Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, each day that Congress delays action on the Dream Act, 122 people lose their temporary protected status granted by DACA.

Since the Trump September 5 announcement, 11,182 young people have lost their DACA status and face the daily threat of being detained and deported.

Time and time again, House Democrats have pleaded to Republicans and their leadership the urgency of finding a legislative solution that would permanently protect DREAMers. We have pleaded and explained the economic benefit, $23 billion yearly contributed by DREAMers to the GDP of this Nation.

We have pleaded with the Republican leadership to bring a Dream Act to the House floor that is just and fair without the trappings of xenophobia, division, or hate.

We have pleaded that the DREAMers have not committed a crime. It was not an act of volition on their part as children.

We must move beyond the political calculations about race, us-versus- them divisions in this country, and scapegoating.

The House has an opportunity and the authority to vote on a clean Dream Act and embrace the shared values and humanity of this Nation, while rejecting the politically manufactured hysteria.

Mr. Speaker, I ask a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, can come to the House floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, the American people are getting ripped off in this bill. The Chilean mining conglomerate behind this bill makes out like a bandit.

They get two expired leases back, as well as exemptions from several key environmental laws that could be used

to stop any of their dreams of massive profits from a giant copper mine.

The American people are the ones that are getting ripped off. This land is being given away for next to nothing. For the past 50 years, the leaseholder has been paying rent of $1 an acre per year. Think about that, $1 an acre per year, unchanged for 50 years. The American people are the landlords here. They are charging the Chilean company about $420 per month for 5,000 acres of prime land right next to the most visited wilderness area in the country.

I can only imagine how many hardworking Americans would desperately love to be guaranteed having only to pay $420 a month for their homes for as long as they want, particularly if their home was over 2 million square feet, as these leases are.

But we are not talking about someone building a house here. We are talking about a giant, destructive copper-sulfide mine that threatens one of the greatest unspoiled natural spaces in the country, the Boundary Waters Wilderness. Don't be fooled by the claims that the Boundary Waters are protected in this bill. They are not even remotely protected.

Copper-sulfide mining results in acid mine drainage, the same kind of pollution that comes from abandoned coal mines and has destroyed thousands of miles of streams and rivers throughout Appalachia. Acid mine drainage from these leases would flow into the Boundary Waters into a neighboring Canadian wilderness and into Voyageurs National Park. This would permanently impact millions of acres of lakes, rivers, fish and wildlife habitat, and risk the entire tourism and recreation economy of the region.

The majority says it is all worth it because of all the money that will flow into the State's coffers and be used for education. Give me a break. The only education benefit from this legislation would be children learning the chemistry of how acidic water flows out of mines, the biology of dead fish, and the economics of a shattered tourism and recreation industry.

But if the majority is truly concerned about the amount of money that a destroyed wilderness can bring to the State, they should be embarrassed by the sweetheart deals in these leases: $1 per acre per year and a royalty of 4\1/2\ percent on production. These numbers are absurd. These rock-bottom prices effectively subsidize a foreign company to mine on public lands right next to an irreplaceable wilderness.

My amendment would make sure that the company would pay a royalty rate of just over 60 percent because that is the same rate that Senator Murkowski has determined that companies should pay for oil that would come from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. If that is the cost of destroyed wilderness in the Arctic, then it should be no cheaper to destroy wilderness in Minnesota.

With the extra billions of dollars the State receives from the more reasonable royalty rate, perhaps they could fund education and also help all the owners and employees of tourism and recreation companies that would be put out of business by a giant copper mine.

To be clear, I will not support H.R. 3905 even if this amendment is adopted. But Members should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that they don't believe that a foreign mining company should be allowed to get public land and public resources at rock-bottom rates and out in the West for free.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the taxpayers, support my amendment, and oppose the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just close by saying that this precedent being set here with H.R. 3905 is a precedent that I think every Member of Congress needs to consider.

The backdrop is a mining law of 1872 that has not been changed one iota since then that basically provides the public resources, the extraction of our public lands for free to any company and more prevalent now are foreign mining companies. No return to the taxpayer and no consequences considered on the environmental damage that these mines have caused, the abandoned mines that haven't been cleaned up.

This is a backdrop to a deeper and more serious problem that this Congress has to grapple with, which is the mining law of 1872, and on this piece of legislation a precedent that establishes a template that can be destructive for the future and cut the public and the processes out that involve the public and safeguard the environment at the same time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my grave concern with the constant attacks on women's access to reproductive health care.

The women and girls currently under U.S. government custody in shelters, jails, and detention centers across this country who have had to relinquish their right to reproductive health care deserve our immediate attention.

I was disheartened to see the mistreatment of women in detention and children at the Office of Refugee Resettlement who are being

systematically denied access to their Constitutional rights. The Constitution guarantees all women the right to access abortions and prohibits the government from putting an undue burden on that right. However, the recent case of Jane Doe litigated in Garza v. Hargan, is a stark reminder of just how far this administration will go to deny a young woman her constitutional right to access an abortion.

Jane Doe, a 17 year old unaccompanied minor, came to the U.S. and was subsequently detained and placed in a government-funded shelter where she discovered she was pregnant. She immediately sought an abortion. However, she was inhumanely and unconstitutionally denied her right to an abortion. This administration's Office of Refugee Resettlement held Jane Doe hostage and barred her from leaving her shelter to access care, simply because the ORR Director Scott Lloyd and the administration disagreed with her health care choice to have an abortion.

Jane Doe's case is a heartbreaking one. While I am glad to see that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stood up for the rights of Jane Doe in that case and allowed her access to an abortion regardless of her immigration status, we know Jane Doe is not alone, and fear that many other young women's rights are being denied by this administration.

I have heard deeply concerning reports that the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services now enforces unconstitutional policies such as systematically counseling young women against accessing abortion. Similarly, there are reports of mistreatment of pregnant women and mothers in incarceration and detention. These reports illustrate that there are pregnant women sitting in solitary confinement without access to needed food and nourishment, women are sometimes shackled during labor, and others are ultimately denied adequate health care services. These policies and the mistreatment of women in incarceration and detention are simply shocking and represent a gross abuse of power by this administration.

We need to know why this is happening, how often it is happening, and what can be done to prevent these situations. This is why thirty-one of my colleagues and I have requested a Government Accountability Office report to examine the real situation of pregnant inmates and immigrant detainees in order to better understand efforts taken to protect them and their fetus.

This administration must stop denying women their constitutional rights. We must demand that this administration immediately end the cruel practices of intimidation and coercion, and uphold the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. This administration must allow young women currently in government custody access to the health care they need, including abortion.

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

I rise in opposition to H.R. 2936, the so-called Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017. Perhaps a better name would be the ``Log America's Forest Act of 2017.''

But before I address the many concerns with the underlying bill, I must commend my colleagues across the aisle for attempting to deal with the biggest barrier to improved management of our national forests: the enormous cost and impact of wildfire suppression on the Forest Service budget.

Over 50 percent of the Forest Service budget is eaten up by wildfire, and if things don't change, the agency predicts that it will increase to two-thirds in just 5 years. Unfortunately, the budget fix in this bill falls short.

First, it requires Congress to appropriate an amount equal to the 10- year average before emergency funding is available. We know that climate change results in longer and more intense wildfire seasons, making the 10-year average irrelevant to the ever-increasing need for funding. Because the average is too low, the real number will keep growing, meaning the amount of funding that must be taken from the Forest Service accounts will continue to grow. Fighting fires will continue squeezing out money for the active management my Republican colleagues are so eager to prioritize.

Second, requiring the President to declare each fire a national emergency before releasing funds is unnecessarily bureaucratic and could delay emergency operations.

We need a holistic fix for the wildfire budget that makes money available in advance of a critical emergency, but Republicans would rather play politics with fire to undermine environmental safeguards.

This is not the first time we have seen the bill, this piece of legislation. House Republicans sent a version to the Senate in the 113th and the 114th Congresses, where it languished on the shelf because our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol found it too extreme.

Rather than view that experience as an opportunity to seek compromise this time around, today we are considering a bill that is even more extreme and polarizing. They doubled the environmental review waivers, added language to undermine the Endangered Species Act, and scaled back protections for national monuments and roadless areas.

We are told that this is all in the name of decreasing wildfire risk and protecting communities. The truth is that it is just more of the same from House Republicans who will look for any excuse to advance their extraction-above-all agenda.

Wildfires are a huge problem in this country due, in large part, to climate change, something this bill ignores. By the way, they are becoming more frequent and more intense, and they pose a growing threat to public safety and local communities.

This bill is not about forest health or wildfire mitigation. It is about increasing the number of trees removed from our forests. Republicans would rather scare us into weakening environmental safeguards than work on a possible bipartisan solution to wildfire management.

A serious proposal would recognize the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior have ample authority within current law to conduct fire treatment on our public lands. In fact, the 2009 Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, established the last time Democrats controlled the House, has resulted in the treatment of over 1.45 million acres of national forests to reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and the improvement of over 1.33 million acres of wildlife habitat.

In just 5 years, the program generated more than $661 million in local labor income and an average of 4,300 jobs per year. The projects have attracted new partners and strengthened community relationships, leveraging over $76.1 million in partner matching funds. Collaborative programs like this bring people to the table and result in more acres treated, more local jobs, and more successful projects. Again, all of this has taken place within the framework of the current law.

Increased funding for programs like Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration should be a priority for Republicans, but this program was zeroed out by the Trump administration budget, and extreme proposals like this bill chip away at the principal pillars of law that make collaboration possible. Our constituents and our forests deserve better.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McEachin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

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

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

As we have talked about H.R. 2936, this is something that has been before two previous Congresses and went nowhere; and as a consequence, we continue to not confront the issue of appropriate and necessary funding for the Forest Service to conduct wildfire suppression. That is the gap in this. This flawed attempt to try to fix the funding issue does not.

In fact, Congress has provided appropriate tools to conduct restoration, reduce hazardous fuels, and restore ecological balance on national forest and public lands.

Congress should fix the wildfire budget--that is the issue--not use this as leverage to subsidize the timber industry and also overturn essential environmental laws.

This legislation has an attack on NEPA, has an attack on the Endangered Species Act, has an attack on judicial review and access to justice, has an attack on the Antiquities Act, and continues the process of fire borrowing.

H.R. 2936 is not about forest health or reducing wildfire risk. It is intended to make it easier to advance commercial logging and sales on our national forests and public lands.

A flawed attempt to fix the wildfire funding problem, it does nothing to change the anti-environmental provisions in the underlying bill.

We have a serious issue, validated because of all the studies that have been done, including GAO, which found that climate change is a contributor, scientists have found that climate change is a contributor. That is not discussed because that is a hoax, my Republican colleagues say, created by the Chinese. So we will not talk about climate change as a major factor, which it is, to the increasing intensity and length of wildfires across our public lands and across private and State lands as well.

This legislation is about undermining environmental law. It does nothing about the funding necessary to fight wildfires in this country. It does nothing about involving the stakeholders in proactive restoration and reducing the threat of wildfire in this country.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 2936, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment doubles down on the bad ideas that are in the underlying bill. The 150,000 acre categorical exclusion to remove timber from Gila, Lincoln, and Cibola National Forests has the potential to do more harm than good, and cuts the American public out of the decisionmaking process.

The Forest Service doesn't need this waiver to harvest trees in New Mexico. Last year, the Cibola produced 12,000 metric board feet, and Lincoln and Gila each between 5,000 and 6,000 metric board feet. These are average production numbers across the region.

So I am not sure what problem this amendment is trying to address or how exempting 150,000-acre projects from the environmental review helps the Forest Service meet their mandate of protecting habitat, watersheds, and providing recreational opportunities.

This amendment also exempts the Forest Service from the consultation requirements and the Endangered Species Act. Logging projects untethered from the bedrock environmental protections could potentially impact several species which depend on these forests for habitat, including the Mexican spotted owl and the Gila trout.

Active forest management is not a bad thing if it is done responsibly. If NEPA and the Endangered Species Act are followed, we get good projects, safe habitat restoration--not clear-cutting and loss of critical habitat. Unfortunately, this amendment undermines both of these fundamental laws and should be rejected.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment would not resolve the issue that my friend from New Mexico has just brought up. The Statement of Administrative Policy from the executive branch raises the concerns of H.R. 2936 and of the land management reforms, which are in the legislation.

It says: ``The administration, however, has concerns about the legislation's revision to the Stafford Act, which would force competition for funding between wildfires on Federal land and other disasters already covered by the Stafford Act, including hurricanes.''

It also says that the legislation doesn't really address the issue of fire borrowing, which is central to dealing effectively and proactively with wildfires, both prevention, and suppression, as the resource is needed.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record the Statement of Administrative Policy by the Trump administration. I also include another Statement of Administrative Policy dated July 8, 2015, which is on the same legislation, but by then-President Obama, which mirrors and reflects the same concerns brought up by the executive branch of President Trump.

Statement of Administration Policy

h.r. 293--resilient federal forests act of 2017--rep. westerman, r-ar,

and 18 cosponsors

The Administration strongly believes that funding for

wildland fire management must be addressed in order to enable

the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to

better manage the Nation's forests and other public lands.

The Administration's second disaster funding request,

submitted to Congress on October 4, 2017, underscored this

belief. The request also noted the Administration's belief

that land management reforms are critical to solving the

problem of ``fire borrowing''--taking funds from forest

management programs to cover fire costs that exceed

appropriations--in a comprehensive manner, rather than

through a funding-only approach.

The Administration appreciates the intent of H.R. 2936, the

Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, and is supportive of

land management reforms like those outlined in the

legislation. The Administration, however, has concerns about

the legislation's revisions to the Stafford Act, which would

force competition for funding between wildfires on Federal

land and other disasters already covered by the Stafford Act,

including hurricanes.

Wildland Fire Management Funding

Last year, Federal wildfire suppression spending reached

$2.9 billion, an amount that signals clearly the need for

Congress to address the rising cost of fire suppression

operations. The dependence on ``fire borrowing'' to cover

funding shortfalls in times of severe wildfire impedes the

missions of our land management agencies, including by taking

critical funding from programs that help reduce the risk of

catastrophic fire, restore and maintain healthy functioning

ecosystems, and yield timber production.

The Administration, however, has concerns with re-purposing

the Stafford Act to address wildfires. The purpose of the

Stafford Act is to assist State, local, tribal, and

territorial (SLTT) governments that become overwhelmed when

responding to and recovering from natural disasters affecting

their jurisdictions. H.R. 2936 would modify the Stafford Act

by creating a new type of disaster declaration to address the

cost of wildfire suppression on Federal land, thereby

changing long-standing principles governing Federal support

to SLTT governments. As we have seen in this year's historic

Atlantic hurricane season, the Federal Emergency Management

Agency (FEMA) must continue to be focused on its existing

mission, and the Stafford Act's Disaster Relief Fund must

remain dedicated solely to that mission.

Instead of the approach outlined in H.R. 2936, the

Administration supports a separate, annual cap adjustment for

wildfire suppression operations, which will resolve concerns

about the sufficiency of funds for wildfire suppression and

avoid unnecessary competition for Stafford Act funds.

Improving Forest Management

The Administration appreciates H.R. 2936's recognition that

fixing the funding component of fire borrowing will not, on

its own, stop the worsening trend of catastrophic wildfires.

Meaningful forest management reforms to strengthen our

ability to restore the Nation's forests and improve their

resilience to destructive wildfires must be a part

of any permanent solution. H.R. 2936's provisions that

expedite environmental approval for proactive forest

management, including hazardous fuel reduction and post-fire

timber salvage and reforestation actions, are important steps

forward. The Administration supports and will continue to

work with Congress on the details of the forest management

reform proposals.

Although the Administration has concerns with H.R. 2936's

modifications to the Stafford Act, the Administration will

continue working with Congress to enact a sustainable

solution to ``fire borrowing'' that does not adversely affect

FEMA's critical disaster relief funding and that recognizes

the need for a comprehensive solution to the problem of

wildfires.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before you on this day to recognize Mr. Pedro Ramirez Davis for his dedication to organized labor and the progressive political community in Tucson, Arizona and Pima County. Regrettably, he passed away on October 9, 2017 after dedicating over forty years of service to his fellow man. He was a life-long member of the Laborers' International Union Local No. 479 and the Teamsters local in Tucson.

Pedro R. Davis exemplified the highest ideals of the labor movement. He worked arduously to further the common goals of the working man to earn better wages, safer working conditions, the right to collective bargaining and the ability to call for a strike when the circumstances warranted it. He fought for benefits and financial aid for workers who were injured or retired.

Pedro understood the importance of union organizing as a way of empowering people and changing lives. He understood the need to be proactive in advocating policies and legislation to bring about necessary change. He was a true supporter of the Democratic Party because he believed it championed the interest of the working class. He supported local leaders and candidates he believed advocated for the struggles of the lower and middle classes. He worked tirelessly for those candidates, going door-to-door, encouraging folks to join the cause, putting up signs, collecting signatures, attending rallies and pitching in wherever help was needed.

Pedro was born in Nogales, Sonora Mexico in 1928. His parents struggled hard to support their family of twelve children. At an early age, Pedro learned the value of hard work when he had to do his part to help provide for his younger siblings. He would often share stories of his family all huddled around a single kerosene burner and a wood- burning stove trying to keep out the chill of the frigid winters in their hillside Nogales home. In his household, there were times when there was not enough food, blankets and warm beds.

His father's work often took him away from home and that would leave Pedro and his brother Samuel to step up, as the men of the house, to provide for the family in their fathers absence. This, no doubt, contributed to Pedro's kind and generous nature throughout his life. On one occasion, a fine gentleman wrote a letter to the editor about a Good Samaritan, who carried him across a flooded street refused to provide his name and rejected any monetary compensation for the rescue. The Good Samaritan was Pedro.

At the age of 18, along with his peers, Pedro was drafted into military service. After completing his duty, like his father and grandfather before him, he worked as a carpenter. He moved to California to work for some time and upon his return to Nogales he met Enedina Luque. He fell in love with Enedina, and married her soon thereafter. They moved to Tucson in 1950 and Pedro began working in construction.

Throughout the years, his construction job led him to work on many of the major industrial projects that transformed Tucson including the missile silos and copper mines in the surrounding the area. He joined Tucson's Local No. 479 of the International Laborers' Union and the local Teamsters' Union in their formative years and remained actively involved in their collective bargaining efforts throughout his working life.

He took part in strikes against unfair labor practices when it became necessary, which was always a difficult thing, since he was unable to collect a wage for his family during those walkouts. Enedina always supported his decisions because they both saw it as a way for construction workers to obtain decent wages, health benefits, safe working conditions and retirement pensions. Pedro stood firm and worked extremely hard to make change possible for labor workers. His efforts were recognized by the leaders he worked to get elected which includes successful candidates such as: President Bill Clinton, Congressman Ed Pastor and myself, among others. Pedro would often receive invitations to dinners and other special events, to the surprise of many, including his family. Those were proud moments for him, indeed.

Pedro and Enedina raised six children and he always impressed upon them the value of an education. He felt that an education was the best job security anyone could hope to have. Even though he only had a sixth-grade education himself, Pedro was a learned man, always reading newspapers and magazines in both English and Spanish. He could engage in informed discussions on current events around the world. He knew about world leaders as well as his local representatives and had a profound interest in politics at home and abroad. Pedro and Enedina voted without fail as soon as they became naturalized United States citizens. He also instilled in his children and grandchildren the importance of registering to vote and engaged them in discussions on the important issues of the day.

In the early 80's, Pedro was asked to assist in the remodeling of an office building that had been made available to a candidate as the campaign headquarters. He was so inspired by the candidate that soon afterwards, he was out collecting signatures and walking door-to-door registering people to vote. He campaigned tirelessly for human rights and for candidates he respected. Pedro's car was always full of campaign signs and handouts. He eagerly shared his campaign experiences with his family. Pedro loved his country of origin, but he was proud to be an American. He loved and respected what this country stood for and wanted to make it better for the present and future generations.

When Enedina passed away in 2007, Pedro seemed to have lost a skip in his step. He found comfort by staying active in the political sphere and through his love for guitar. He was a self-taught guitarist and amassed a collection of Mexican classic songbooks. After retiring from construction, Pedro kept himself busy working as a school crossing guard for the Tucson Unified School District, which is a job that he took very seriously. The safety of the schoolchildren made him happy and he always had a supply of Jolly Ranchers to pass out to them. One of his greatest joys came when he received a large bundle of handmade birthday cards from the kids at Safford Primary School. The students at the school made him feel proud and happy.

After retiring as a crossing guard, Pedro could dedicate more time to his first love, the guitar. He would travel across town to meet with his friends in the guitar group. Together, they would polish their versions of the classic Mexican love ballads, even as he modestly repeated that he was not learning anything new.

I close by saying that Pedro Ramirez Davis was a hard-working and decent man from very humble origins. Pedro, like so many immigrants, came to this country to work hard and build upon the character and values of our nation. He did so with pride and purpose. He lived a life worthy of recognition, honor and respect. His lifetime of involvement on behalf of the working people and the less fortunate in his community has not gone unnoticed. Pedro Ramirez Davis will be sorely missed.

Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) to offer the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget amendment.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer this amendment to replace the reckless Republican budget that is being considered before this House.

Instead of a doomsday budget that presents a future where everything is bleak and opportunity is nonexistent, the Progressive Caucus is offering a budget that can prove that the future can be bright and prosperous.

The Republican budget sacrifices everything from public education to Social Security to Medicare and Medicaid. It does this for one reason and one reason only: to give the wealthiest few and the corporations more tax breaks and increase their standing and concentration of power and wealth in this country more than it is already.

It has been said over and over that the budget that we are presenting we feel does deal with the values of this country. It deals very directly with something that is important to this Nation, and that is the American people, the greatest resource that we have as a nation, and we see it day in and day out.

This budget invests in the American people. It invests in jobs, it invests in solid education, and it invests in the greater good.

This budget is not narrow, tilted to a few: the wealthiest and the corporations in this country. It deals with the totality of who the American people are: those who are struggling and need opportunity, those who are elderly and need the continued support of this Nation through Medicare and Social Security, those who are poor who need Medicaid and a good education system so their opportunity will be better in the future.

Our budget speaks to the values of the American people. Our budget speaks to the needs of the American people. Our budget speaks to a future that returns the values, to the American people, of opportunity, of hope, and of chance.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan), the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and I thank Mr. Pocan and his office staff for the fine work and time that they put into working on this budget that we are proposing today.

Mr. Chairman, what the Progressive Caucus budget does, and does very clearly, is that we end the special treatment for Wall Street buddies of the majority of this Congress.

Meanwhile, their budget has no problem hitting low- and middle-income families with their tax plan. Under their plan, corporations get a $2 trillion cut, $2.4 trillion, and the richest 1 percent will get a tax cut worth $130,000 next year; and many middle class families will have to pay more.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a valued member of the Progressive Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, the Progressive Caucus budget invests in the American people, invests in America, and still reduces the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu), my friend and a member of the Progressive Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, Americans in this Congress do have a choice. Our budget is a contrast to what the Republicans are proposing. We can either cut Medicare to pay for more tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires as our Republican budget does, or we can close tax loopholes to protect essential programs that invest in jobs. We chose investment.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Espaillat).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the remaining time each side has.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a leader in our caucus and a leader here in Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

In the debate on the Republican budget and how it contrasts with the Congressional Progressive Caucus budget, we heard a lot about needing to control mandatory spending, that that was the real issue here, runaway mandatory spending.

Make no mistake, when my Republican colleagues talk about cutting mandatory spending, they mean they want to cut Medicare and Social Security to pay for the trillion-dollar tax scam and creative numbers that are part of their budget for the wealthy and for the corporations in America.

The other issue that we heard a lot about is that, by making these major cuts for the wealthiest and the rich, that somehow their net gain and their profit and their break on taxes is going to trickle down to the rest of us. Well, we have seen that movie before in this country. That trickle-down theory doesn't work. The money doesn't trickle down, and the American people won't be fooled about that again.

Our budget invests $2 trillion in infrastructure and jobs immediately. Our budget takes bold action to fight climate change, and our budget delivers on the promise for our children, their inheritance of this country, the inheritance of the children that everybody is worried about a deficit. We are worried about their future as well.

Our budget delivers on the promise of childcare for all, pre-K for all, and a robust public education system to provide all kids with an opportunity to succeed in this Nation.

Our budget is about the future, our budget is about emphasizing the values that make this country special and great, and our budget is a contrast. It offers a contrast about what this country can be if it invests in its people.

The road that we have been on for far too long in which we have disinvested in people, shifted wealth and burden onto the middle class and the working class in this country, that time has ended. Our budget represents that end.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the people's budget, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, the Tribal Heritage and Grizzly Bear Protection Act will ensure continued respect for both the ecological and cultural values of the grizzly bear. It requires that conservation and management of the species is conducted in close consultation with federally recognized Indian Tribes, as many Tribes value the bear in ways that cannot be accounted for solely under Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections. Eagles have been recognized for their symbolic importance to our country and were protected by Congress under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, even after these species had recovered under the ESA. Similarly, grizzly

bears are essential to the culture and history of our nation's Tribes and deserve strong protections.

The recent decision by the Department of the Interior to remove Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections from grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) remains controversial and is being challenged in court. While GYE grizzly bears have made significant progress towards recovery over the past forty two years, the population is still at risk of extinction from a suite of impacts, including habitat loss and fragmentation, climate change, decline of food sources, and human caused mortality. The best available science does not support the decision to delist the GYE grizzly bear population without putting in place strong safeguards to prevent population decline and maintain connectivity with other populations of grizzly bears. Removing protections reverses the progress that has been made over the last four decades under the ESA. Over 50 Tribal Nations stand in opposition to delisting and have raised concerns over the Department of the Interior's decision, particularly regarding the science, lack of transparency, and irreparable harm that delisting GYE grizzly bears would cause to Tribal sovereignty, sacred site protections, treaty rights, consultation mandates, and spiritual and religious freedoms.

To guarantee continued protection of all grizzly bears, the Tribal Heritage and Grizzly Bear Protection Act sets strong conservation standards for grizzly bears and their habitat. It bans trophy hunting and only permits the take of grizzly bears under a narrow set of circumstances: scientific or exhibition purposes, religious purposes of federally recognized Indian Tribes, and protection of agricultural interests and public safety. Grizzly bears are important top predators and help maintain ecosystems by keeping grazing populations in check, which prevents overgrazing of key habitats. They are a critical component of our landscapes and should not be hunted simply for sport. Additionally, grizzly bears have already lost large expanses of their historic range and existing habitat should be protected against further destruction.

Human caused mortalities of grizzly bears are a key threat to the species, including aggressive predator control of grizzly bears. This bill prohibits non-discriminatory predator control measures, such as those used by many states, which may result in the taking of grizzly bears on U.S. public lands. The bill also increases annual funding for livestock loss prevention programs to add prevention of loss from grizzly bears; productive, precautionary measures like these can address human-grizzly interactions much better than indiscriminate measures that kill large numbers of grizzly bears and result in few positive outcomes.

Finally, this bill affirms Tribal sovereignty and spiritual and religious rights. The grizzly bear is considered an ancestor by many Native American cultures, celebrated in numerous ceremonies, and is a key part of environments that include sacred and historical sites. This bill recognizes the grizzly bear's significance by requiring consultation with Tribes before permitting grizzly bear take and before major federal actions that may impact bears or their habitat. It also adds Tribal members to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee and creates a much needed process and management partnership for reintroduction of grizzly bears to suitable land of willing Tribes. Grizzly bears are a core part of Tribal heritage and healthy ecosystems, and it is critical to protect this remarkable species and the culture they embody.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the Black Women's Task Force of Tucson on the event of its 40th anniversary.

The Black Women's Task Force of Tucson organized with the mission of ``educating and empowering women through support and networking for equality and success in the Tucson community.'' Serving as a bedrock of the Tucson community for four decades, it has met its mission statement and more.

The Black Women's Task Force of Tucson provides much-needed access to information on healthcare and business, as well as hosting events and providing a space to share stories with the Tucson community. Part of its community support is assisting local students through a variety of programs and scholarships.

For example, the Black Women's Task Force donated over one hundred computers to students in the Tucson Unified School District and sponsored student trips to Africa and South America with an academic focus. There have been many changes throughout the last 40 years; and many fights won in the pursuit of social and economic equality for women.

However, there is still much work to be done both in Tucson and throughout the nation. I know that the Black Women's Task Force will continue to be a positive force for change. I cannot emphasize enough the impact that this organization has had on the Tucson community.

From helping victims of domestic violence to feeding the hungry, the Black Women's Task Force has worked tirelessly to make our city a better place for everyone. I look forward to seeing the impact the Black Women's Task Force has on the next forty years. For that, it would be my honor to ask that the work done for the past forty years by the Black Women's Task Force be known to this Congress as a force for good in the City of Tucson.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will restore $12 million in cuts to the already underfunded Superfund Enforcement program, with an equivalent cut to Bureau of Land Management's oil and gas leasing program.

Superfund Enforcement is the epitome of Federal fiscal responsibility. It ensures that polluters pay for the cleanup and the mess they have caused.

For over 35 years, EPA's Superfund Enforcement program has enabled thousands of site investigations at cleanups and has required viable responsible parties to either conduct the work or pay for the cleanups of these Superfund sites, in other words, hold parties accountable for the action and correction of their activities.

Any cuts to these funds clearly places corporate interests over that of the health and financial well-being of the American people.

According to the EPA, the Superfund Enforcement program's efforts to negotiate settlement agreements and issue order for cleanup work accounts for approximately 69 percent of all the cleanup work currently underway at Superfund sites around this country.

For every dollar the Superfund Enforcement program spends, private parties commit $8 toward cleanup work. The enforcement funding is essential in saving taxpayer dollars and the scarce resources of the Superfund trust fund to address truly abandoned and orphaned sites.

As of August 1, 2017, there were 1,845 Superfund sites in the country. These sites include dangerous and toxic substances not just in my backyard but in everybody's backyard.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Superfund sites tend to be located near lower income communities and around communities of color. Approximately 53 million people live within 3 miles of a Superfund site in this country, and 46 percent of them live in poorer communities and communities of color. Fifteen percent of those residents live below the poverty level.

According to a National Association of Clean Air Agencies report: ``Without EPA's enforcement, companies could avoid reporting, or minimize the reported amount of toxic materials released to the environment.''

Following one of the most catastrophic hurricanes to hit Texas, the EPA found that 13 Superfund sites have been flooded or could face damage as a result of Hurricane Harvey.

Administrator Pruitt has repeatedly tried to justify his cuts to the agency by claiming that he wants the agency to go ``back to the basics.'' I can't think of anything more fundamental than cleaning up the most toxic sites in the Nation to protect the health of the people who live nearby in those communities.

Restoring the ability of the EPA to self-sustain its core mission should be a no-brainer for those on both sides of the aisle. In order to restore the funding, my amendment will make a modest cut to the BLM's oil and gas program. This program is a massive giveaway to the very polluters that have made the existence of the Superfund program a necessity.

Currently, 7,950 drilling permits are approved and not being used. There are 14.4 million acres of public land under lease and not producing. There is no justification to dole out more taxpayer money in order to expedite and speed up the permitting or leasing practices when we have that amount not being used and over close to 15 million acres under lease, as we speak.

A report by Oil Change International recently found that the U.S. Government provided about $6 billion annually in financial support to the oil, gas, and coal industries between 2013 and 2015. Meanwhile, oil giant ExxonMobil's profits more than doubled in the first quarter of this year, which equaled $4.1 billion in profits for just that one quarter. They certainly did not need more taxpayer money while communities across the United States continue to be exposed to toxic and hazardous pollution.

My amendment restores, in part, EPA's core mission to protect the public health of the American people and to hold all polluters responsible and liable for the environmental and health risks they cause.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a prudent, necessary protection of public health and the environment. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment will restore $1 million in cuts to the Environmental Justice program within the EPA, with an equivalent cut to leadership and administration within the DOI Office of the Secretary.

In 1992, the program was created and originally called the Environmental Equity Office. It was created after a series of releases of reports that revealed polluter sites were disproportionately located in low-income communities and communities of color.

With minimal support, the program has provided communities with leveraged resources to do things like revitalize neighborhoods, build health centers, expand affordable housing, create green space and recreation areas, and, more importantly, raise the awareness of the disproportionate treatment in both affected communities and decisionmakers.

Despite this success within the EPA for decades, we are not even close to dealing with the issue of environmental justice.

In 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights found that racial minorities and low-income communities are still disproportionately affected by the siting of waste disposal facilities, permitted emissions facilities, and that they often lack the political and financial clout to properly bargain with polluters when fighting a decision or seeking redress.

A report by the staff of the House Committee on Natural Resources found that clean water access and sanitation infrastructure on numerous reservations across the Nation more closely resemble developing countries than they do the rest of the Nation. Nearly half of all homes on Tribal land lack access to adequate drinking water, sewage, or solid waste disposal facilities. As a result, Native families often end up drinking unclean water that increases disease risks and impairs Tribal economic development.

Additionally, low-income communities of color have been on the frontline of Houston's petrochemical industry for decades, and when Harvey struck, they were some of the first to feel the effects as chemical plants caught fire, refineries began flaring toxins, and polluted floodwater went into their neighborhoods.

The EPA Office of Environmental Justice helps integrate concerns of these communities within the general activities of the agencies. This is not a program that can afford to be scaled back, especially as concerns of environmental justice continue to arise around Hurricane Harvey and now in Irma's path. It is critical that we protect frontline communities and communities of color from disparate impacts caused by environmental pollution. One million dollars is not a lot of

money for this task, but it reaffirms the significance of the office and our sense of equality.

Today I ask my colleagues to join in defense of these communities and show them that Congress cares about their public health, their housing, and their importance as people.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McEachin), a member of the Natural Resources Committee, and ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 3440, the DREAM Act, to protect DREAMers like Juan, who graduated from Arizona State University and is currently working as a mechanical engineer.

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

Today we are being asked to mandate a land exchange that will put a road through a designated wilderness area inside the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. If that sounds familiar, that is because we have been down this road before.

After years of prodding from the Alaska delegation, the Public Land Management Act of 2009 authorized this exchange and the eventual construction of the road. However, that 2009 authorization was contingent upon a determination by the Secretary of the Interior that the road was in the public interest.

The Fish and Wildlife Service then spent nearly 5 years preparing a full environmental impact statement in order to analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed road, and to determine if viable alternatives existed. During the lengthy and public process, the agency held 130 public meetings, reviewed thousands of public comments, 97 percent of which were opposed to the road.

Ultimately, the Interior Department determined that building a road through the one-of-a-kind wilderness area is not justified because it will destroy an irreplaceable ecosystem, and there are other ways to improve transportation in the area.

This is not just a simple trail through the woods. It is a road through a narrow chain of islands and lagoons. Its construction requires the development of bridges, installation of culverts and pipes, and the dredge and fill of nearly 4 acres of wetlands.

The Izembek National Wildlife Refuge supports numerous species of migratory waterfowl that we have international treaty obligations to protect, including nearly the entire global population of the Pacific black brant, and one of the only populations of nonmigratory tundra swans, in addition to providing prime habitat for bears, caribou, and other wildlife.

Now, before the point can be made, let me just say, I want to be clear, I have never been to the refuge. Opposition to this road is not based on personal opinion or spite, or ignorance, or because we love birds more than people.

Opposition to this road is based on extensive public comments and a long, careful, scientific review of its merits conducted by conservation professionals. The table of contents for the environmental review--not the review itself, but just the table of contents--is 28 pages long. The EIS comes with 10 appendices.

The Department of the Interior did its homework. They weighed the costs and the benefits and made an informed decision. Now we are being asked just to ignore that scientific analysis and ram this road right through the refuge, despite knowing the damage it will do.

The consequences of a decision like that are known. They are not unintended. The road through an Alaskan wilderness is not justified. This particular road is not justified, and it is not necessary.

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

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

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

We have heard the argument, and we will repeatedly hear the argument that the road connecting King Cove to Cold Bay is needed for health and safety purposes. While it is true that the road will be used for medical emergencies, there is a lot of evidence pointing to another objective.

If you look at the decades-long effort to build this road, it becomes clear that there has always been a commercial purpose in mind. King Cove is home to one of the largest fish processing facilities, operated by Peter Pan Seafoods, a subsidiary of a Japanese company that is one of the largest seafood companies in the world.

Fishing is the backbone of the King Cove economy, and it has always been one of the reasons for the road. Let's look at the facts.

In 1994, the city of King Cove passed a resolution to emphasize the positive socioeconomic impacts of a 20-mile road linking King Cove to the Cold Bay Airport. The resolution did not mention any need to use the road for health or safety or for emergency situations of residents.

In 2005, the Aleutians East Borough participated in public scoping meetings and presented their vision for a hub airport for Cold Bay. This plan included cold storage capability for fish from King Cove and other communities awaiting air freight.

In 2010, as part of a Fish and Wildlife EIS for the land exchange we are debating today, an Aleutians East Borough assemblyman stated that Peter Pan Seafoods would use the road to transport fresh product.

And finally, on May 25 of this year, Alaska Governor Bill Walker sent a request to the Trump administration. He asked for: ``Access for isolated King Cove residents to the airport in Cold Bay in all weather conditions, enabling access to health services and the movement of goods and people between King Cove and Cold Bay.''

When you add all this up, the evidence is pretty convincing. Sure, the road will be used for emergency evacuations, but it will also be used to transport fresh product to Cold Bay to be sold throughout Asia and the rest of the world.

Despite language in the bill seeking to prohibit commercial use of the road, once it is built, this prohibition will be incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. This is an incredibly remote area, and the Fish and Wildlife Service does not have the resources or staff capacity to police the use of the road.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are not saying that the residents of King Cove do not deserve reliable transportation options, and neither did the EIS. The EIS included an analysis of nonroad transportation options that would piggyback off the $37.5 million Congress has already invested in King Cove's infrastructure.

The Interior Department also asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to analyze the nonroad transportation options to connect King Cove with Cold Bay. The Army Corps published a report in 2015 that identified three viable alternatives. These included a new airport that is capable of supporting aircraft that can fly directly to Anchorage, a heliport for emergency evacuations, and an ice-capable marine vessel that is able to make the trip to Cold Bay in weather conditions that the taxpayer-funded hovercraft could not.

Options exist, and that is why I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).

Other than myself, no.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me deal with one claim.

The claim that people will die if we don't pass H.R. 218 is wrong. The claim is wrong because there is no evidence to back it up, and it is wrong because using this kind of over-the-top rhetoric is irresponsible.

We do not oppose this bill because we think animal life is more value than human life, and throwing accusations like that around on the House floor should be beneath all of us.

We do not have to rely on one Member's claim that the sky is falling. These concerns have been assessed for years through public process, and the conclusion was that there were viable alternatives that will address any legitimate public safety concerns.

People's lives do not hang in the balance. We can protect public health and the refuge if we abandon this bill and work together on a better solution.

This is, indeed, a remote area. That is why many of the residents choose to live there in the first place. They are fully accustomed to the challenges that come with living in the last frontier. To address these challenges, the Federal Government has appropriated tens of millions of dollars to this community for better medical and transportation facilities.

We have remote communities in Arizona, especially Tribal communities, that would surely appreciate $37.5 million to address their health and safety concerns as well.

The local government used some of that money to buy a hovercraft that could make the airport run much faster than this road will ever allow. The local community, not the Federal Government, elected to stop using the hovercraft. Surely, if people's lives were at stake, the local government would not have made that kind of a decision.

We have legitimate policy differences on this bill. The EIS has convinced many on our side that this is not a worthwhile proposal. Let's debate these findings calmly and rationally that would serve the public in this debate and look for a solution that both protects people's health and the refuge.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. While it was described as a technical amendment to conform the bill to the Senate version, it does much more than make a simple technical correction.

Mr. Young's amendment expands the NEPA waiver in the underlying bill to exempt all permits associated with the construction of the proposed road from environmental review and public input. It is bad enough that the bill waives NEPA for the land exchange, but under this amendment, any and all improvements would be exempt from review. This could include a Clean Water Act permit necessary to move forward with the construction.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under the rule at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, acknowledging that I am running the risk of being uppity on this particular amendment, but thankfully never smug, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 218, the King Cove Road Land Exchange Act.

My amendment simply requires the State of Alaska to repay $20 million appropriated in 1999 to support the town of King Cove before the bill can take effect. The American taxpayer has already provided the town of King Cove with a total of $37.5 million to improve transportation access and medical facilities in the area. That included $20 million to build a road, construct a dock, and purchase marine equipment.

Part of this money was used to purchase a $9 million hovercraft. This Federal funding was provided as an alternative to building a road through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. The hovercraft worked as it was designed. It carried up to 49 passengers at a time, an ambulance, and even cargo, making the trip between King Cove and Cold Bay in 20 minutes--a trip that would take 2 hours on the proposed road when it is not shut down by extreme weather conditions.

After operating for 3 years and performing at least 30 medical evacuations, the local government stopped using the hovercraft. The Aleutians East Borough is now trying to sell the hovercraft on the open market for $5 million.

As we speak, House Republicans are seeking massive and dangerous cuts to spending on things like education, assistance to working families, and even Medicaid and Medicare. Before we mandate construction of a road through congressionally designated wilderness, it is only fair that American taxpayers are reimbursed for Federal funding that was intended to avoid the construction required by this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me remind, the point of the amendment is that the money, the $37.5 million, and also the decision by the local residents to purchase the hovercraft, that was not mandated by the Federal Government. It was their decision, again with Federal money, $9 million, and so that was all in lieu of construction of the road.

This legislation mandates a construction of that road, and I think it is only fair to the taxpayers that if the purpose was in lieu of to deal with the medical evacuation situations that we have heard about here again today, then the American taxpayers should be reimbursed for that. This was not an error caused by, as the levees in New Orleans, faulty design and construction that bore responsibility to the Federal Government. These were local decisions made on the use of that money. Now that the use of that money is moot, then the taxpayers deserve to be reimbursed.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, one cannot overstate the immediate and extraordinary threat posed by antimicrobial resistance throughout this nation and around the globe. With that in mind, I wish to recognize the exceptional work being done in Southern Arizona to combat this scourge.

We know from the Centers for Disease Control that each year in the United States, at least two million people become infected with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics and some 23,000 die as a direct result. Experts suggest that based on current trends, antimicrobial resistance could become the world's single greatest killer, surpassing heart disease and cancer, and posing a serious economic threat as well. In light of this, there is an urgent demand for the development of new antimicrobial compounds and faster diagnostic techniques to address this critical issue.

Residents and visitors in Arizona's Third Congressional District and surrounding areas are fortunate to have access to exceptional medical services, including those provided by Tucson Medical Center, Southern Arizona's locally governed nonprofit regional hospital and leading provider for emergency and pediatric care.

TMC is among the first facilities in the nation to adopt the newest superbug-fighting technology. Using the Accelerate Pheno system, developed by Tucson's Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., TMC health professionals can rapidly detect and identify bacteria as well as determine which antibiotic is most appropriate, and they can do this up to 40 hours faster than was possible using conventional techniques.

I urge all the nation's health facilities to prioritize efforts to combat antibiotic resistance using the best available technology, and recognize TMC and Accelerate Diagnostics for being leaders on this critical issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1404, as was stated by my two colleagues, is a culmination of a longstanding land agreement between Tucson Unified School District and the Pascua Yaqui Tribe. In the 113th Congress, we finalized part of that agreement with the passage and signing of H.R. 507, which conveyed the two 10-acre parcels.

Both of my colleagues have stated the purpose of the legislation, the need for the legislation. The passage of this bill will complete the second part of that agreement, and both parties involved, as well as the surrounding communities, all see mutual benefit in this.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the bill is acted upon positively, that it passes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Bishop for his cooperation in working with our staff to bring this to the floor today, and I urge its adoption.

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

Wildfires are a huge problem in our country. They are becoming more frequent and more intense, and they pose a growing threat to public safety and local economies.

But, instead of taking steps to reduce wildfire threats, this bill tries to scare us into weakening environmental safeguards and giving away public land management to States and localities.

I agree with the bill's sponsor that overgrown vegetation and falling trees can spark forest fires. However, government data shows that this accounts for less than one-third of 1 percent of fires in the past 5 years.

Why are we focusing on this minor problem when it is clear that real wildfire solutions require treating these fires like the disasters that they are under the law, and allowing the Forest Service to use its base budget for preventing wildfires, not just fighting them?

Given what we have seen from Republicans in the Natural Resources Committee, the answer is simple: to chip away at the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA; shut expert Federal agencies and concerned citizens out of the land management process; and allow Big Business to profit at the expense of taxpayers and our public lands.

The bill lets State and local electricity reliability standards trump public land management rules. There is not even any requirement that the standards are based on sound science or principles of risk assessment.

If a county says it needs to clear-cut a half mile into a national forest to protect power lines, this bill would allow it, and the Forest Service could only watch. Further, there is no prohibition on selling timber harvested during these operations.

The bill also mandates the Forest Service and BLM use its NEPA categorical exclusion authority, even when vegetation management projects could cause environmental damage. This means that people who value public lands would be completely shut out from the management process. So much for transparency and public input.

Adding insult to injury, the bill waives liability for companies that start forest fires or cause other damage. This is nonsense and shifts an incredible burden and risk onto American taxpayers.

The bill also fails to deal with the root causes of our fire crisis, including the fact that the Forest Service cannot afford mitigation work to prevent wildfires because it spends half of its budget fighting them.

I support legislation making wildfire disasters eligible for disaster assistance under the Stafford Act, and I know many of my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, do as well. I am disappointed that we are not passing a bill to do that today, and, instead, are here just pretending to do something about a very serious problem.

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

Mr. Chairman, let me repeat: We are talking about caution and what is causing fires; and 0.03 percent of fires caused by transmission lines is the data that is available to us. I know facts sometimes don't matter, but they should matter in something as important as this; and 0.03 percent is the cause by transmission lines of fires in the forest on public lands.

We are generalizing the huge wildfires that we have seen to make a case for this bill when the case is about transmission lines, rights- of-away; and it is 0.03 percent as the root cause of those fires over 5 years.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Schrader).

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

An example that supporters of this legislation use is from Oregon. It is from 1984. In the 33 years since then, I am aware of no example of a Federal agency refusing to allow a company to do vegetation management work and then holding the company liable for the damages.

In fact, as the committee report for this bill states, the issue of land managers allowing access to rights-of-way was largely resolved by language in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, stating:

Federal agencies responsible for approving access to

electric transmission and distribution facilities located on

lands within the United States shall, in accordance with

applicable law, expedite any Federal agency approvals that

are necessary to allow owners and operators of such

facilities to comply with any reliability standard approved

by the Commission under section 215 of the Federal Power Act

that pertains to vegetation management, service restorations,

or any situation that imminently endangers the reliability or

safety of the facilities.

If the utility companies feel that BLM and the Forest Service are not complying with the law, they should seek resolution in the court. Instead, they are coming after a backdoor opportunity to affect our public lands.

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

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

At a hearing on similar legislation in the Natural Resources Committee last Congress, both the Forest Service and BLM testified in opposition and explained how they work with utility companies to address vegetation management issues.

In addition to entering into voluntary vegetation management plans, the Forest Service testified that the agency's 2013 vegetation management guide specifies for field staffs the procedures and practices that should be included in operation and maintenance plans for power lines. This guide states that, where vegetation conditions inside or outside the authorized right-of-way pose an imminent threat to power line facilities, utility companies may remove those threats immediately, without prior approval from the Forest Service.

For its part, BLM testified that, under the terms and conditions typically included in a right-of-way grant, a utility company may conduct minor trimming, pruning, and weed management to maintain the right-of-way of a facility after simply notifying BLM. The utility company can often obtain BLM approval for removal of hazardous trees through a streamlined process. For an emergency situation causing an imminent hazard, no BLM preapproval would be necessary.

I understand that some of the companies believe they should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want, but the land does not belong to them. It belongs to the American people, and Federal agencies have a responsibility to all Americans to ensure that those lands are not abused.

Again, facts do matter, and 0.03 percent of fires in public lands were caused by trees falling on transmission lines in the last 5 years--0.03 percent. So we continue to exaggerate the common sense behind the facts that I just laid out.

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

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

My colleague from California (Mr. Costa) brought up one of the real causes of wildfire, and that was climate change, the lack of mitigation, and the situation within the Forest Service budget in which half of the revenue dedicated to that department is used to suppress wildfires.

This administration has denied the existence of climate change, scrubbed it from its vocabulary, from its science, from its study. If we are going to look at the causes of wildfires, if we are going to look at strategies and how we protect the urban and forest interface, if we are going to look at really addressing the subject, then the very salient point that Mr. Costa brought up regarding climate change has to be part and parcel of the discussion.

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

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

You know, this legislation, with a few modifications, could help prevent the 0.03 percent of wildfires that are caused by electricity infrastructure, but the majority refused to work with us on those modifications.

Most importantly, the failure to make vegetation management plans for utility rights-of-way mandatory negates any positive impact this bill might have had. As we have heard from Forest Service and industry at a hearing on similar legislation last Congress, voluntary vegetation management is already allowed and is quite common. This includes the ability for rights-of-way holders to access these areas and conduct vegetation management without notifying Federal land managers until after the fact. This is current law.

The majority claims we need this bill to address delays caused by the approval of unplanned work and delays

associated with removing dead trees on public lands outside of rights- of-way.

Without an up-front planning requirement, I can see authorizing limited activity for utility companies to do targeted vegetation management adjacent to rights-of-way. But instead of offering the commonsense trade off, the bill before us today simply cuts Federal agencies out of the process of managing the American people's land by requiring the Forest Service and BLM to approve plans with no option to modify or reject them if the plans are inadequate.

So whatever the company turns in--the utility company turns in, that is the plan that will become the management plan for that vegetation, regardless of any opinion by Forest Service or BLM.

Further, the bill does not define ``adjacent,'' meaning that companies could cut trees that are well outside the rights-of-way on public lands. This makes public lands vulnerable to a level of abuse that no one who values them would be willing to support.

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

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

Let me just say that this legislation is a solution without a problem. And as I mentioned earlier several times, facts do matter.

When we are doing a whole-scale change of how we manage rights-of-way on public lands because of 0.03 percent of the causation by utility lines of fires on public lands, that is a heavyhanded way to approach doing legislation. There have been opportunities and modifications, opportunities of expediting the process, but those were not allowed as part of this legislation.

If we, indeed, are going to look at both the wildfire situation, the budget stress on Forest Service to suppress those fires, and this rights-of-way issue, which is miniscule compared to the bigger issues, then I think this legislation has to be rejected, and work on a piece of legislation that has consensus, that is bipartisan, and that addresses the real problems with wildfires in this country, not this utility giveaway that we are doing here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.