on to graduate from the 219th Session of the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy. Her career in law enforcement began with the Santa Clara Police Department where she served for 26 years and rose to the rank of Captain. She was selected to serve as Chief of the San Rafael Police Department on January 4, 2012. Notably, she was the first woman to lead the organization since its creation in 1915.

Chief Bishop developed a reputation for her hands-on approach to leadership, accessibility to the local community, and penchant for innovation. Under her leadership, the Department adopted numerous reforms and initiatives including being the first agency in Marin County to implement body-worn cameras across its entire force. She launched a unique Spanish-language citizens academy to increase transparency and foster community relations. Chief Bishop also strengthened the Department's focus on social services by hiring a Mental Health Outreach Provider to support those suffering from behavioral issues, substance abuse, or experiencing homelessness, among others.

Diversity and racial equality were key priorities for Chief Bishop. She joined the community in voicing strong support for efforts to combat racial injustice, and her mentorship increased diversity among the Department's ranks. Chief Bishop's emphasis on de-escalation and implicit bias training helped ensure the Department delivered a higher standard of service.

Through good times and difficult moments, Chief Bishop never wavered from her core mission of serving San Rafael residents, and the City is better because of her dedication to its people and places. Madam Speaker, I respectfully ask that you join me in honoring Chief Bishop for her many years of selfless service to San Rafael and extending to her best wishes on her next endeavors.

Madam Speaker, since 1993, every year on January 16th, our nation commemorates the 1786 passage of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, authored by Thomas Jefferson. That landmark statute would go on to serve as the framework of the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, providing the foundation for religious freedom here in our great nation.

The past four years have made clear that there are those who would choose to distort the true definition of religious freedom, in order to allow the proliferation of discrimination under the guise of what they refer to as ``religious liberty''. The result of this callous and malignant effort culminated a week and a half ago with the storming of the United States Capitol building by White Christian Nationalist groups allied with the President, and the deaths of five Americans. The evidence of this fact is made clear by the thousands of ``Jesus'' signs, banners, and flags that flew beside those bearing the President's name, and those representing the White Supremacist movement.

From the erosion of the Johnson Amendment, to the numerous executive orders issued which have served to undermine the rights of women and workers, the damage done to true religious freedom by a malicious administration, is drastic and undeniable. However, I stand before you today to pledge that with the aid of this body, my colleagues and I in the Congressional Freethought Caucus will do everything within our Constitutional powers to correct this distortion of America's ``first freedom''.

It is a new day for our nation. The discriminating policies of the last four years are no more. I look forward to working with President- elect Biden, Vice President-elect Harris to correct the harmful policies enacted by the Trump administration. On this Religious Freedom Day, I call upon my colleagues in the House and Senate to pass the Do No Harm

Act, end discrimination under the guise of ``religious liberty'' once and for all, and reestablish our ``first freedom'' to its Constitutional founding.

Madam Speaker, history is watching and saving the receipts. Today, my colleagues across the aisle must choose which side of a very bright line they want to be recorded on for all time.

On one side: Lies, sedition, inciting and supporting insurrection and domestic terrorism.

The other side: Your oath of office, the Constitution, democracy, decency.

There is no middle ground. Today, we make history forever. So choose well.

A vote to impeach Donald Trump means, years from now, you can look your grandchildren in the eye and say, ``I did the right thing.''

Madam Speaker, I regret that due to a scheduling conflict on January 3, 2021, I was unable to cast the following vote. Should I have been present, I would have voted YEA on roll call 3.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Sergeant First Class

Elden Charles Justus who died in the line of duty during the Korean War on December 6, 1950, and is being laid to rest today.

Elden Justus was born in Grady, New Mexico, to Elmer and Lois Justus. The family settled in Arcata, California, where Elden graduated high school in 1945. On October 29, 1945 he enlisted in the United States Army and joined the 33rd Field Artillery Unit in Darmstadt, Germany. He met his wife in Germany, Ruth Boensel, and had two children, Jack and Lois.

The family relocated to Camp Carson in Colorado in January of 1950, and by September of 1950, Sergeant Justus departed for Japan and then to Korea. He served in the Headquarters Battery, 57th Field Artillery, 7th Infantry Division. He died in what is now North Korea on December 6, 1950, while assisting American and Korean soldiers out of an enemy attack. He was considered Missing in Action (MIA) until his remains were found in 2004 in a communal grave.

The Department of the Army POW/MIA Accounting Agency performed multiple tests and after 15 years of verification work, Sergeant Justus's surviving family members, his children Jack and Lois, were notified that their father's remains were found and identified in April 2019.

Sergeant Justus will posthumously be awarded the Purple Heart, Army Good Conduct Medal, World War II Victory Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Korean Service Medal with two Bronze Service Stars, Presidential Unit Citation-Navy, United Nations Service Medal, Republic of Korea-Korean War Service Medal, and the Republic of Korea- Presidential Unit Citation.

Madam Speaker, until Sergeant Justus's remains were recovered in 2004, he was one of over 7,000 Korean War service members who remain unaccounted. Sergeant Justus made the brave and honorable decision to help his fellow soldiers to safety when he gave his life for this nation. Therefore, please join me in recognizing SFC Elden Justus as he finally returns home and is laid to rest.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It reflects a bill that passed the House earlier this year in March by a vote of 404- 21.

I first introduced this bill in the 114th Congress. It was heard by the Natural Resources Committee, reported out favorably by unanimous consent. It was then reintroduced in the next Congress by my colleague Representative Jeff Denham, and it passed the House by voice vote. Then it was reported by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in October of 2018. The bill was reintroduced again by me this Congress, and after passage in this House, it once again was reported out favorably from the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs just a few weeks ago.

This amendment would take land owned by the Lytton Rancheria in Sonoma County in my district into trust as part of the Tribe's reservation for purposes of housing and economic development. It would permanently prohibit using these lands for casino gaming, and it would uphold a memorandum of understanding carefully negotiated between the Tribe and the County of Sonoma. It reflects an exhaustive stakeholder outreach process, extensive meetings, and negotiations between the Tribe, Sonoma County, and other local governments.

This productive relationship is illustrated by support from the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, who have jurisdiction over the land in question, and also the nearest local public service agencies, including the Windsor Fire Protection District and Windsor Unified School District. Even California Governor Gavin Newsom is in support of this bill. In fact, there is no elected official in the area that is impacted by this bill who is on record opposed to the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his concerns.

I won't relitigate the issue of whether the amendment is made in order. That has been decided. That is why we are here.

With respect to the gentleman's concerns about local individuals who may have expressed opposition to the bill--and again, there is no official opposition, no local government agency, no local elected officials, but some individuals in the area have opposed the bill--I would just note, in the 115th Congress, when then-Chairman Bishop of the Natural Resources Committee supported the bill passing out of his committee and passing on the floor, the committee report itself noted those same individual voices of opposition.

I will quote: ``Lastly, the committee has received a relatively large number of communications from the residents of Windsor in opposition to the bill.''

There is no new opposition to this bill. It is the same individuals, and it is the same folks who the chairman at the time, himself, noted.

So I would submit, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing new here. This bill has previously won broad bipartisan support, including from my friend from Utah, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment was culled out from the en bloc amendments. I am still not entirely clear why, but I think, to the extent that it deserves to be singled out and culled out, it is because it is a model for other land-to-trust bills that we sometimes see in this body. Rarely will you find a case where a Tribe negotiated more exhaustively in good faith and produced actual agreements with local government neighbors to the standard and to the level that we see in this case.

This is a good piece of legislation broadly supported by the elected officials in the area and, in many cases, having already won the strong bipartisan support from Members in both the House and the United States Senate. I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Linda Tavaszi, Ph.D., as she receives Marin Community Clinics' Lifetime Achievement Award for her decades of exemplary service promoting community health.

Born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1940, Dr. Tavaszi lived in Florida and Alabama before returning to New York to earn a graduate degree in social work from Fordham University. Dr. Tavaszi earned a masters in health administration from the University of Southern California, and a Ph.D. in health care administration from Walden University in Florida. Dr. Tavaszi began her life-long career in health care, most of which was spent working in Marin County.

Dr. Tavaszi came to Marin County as chief operating officer at Marin General Hospital in 1982. Under her leadership, Marin General opened a new emergency department and developed Marin's first and only cardiac surgery program. As president of the Health Council of Marin and the local chapter of the American Heart Association, Dr. Tavaszi's commitment and dedication to the community extended beyond her role at Marin General.

In 1994, Dr. Tavaszi was asked to oversee an American-owned hospital in Barcelona, Spain, where she and her family spent two years helping steer that project to success. Once back in California, Dr. Tavaszi oversaw the mergers of two hospitals in the East Bay, and she returned to Marin County as chief executive officer of Kentfield Rehabilitation Hospital. After great success there, she returned to Marin General in 2004. In 2011, Dr. Tavaszi became CEO of Marin Community Clinics. During her tenure at Marin Community Clinics, Dr. Tavaszi expanded patient capacity and comprehensive services for seniors and the homeless population. From 2017 to 2018 Dr. Tavaszi served as the chief executive officer of Ritter Center where she provided valuable assistance during a transition in leadership.

Madam Speaker, Dr. Tavaszi's career of leadership and vision has helped hospitals and clinics in our region provide affordable, high- quality health care to our most underserved populations. Therefore, please join me in recognizing Dr. Linda Tavaszi on her well-deserved honor and in wishing her the best of luck in her continuing pursuit of quality health care for people in need.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit NOAA from utilizing a science-based stakeholder decision support tool to save the North Atlantic right whale from imminent extinction.

The decision support tool was developed based on the best-available scientific information and models about the population dynamics of the whales. Defunding it undermines the consensus-based conservation decisionmaking process under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and would set a dangerous precedent for implementation of that law. It would also have lasting impacts for other species, fisheries, and industries.

Again, this whale, the North Atlantic right whale, is critically endangered. There are less than 420 left. That is fewer than we have Members of this House of Representatives.

With this amendment, while it may be well-intended to protect Maine lobstermen, it could have broadly undermining effects on right whale conservation and on NOAA's responsibilities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.

I fully understand my colleague's concerns and efforts to support constituencies. I, too, represent a coastal district with commercial fishermen; so does our colleague, Seth Moulton in Massachusetts. And we are committed to working together to find a solution to the crisis facing the North Atlantic right whale, including holding a hearing on Mr. Moulton's bill, the bipartisan SAVE Right Whales Act, in the Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee that I chair.

I am also fully supportive of his amendment to increase funding for right whale conservation. We should be devoting more resources to develop innovative solutions for the recovery of right whales to meet both fisheries and conservation goals, not choosing one goal over the other which, unfortunately, this amendment does.

I would also point out that the Committee on Natural Resources worked with Mr. Golden on several other possible amendments. We continue to stand ready to work on other ways and other solutions, but unfortunately, this amendment is not it.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. Chairman, the tool that we are talking about was developed by a consensus-based take reduction team that included the consensus support of all representatives of the fishing industry who sat on that team, the entire Maine delegation, that the team unanimously supported the decision.

Mr. Chair, an end-run around that congressionally mandated process at this critical moment, taking away the lifeline that the North Atlantic right whale needs as it teeters on the brink of extinction, is the wrong way to protect Maine lobstermen. We can work together on other threats, other ways to help the lobstermen.

We need to start that conversation with climate change. Certainly, the trade impacts to the lobstermen and other fishing communities should be something we do to help them, the threat of offshore drilling in the Atlantic. And let's get them some more financial support if there is too much burden to implement the technologies and strategies that have been represented here.

But the North Atlantic right whale is running out of time, and we should not move the goalpost on these critically endangered species in this way.

Mr. Chair, I request a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, this bipartisan amendment would stop the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from moving forward with a rulemaking that would change the Federal consistency process under the Coastal Zone Management Act, known as the CZMA.

The purpose of the CZMA is to give coastal States a strong voice in Federal agency decisionmaking for activities that affect a State's coastal uses and resources, including Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas development.

Federal consistency is the cornerstone of the CZMA. It provides the platform and process for coordination between States, industry, and stakeholders; helps anticipate and proactively avoid conflict; and helps protect the interests of coastal communities. It is a prime example of successful cooperative federalism, and it is key to long- term management of coasts around the country.

NOAA published an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in March regarding changes to the Federal consistency regulations to make the process ``more efficient,'' but there are already clear guidelines and timelines for Federal consistency review, and it has a proven track record of efficiency and cooperation. It is clear that there is no need for NOAA to change the process.

Maintaining the Federal consistency process is especially critical now, as this administration continues to look for ways to get around the clear opposition to offshore drilling from coastal States, communities, and elected officials from both sides of the aisle.

Earlier this week, State Representative Peter McCoy, a Republican from South Carolina, wrote an op-ed about why the CZMA is so important. He wrote: ``The consistency review authorities under CZMA have never been more important than right now . . . this move to potentially alter CZMA would undermine States' control and take away our ability to protect our coastlines.''

That is why I have joined in offering an amendment by South Carolina Representative Joe Cunningham, as well as our colleagues Florida Representative Francis Rooney and California Representative Salud Carbajal.

All of us know firsthand how important CZMA is to protecting our coastal districts. We have to ensure that States are able to fully weigh in on Federal activity off their shores. They are the ones most at risk. Their businesses, communities, and lands and waters will be left to deal with the economic and environmental costs of offshore oil and gas development.

Mr. Chair, I urge an ``aye'' vote on this amendment, and I yield the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment would stop the Army Corps of Engineers from moving forward with their flawed environmental impact statement for the proposed Pebble Mine.

Now, the Pebble Mine is a massive project that would be located in the headwaters of the Bristol Bay watershed in southeast Alaska. It threatens the entire Bristol Bay region: its people, its salmon, and its multimillion-dollar economy.

The Bristol Bay watershed supports 25 federally recognized Tribes that depend on salmon for food and their local economy and on a healthy watershed for their clean water.

Bristol Bay's wild salmon have sustained Alaska's indigenous communities for thousands of years by providing subsistence food, subsistence-based livelihoods, and the foundation for their culture and community. Salmon are the economic driver in Bristol Bay, and the region supplies half of the world's sockeye salmon and 83 percent of the country's salmon overall.

At about this time each year, commercial fishermen go to Bristol Bay to harvest that amazing sockeye salmon run. The commercial harvest results in more than $1 billion in economic impact, $500 million in direct income, and 14,000 jobs.

Bristol Bay is also one of the most sought after sportsmen's destinations. Hunting and recreational fishing draws visitors from around the world, resulting in over a thousand jobs and nearly $80 million in direct spending.

The EPA has previously said the impacts of mining on fish populations in the region could be catastrophic and irreversible. Over 3,500 acres of wetlands and over 80 miles of stream, which are all connected to salmon habitat, would be directly impacted by this mine and its infrastructure.

The proposed project would also generate an average of 6.8 billion gallons per year of wastewater during operations, 11.8 billion gallons during closure, and all of it would require capture and treatment.

This is unprecedented. There is no other U.S. hard rock mining operation that captures and treats such a massive volume of contaminated mine water, which is harmful to fish and to public health.

We know that mines are not invincible. Things go wrong. And if any of the negative impacts on waterways and ecosystems that have resulted from other mine failures were to happen in Bristol Bay, the way of life for Alaska Tribes, fishermen, businesses, and residents would be devastated.

Bristol Bay already provides enough for a thriving economy and supports a way of life that is sustainable for future generations. The Pebble Mine puts all of that at risk, at risk of significant irreversible damage. That is why the majority of Bristol Bay residents and Alaskans oppose the project. It is why 53 other Members of Congress have joined me in telling the Army Corps they should not permit this mine.

While a thorough and rigorous review would clearly show that it is the wrong mine and the wrong place, the Federal permitting process for the Pebble Mine has been wholly insufficient. Tribal input is not being incorporated, nor are Tribal governments being meaningfully consulted. The Army Corps, itself, acknowledges numerous data gaps, and the review fails to analyze economic feasibility and disaster scenarios or provide comprehensive reclamation and mitigation plans.

The rushed environmental review process has sparked wide-scale opposition from throughout the country.

Fishermen, Tribes, sportsmen groups, businesses, conservation organizations, all of them have weighed in in opposition to this shoddy, wrongheaded Corps project.

My amendment would stop the Pebble Mine. It would stop this flawed process. It prohibits funding to complete the process because there are fundamental flaws with the Army Corps' current analysis.

Bristol Bay is a national treasure. We have to do this right or risk losing an incredible resource. I urge support for my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, what we do know about this process is that the Army Corps, itself, has acknowledged serious data gaps.

What we do know is that Tribal input has not been seriously incorporated into this process, and we know that the National Marine Fishery Services, which is the agency that should be there at the table as a participating agency to protect this iconic fishery, is not participating in this process.

So what this amendment would do is stop this deeply flawed process. If the administration wants to try to start over and get it right, I have just identified some of the ways in which this terribly flawed process could be repaired and they could move forward in the next budget.

But there are too many red flags waving. Bristol Bay and its salmon are too important to the people of that region and to this country.