Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, the Crooked River Ranch Fire Protection Act removes 830 acres from the wilderness study area in central Oregon. The land is adjacent to a rural subdivision, and its removal from WSA will arguably make it easier for the local community and the BLM to plan wildfire mitigation projects.

While we take issue with the point that the WSA designation limits mechanical thinning and other necessary forest treatments, the area is not suitable for wilderness designation, and the release from the WSA makes sense.

However, we still have concerns with this bill, because it ignores the collaborative process that was trying to develop a comprehensive plan for the entire area. That plan would have led to lasting conservation gains by designating wilderness and would have done even more to protect the community from wildfire by creating special management areas adjacent to Crooked River Ranch. Unfortunately, the collaborative group stalled out after this legislation was introduced.

Only Congress can permanently change the status of a wilderness study area. Whenever we choose to make a permanent change, we have a responsibility to consider the whole picture and listen to all stakeholders.

While it is disappointing that we are unable to fulfill that commitment with this legislation, we understand the need to prioritize safety of the Crooked River Ranch residents.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2083. This legislation claims to

protect salmon in the Columbia River by authorizing an increase in the annual permits to kill California sea lions, Steller sea lions, and harbor seals.

It is true that many of our salmon and steelhead runs are not doing well. In 2017, runs of wild salmon and steelhead were the fourth lowest since 1979, and the most recent 3-year trend is steadily downward. It is devastating, I agree, but we should be legislating to address the real threats facing salmon recovery. Impacts to salmon caused by seals and sea lions pale in comparison to the harm caused by so many other threats.

Let's take a minute to go over some of the significant threats facing salmon: habitat loss and degradation, pesticides and toxic contaminants polluting tributary habitats, hydropower, invasive species, hatcheries, overfishing, by-catch, human population growth, climate change, and the bill the House Republicans pushed today to block court-mandated water releases from Federal dams to aid in salmon recovery.

I cannot support this bill. It does not address the root causes of salmon population decline and, instead, unfairly scapegoats sea lions.

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed to be standing here today to debate a bill that has become quite familiar to the House Natural Resources Committee over the past three Congresses.

I must point out the obvious fact, Mr. Chairman, that killing of sea lions is not a silver bullet for a salmon recovery. This bill is a five-cent solution to a $10 problem.

The fact is the sea lion predation pales in comparison to the harm caused to endangered salmon runs by habitat loss, dam operation, pesticides, invasive species, and several other human activities. The bill does absolutely nothing to address any of these major causes of salmon decline.

For example, NOAA Fisheries has found that the estimated salmon and steelhead production in the Columbia River basin is over 10 million fish below historic levels, with 8 million of that loss attributable to hydropower development and operation.

I must also point out the hypocrisy here. The bill before us today is described as a salmon protection act, but

it follows a series of House Republican priority bills that would push the West Coast salmon population to the brink of extinction.

Just this April, my Republican colleagues pushed through the House H.R. 3144, known in the fishing community as the ``Salmon Extinction Act,'' intended to block protection measures that experts tell us are necessary for salmon survival.

Last year, we saw similar attacks on salmon, Tribes, and the salmon fishing industry when House leadership rushed H.R. 23, also known as the GROW Act, through the House. This bill sought to eliminate protections for wild California salmon and put California's native fisheries and the thousands of jobs it supported on the path to extinction, meaning thousands of job losses across California, Oregon, and Washington State. House leadership pushed that bill even though estimates showed that 78 percent of California's native salmon will be extinct this century under current trends.

The congressional war on salmon has continued with riders in this year's appropriations bills. For example, the House Energy and Water Appropriations bill, approved by this Chamber earlier this month, will block the restoration of salmon runs in the Columbia River and California's San Joaquin River.

As if that were not enough, the Interior and CJS Appropriations bills also include riders that are being supported by the Republican majority. Yet here we are talking about killing hundreds of seals and sea lions because my Republican colleagues claim they want to recover salmon.

Let's be clear: The anti-salmon legislation and riders coming out of Congress are far bigger threats to salmon recovery than the sea lions' snacking habits. Restoring wild salmon that are under threat requires a sophisticated response that tackles the most pressing issues impacting salmon populations.

Instead, we are here today scapegoating marine mammals that are themselves under threat from this House's effort to roll back the Marine Mammal Protection Act in order to help oil and gas companies.

Marine mammals and salmon have coexisted together for millennia. Unfortunately, neither one has enough defenses against the agenda of the Republican Congress. We don't have to pick and choose which creatures are worthy of survival. I would encourage my colleagues to get serious about addressing the whole range of stressors that are driving salmon to extinction: dam operations, pesticides, invasive species, and human activities that are preventing full salmon recovery.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject today's effort to force Congress to pick and choose between wildlife, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck).

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

H.R. 2083 authorizes the lethal taking of over 1,000 sea lions and an unknown amount of seals annually. Counter to what we have heard, the bill will not significantly aid in the recovery of salmon populations but needlessly targets seals and sea lions.

I think we have to put this piece of legislation in context to what this House has done and what the Natural Resources Committee has done: a pattern. It is another example of how my Republican colleagues view wildlife management policy in the 21st century. We have too many attacks on wildlife in this Congress.

Last year, Republicans released a bill to overturn a 2016 judicial decision to allow the shooting of cormorants without ever considering nonlethal management. The claimed rationale is to protect sports fishing and aquaculture, although scant science, evidence, or fact exists to prove that the birds significantly impact fish populations.

In February of last year, this Chamber voted to allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to shoot bear cubs from a helicopter and gas wolf pups in their dens on Alaska National Wildlife Refuges to artificially inflate populations of moose and caribou prized by trophy hunters.

In the 115th Congress, Republicans have introduced dozens of bills and policy riders targeting the Endangered Species Act and species like the gray wolf, grizzly bears, greater sage-grouse, delta smelt, and Chinook salmon.

The Trump administration's announcement that the Department of the Interior will now consider trophy imports on a case-by-case basis gave life to harmful bills in Congress that support trophy killing of elephants and lions in African countries for purported conservation purposes.

In the midst of all of the mass shootings in the country, committee Republicans tried to disguise an NRA-backed bill as a sportsmen's bill, the SHARE Act, which would deregulate silencers and armor-piercing bullets. All these attacks on wildlife have been constant, they have not been backed in science, and they have not been supported by science or fact.

We all would like to see legislation that would tackle the real threats facing imperiled wildlife and, in this particular legislation, to do a study to assess that and then to talk about the kinds of efforts that could be undertaken to protect the salmon. But to merely do that without the science and the study I think is a mistake, and it fits into a pattern that is all too common and puts this legislation within the same context and the same pattern as the other pieces of legislation.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate that the proponents of the legislation on both sides of the aisle, I understand, are representing not only constituent interests, but what they see is a good piece of legislation.

Let me just end by saying that similar legislation has been proposed in previous Congresses, but this bill would allow more killing of seals and sea lions than all of those before it. When this version of the bill was introduced in 2015, it proposed an annual taking of 92 California sea lions. Under this legislation, H.R. 2083, this would increase by tenfold and would include the killing of Stellar sea lions and harbor seals. I am disappointed that the legislation before us today has gone in that direction.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill proposed by Speaker Ryan, a day after the big lie was finally admitted to by President Trump, the Attorney General, Secretary of Homeland Security, and the resident White House sociopath, Stephen Miller, that ripping children from their mothers and fathers and jailing them was solely an administrative decision, not a law, not a loophole, not the fault of Democrats, but, instead, the singular, cynical, and cruel policy of the Trump administration.

Yet H.R. 6136 does nothing to remedy the damage of that policy for children, for their parents, and does nothing to soothe the conscience of our Nation.

H.R. 6136 has no oversight or public review of for-profit and nonprofit detention centers, nothing to reunite 2,300 children with their families, and eliminates the standards of care for children in detention centers.

Today was supposed to be about DACA recipients. This bill does nothing for them either. Their fate is tied to spending 23 billion taxpayer dollars on a political gift to Trump for a wall, a wall that circumvents environmental law, puts our lands, water, and wildlife and border land communities at risk, and a point system that could disqualify over 80 percent of current and previously eligible Dreamers.

We had an opportunity to address Dreamers, by the way, another Trump- created crisis, with a vote on the Aguilar-Hurd legislation, a bipartisan compromise that includes some content I opposed, but I would vote for it because it is necessary and a step forward. But this effort was sabotaged by Trump and the Republican leadership of this House.

We are now asked to vote on Speaker Ryan's H.R. 6136, the anti-family values bill. It is wasteful, repressive, and meaningless.

Regardless of how you paint it, how you sell it or lie about it, this particular pig will never be a silk purse. I urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation.

Madam Speaker, it is difficult to find words after what has unfolded before our eyes and the eyes of the American people these last few days, and it has gotten worse the last few days.

So today, I rise in defense of children on this House floor to demand of this House and, more importantly, the Trump administration to end this cruel exploitation of children by separating them from their families, by tearing children from their moms, and what appears to be, no doubt, a very craven political tactic by President Trump to try to hold hostage children to get other draconian items done on his immigration bill.

This tactic is fueled by some very ugly things that the American people have to reject. It is fueled by bigotry. It is fueled by hatred. It is fueled by fearmongering and is now being fueled by the endangerment of children.

As a father, as a grandpa, I cannot believe how we are debasing our Nation's moral traditions, how we are replacing our sacred values with autocratic comments and rhetoric from the President.

Mr. President, no more lies, no more child hostages. End this now. You can, and for our Nation's sake and for the children's sake, this needs to be done.

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gomez), my friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), my good friend.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico.

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

This amendment and existing authority in the base bill establishes so-called pilot programs on three national forests in New Mexico.

The pilot would exempt all logging activity from environmental review and establish an untested arbitration system for anyone who wants to object to an unauthorized project. While we are told that this is necessary to promote forest health and mitigate wildfire, this sets a dangerous precedent, with the potential to do lasting environmental damage to over 3 million acres of national forests.

What this amendment calls a pilot program would upend critical environmental safeguards and limit public participation in forest management decisions. This is more like a management reorientation project than a pilot project.

The omnibus bill passed less than 2 months ago, included a bipartisan compromise to fix the wildfire budget and update forest management authorities. The Forest Service has the tools it needs to restore our national forests. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would rather use the threat of wildfire to roll back bedrock laws to increase commercial logging. This doesn't make sense in New Mexico, or any other State.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment and the existing authority in the base bill would also give unprecedented power to the Forest Service to shield future final agency actions from any judicial review. This is an extremely dangerous power to give any agency. Allowing an agency to decide when and which actions to shield from oversight gives them power to ignore the laws passed by Congress.

Under the language of this amendment, the Forest Service could advance any plan and be relatively sure their internal hand-picked arbitrator would approve it. Review by independent courts provides oversight to ensure agencies are carrying out a statute according to congressional intent. This check and balance ensures good governance and prevents abuse.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment that is being offered by the gentleman. It is unwarranted and undermines one of the bedrock environmental laws, the Endangered Species Act.

The first issue at stake is that my colleagues seem to imply that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not already have the authority to consider beneficial conservation actions already in place during the section 7 consultation process under the Endangered Species Act. This is simply not true.

The jeopardy analysis already takes into account the beneficial actions that have been implemented when determining if a Federal agency's activities would put a species in danger of extinction. Thus, this part of the amendment is redundant and would only cause uncertainty in the consultation process.

But perhaps more problematic is that this amendment includes a requirement to consider future proposed conservation measures. The keyword here is proposed. In no way are these proposals locked in stone. There would be no way to know if these proposals would be part of the final action.

The service always considers conservation measures. The service considers proposed actions where they are reasonably certain to occur. The service, however, should not include speculation about proposed actions in the future. This amendment lowers the bar for species protection and should be rejected.

Unfortunately for our imperiled wildlife, this amendment is not the only way my colleagues across the aisle are attempting to undermine the Endangered Species Act in this farm bill.

If this bill becomes law, a person could spray early spring pesticides directly on endangered wildlife in the field, like the whooping crane, for example, and it would be completely legal even if some were killed.

Not to mention, these early spring pesticides are often acutely toxic. Some pesticides are suspected to cause Parkinson's disease in people, and others are likely to cause cancerous tumors. Imagine the damage, not only to human life, but what it would do to our endangered wildlife.

This bill also removes the requirement under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for the EPA to consult

with expert wildlife agencies on the impact of pesticides to threatened and endangered wildlife.

Pesticides have caused the dramatic decline of numerous species of birds, bees, fish, and butterflies. With the very existence of species such as the monarch butterfly and the whooping crane at stake, it is unconscionable to allow the EPA to approve the use of pesticides without properly assessing the effects they have on hundreds of endangered species across the country.

I cannot say this strongly or more frequently enough: the ESA does not need to be reformed or modernized to work better. What it needs is congressional support. Instead of rolling back critical safeguards and introducing harmful anti-ESA riders like these, Congress should be implementing measures to fully fund the act and protect species and their habitats from permanent extinction.

We have a responsibility to be good stewards of our environment and uphold the strong protections of the ESA. The American people deserve to be able to experience their natural legacy for generations to come.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment significantly alters critical environmental review requirements and limits opportunity for the public to challenge forest management projects.

Restricting NEPA analysis to two alternatives may seem like it will save time and money, but this cuts right at the heart of critical environmental protections. NEPA doesn't hurt forest management projects; bad planning, ignoring science, and disingenuous intentions hurt forest management projects.

NEPA supports collaboration through public participation. It allows many voices and different voices to participate in the planning process,

which leads to better results and reduced costs.

NEPA ensures Federal agencies consider all alternatives, without requiring that agencies select the most environmentally friendly option or value the environment over other concerns.

Much like the forestry provisions in the base text of this bill, we have been down this road before. House Republicans tried to include harmful provisions to scale bedrock environmental laws and restrict access to the courts during the omnibus negotiations.

All of these toxic proposals were rejected by the Senate. Let's not make the Senate say ``no'' for a second time.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, if my colleagues across the aisle are serious about the long-term health of our forests, they should stop and pause and listen to scientists, who tell us climate change threatens in a very factual and scientific way and direct way the health of our forests, wildlife, and the ever-increasing forest fires that we must confront every year. We can use NEPA as a tool to consider these impacts, and if we are smart, we will strengthen the law instead of weakening it piece by piece.

The issue of forest health is a serious issue. This amendment does not deal with the complexity of the seriousness of this issue. If, indeed, we are to deal with this issue, then it has to be comprehensive and it has to be looked at, not by eliminating protections and public access, but by truly doing something for the long-term health of these forests, and that is to consider all available information and not deny scientific information in the process of blaming NEPA or any other law that exists for the public and for the protection of our forests as the reason why we are having forest fires.

Forest fires are a direct result of climate change, and as such, not to consider that as part and parcel of a solution is a grave mistake that will not solve the problem.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. It should not be tucked into this farm bill. It merits its own proper discussion and debate in this House, and that is the direction we should go.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment exempts all national forests in Alaska from the Forest Service's Roadless Rule, one of the country's most important conservation safeguards.

Inventoried roadless areas account for only 2 percent of our Nation's land mass, but they provide invaluable benefits: clean drinking water for over 60 million Americans, wildlife habitats for numerous threatened and endangered species, and they act as critical carbon sinks that mitigate the impacts of climate change. All of these benefits are threatened by this amendment.

Nationwide, the Roadless Rule is incredibly popular. Our constituents understand the importance of keeping intact roadless areas and managing our last truly wild places in a manner that protects old-growth forest and other precious resources from the pressures of development and extraction.

It is not just people in the lower 48. Alaskans understand the importance of protecting the roadless landscape. That is why hundreds of businesses in southeast Alaska have joined together to oppose overturning the recently adopted Tongass Forest Plan and efforts like this amendment to overturn protection for roadless areas.

These businesses rely on clean water and healthy forests to support thriving salmon populations and a robust tourist economy. By rolling back safeguards that protect old-growth forests from harmful development, this amendment threatens fundamental linchpins of the regional economy.

The Roadless Rule is not a job killer, as some make it out to be, because the Tongass Forest Plan balances protections of the old-growth forest by allowing public roads, hydropower projects, utility connectors, and access to inholdings, including mines. So its application in Alaska does not adversely affect community access or economic development projects in the legitimate public interest.

An exception for Alaska is a major policy change that hasn't had a hearing or any other form of consideration in the House. This controversial provision shouldn't be stuck in this farm bill without any accountability to the American public.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, Alaska recently lost in Federal court on this very issue. The Supreme Court refused to hear the State's appeal of a ruling that struck down the Tongass exemption. This ended the case.

This amendment attempts to run around that ruling and would exempt Alaska from protections that are widely supported and intended to protect our pristine public lands.

With regard to the Roadless Rule, if the very important and significant issues we confront, whether it is immigration, whether it is employment, whether it is education, the issues of poverty and hunger in this country, I would suggest that the cause for not finding solutions rests in this Chamber, it doesn't rest with the Roadless Rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I oppose the farm bill. It would hurt low- and middle-income families, take breakfast and lunch from children across this country, and fail hardworking farmers.

It also undermines one of the Nation's most successful and popular conservation laws, the Endangered Species Act, by removing the requirement for EPA to consult with expert wildlife agencies on the impact of pesticides to imperiled wildlife.

Pesticides are known to have been the cause of the dramatic decline of many species and a threat to public health. It should not be dispensed with in this legislation.

The provisions in this legislation that are anti-environment, anti- public health, anti-nutrition, and anti-working families are cause for opposition. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today, I am sorry to say, is yet another attempt by my Republican colleagues to accelerate the extinction of our Nation's fisheries.

H.R. 3144 weakens protections for several runs of wild salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest, which are extremely important to commercial, recreational, and tribal fishing interests.

This is the worst possible time for such an extreme approach. Last year, for the first time, Federal scientists surveying the Pacific Northwest salmon population came up with empty nets, and yet here we are moving a bill that will only worsen the salmon crisis.

While disappointing, I can't say today's bill is entirely surprising. In fact, this bill is just the latest attack by my Republican colleagues in their broader war on salmon and the salmon fishing industry.

We saw these same attacks on salmon when House Republicans jammed H.R. 23, also known as the GROW Act, through the House recently.

This bill sought to eliminate protection for California salmon and put California's native fisheries on the path to extinction, meaning thousands of job losses across California, Oregon, and Washington State.

House Republicans pushed the bill through even though estimates show that 78 percent of California's native salmon will be extinct this century under current trends.

Instead of trying to counter these trends, House Republicans decided it was more important to help some of their big business buddies who would rather drain our public rivers even further for private profit.

Now we are here today with another bill that harms our wild salmon and the businesses that depend on their existence.

It is no surprise that our committee received numerous letters from businesses and fishing industry groups opposed to H.R. 3144.

The committee also received several letters from guiding and outdoor retail businesses, the food industry, and from many other businesses that depend on functioning ecosystems and the Columbia Basin salmon.

Aside from being bad for many businesses, this bill also represents a troubling attack on our Nation's bedrock environmental laws and the legal process.

Since the early 1990s, Federal courts have found the Federal dam operations at the Federal Columbia River Power System endanger the existence of the Pacific Northwest salmon runs and violate our Nation's laws, including the Endangered Species Act.

As a result, Federal agents have been ordered several times to develop a new dam operation plan to recover the region's dwindling salmon populations.

Instead of requiring Federal dam operations to finally come into compliance with the law and develop a salmon recovery plan that works, H.R. 3144 locks in an outdated, illegal plan until at least 2022 that will cause great harm to wild salmon and struggling fishing communities.

Furthermore, this bill blocks recent court orders requiring additional salmon protection measures at Federal dams. It also bans Federal agencies from even studying the possible changes to dam operations that can improve salmon survival, such as increased spill.

In short, this bill causes great harm to wild salmon and many businesses, Tribes, and communities that depend on it.

Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter of opposition from Governor Kate Brown of Oregon, a letter of opposition to the legislation from Governor Inslee of Washington, 140 undersigned businesses from the region in opposition, the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee in opposition to the legislation, and over 22 environmental and outdoor organizations in opposition to the legislation.

January 22, 2018.

As Governor of the State of Oregon, I write expressing deep

concerns with H.R. 3144. I am concerned this legislation

would thwart federal court direction to provide additional

spill at dams on the lower Columbia and Snake rivers and the

collaborative state, tribal and federal process that has

worked effectively to develop spill provisions for 2018.

These court-ordered collaborative efforts resulted in

consensus recommendations from all sovereigns, representing a

positive, and unprecedented, step forward in building

stronger consensus for recovery actions. H.R. 3144 would

negate this progress and our ability to implement and learn

from these consensus recommendations.

H.R. 3144 would also derail ongoing collaborative efforts

to examine a range of potential future dam operations and

salmon management options required by the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The State of Oregon has

engaged in good faith as cooperating agencies with federal

agency leads for this Columbia Snake River Operations study.

This process is vital to secure a sustainable path forward

optimizing power, commerce, agriculture and fish recovery

within a changing social and environmental landscape.

Through NEPA and the Endangered Species Act, Congress

established processes for federal decision-making that are

grounded in a robust analysis of alternatives in a systematic

and science-based manner. H.R. 3144 contravenes these

important principles and would disrupt the regional efforts

to engage in a full, accurate and transparent analysis of

salmon and dam management.

Washington Governor Inslee has expressed similar opposition

to H.R. 3144. Oregonians and Washingtonians share decades of

investment in recovering Columbia River salmon, and I join my

colleague in asking you to oppose H.R. 3144.

Sincerely,

Kate Brown,

Governor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), vice ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to another problem and issue with this bill that one of my colleagues brought up in his statement, and that is the great harm it will cause to the Tribal interests in the Pacific Northwest.

Native people of the Pacific Northwest ceded most of their ancestral homeland to the United States in exchange for the right to catch salmon and steelhead at accustomed places.

The Federal Government has a long history of failing to protect these fishing rights. If enacted, H.R. 3144 would further harm Tribal fisheries which are a critically important source of food. They are of great cultural and religious significance to the Tribes. Just this week, the Nez Perce Tribe contacted our committee to urge us to reject H.R. 3144. I think Congress should heed this call and reject this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the concerns have been laid out by the people who have spoken against this legislation. Essentially, this legislation, H.R. 3144, violates bedrock environmental laws. Those concerns have been stated by Members who have spoken against the legislation. It harms businesses. It hurts the Tribes in the Northwest. It is an attack on the legal process, and, in the long term, it will hurt ratepayers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 3144, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Arizona State Museum on its 125th year anniversary. For 125 years, the Arizona State Museum has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to educating the public through guarding, preserving, and studying the State of Arizona's archaeological resources.

Founded in 1893, the Arizona State Museum was one of the nation's three original university-based museums of archaeology established in the late 19th century. The museum's researchers are leaders in the field of Southwest archaeology and are sought after internationally for their expertise and groundbreaking research. This gives our desert community a unique opportunity to gain insight about the diverse cultural heritage of Arizona and have meaningful experiences. The Arizona State Museum has been a leading voice advocating for the preservation of cultural artifacts not just in Arizona, but at the national level as well. In July of 1990, Dr. Raymond H. Thompson, former Director of the Arizona State Museum, testified before the United States Congress as the American Association of Museum's representative in support of the proposed Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). NAGPRA was adopted in November 1990, and continues to be a significant piece of legislation to preserve Native American cultural items.

I am especially grateful for the Museum's dedication to gathering a comprehensive collection that represents the diverse cultural heritage of the Southwest, including the region's Native American roots. The Arizona State Museum holds the world's largest and most comprehensive collections of Southwest Tribal cultures from 13,000 years ago to present, and is home to two large collections of Native American pottery and basketry that are federally designated American Treasures.

I congratulate the Arizona State Museum on their 125th anniversary and look forward to supporting their continued efforts to preserve and document the cultural artifacts of our great State of Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate Daniel Contreras, the owner of the famed El Guero Canelo restaurant for receiving a James Beard Award for his world-famous Sonoran hot dog. El Guero Canelo won this prestigious award in a special category called ``American Classics,'' which honors restaurants that are ``cherished for quality food that reflects the character of the community.'' I cannot think of a better choice that reflects the cuisine and culture of Tucson.

Contreras' restaurant, El Guero Canelo, is emblematic of the merging of Mexican and American culture that makes Tucson so special. The restaurant has a storied history in the region and is representative of how one immigrant from Mexico with hard work, dedication, and drive can achieve the American Dream.

Born in Magdalena, Sonora, Mexico, Contreras experienced the trials of economic hardship, spending his days playing baseball while dreaming of a professional career. Like so many before him, Contreras left his native Mexico for Tucson, Arizona in search of a better life and lured by the promise of the American Dream. He worked long hours as a dishwasher in local restaurants until he decided to take a risk and open up a hot dog stand in 1993, which became the birthplace of the legendary El Guero Canelo. From that tiny hot dog stand, his business has grown to include three restaurants in Tucson and one in Phoenix.

In addition to his immeasurable contributions to the gastronomy of Tucson, Contreras is an upstanding member of the community, dedicated to serving others. He is an active member of his church and frequently visits state prisons to speak with incarcerated individuals on how to prevent alcoholism.

Contreras' story demonstrates the power of the American Dream and the persistent, entrepreneurial spirit of our immigrant community. Thank you Daniel Contreras for your contributions to Tucson, and I look forward to enjoying a James Beard award-winning Sonoran hotdog.

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

Today, we are debating a bill package that follows a very familiar playbook for House Republican leadership.

This bill package is just the latest attempt by my Republican colleagues to push a highly partisan agenda by combining that divisive proposal with noncontroversial items.

Today's bill includes two bills that passed Senate and House Natural Resources Committee by unanimous consent.

One of these bills would make a technical correction to a previously passed Tribal water settlement, and the other would clarify that two pueblos in New Mexico should receive equal treatment when leasing their lands.

Unfortunately, instead of quickly passing these bills and suspensions and sending them to the President to be signed into law, House Republican leadership has decided to take those two bills hostage and combine them with a highly divisive bill that is likely not going anywhere--H.R. 986, section 3 of this legislation--which I do not support.

This political stunt seems doomed to fail. The only thing it will accomplish is wasting everyone's time.

Meanwhile, a list of bills that are critical to Tribes across the country sit in the Natural Resources Committee and are just ignored by the majority.

For example, we could be moving legislation that would protect and preserve Native American cultural artifacts, or legislation that would address issues at Indian Health Service, or legislation to codify meaningful and robust Tribal consultation process; or we could be here today passing the bipartisan bill known as the ``clean'' Carcieri fix.

These bills deserve attention. They are promoted by not only Indian Country, but many, many Members in a bipartisan fashion in this House.

I hope we can move past these petty political games soon, which people are, rightfully, sick of having to see.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues across the aisle to change course and stop blocking consensus bills from moving through this body by conjoining them with divisive, contentious proposals.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, and I ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

Mr. Speaker, given that each day that Congress delays action on the Dream Act, 122 people lose their DACA protected status-- since September 5, when Trump eliminated DACA, close to 16,000 young people have lost their protected status and face daily risk of deportation; given the fact that we have pleaded with Republican leadership on the urgency of finding a permanent legislative solution that will protect DREAMers; given the fact that the contradictions and confusion in the negotiations going on to craft a legislative fix continue to abound; and given the fact that this House has the opportunity to vote on a clean Dream Act, we must act now on a permanent solution that will protect DREAMers.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize and celebrate Fire Chief, Jim Critchley, on his retirement from the Tucson Fire Department.

Fire Chief Critchley began his Emergency Service career in 1982 with an EMT class. He worked in a few private agencies as an instructor, firefighter, EMT and security guard. He joined the Tucson Fire Department in 1988 and was promoted through the ranks first as a Paramedic, Captain, Training Captain, Operations Battalion Chief, Training Chief, Operations Deputy Chief, Assistant Chief of Training and Emergency Management and then, in 2011, became the Fire Chief.

Since 1992, Mr. Critchley has been an active representative on the State Fire Training Association and the Arizona Fire Chiefs Association. He served on the Western Fire Chiefs Association board as State Director, Vice President and President from 2003 through 2012. He also served on the International Association of Fire Chiefs board until 2014.

Fire Chief Critchley received a MBA from the University of Arizona, a Bachelor's degree in Fire Service Management from the Arizona State University, and an AAS in Fire Science from Pima Community College. In 2008, he was selected as Chief Fire Officer of the Year by the Arizona Fire Chiefs Association. Most recently in September 2017, Jim was inducted into the Arizona Fire Service Hall of Fame. Jim is married and has three children. We would like to thank Fire Chief Jim Critchley for his service and dedication to the city of Tucson and the state of Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, on November 14, 2017, I missed a recorded vote for Roll Call vote 631. I was called away from the floor for a phone call pertaining to the health of my mother.

The vote was on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on Roll Call 631.