any idiot, myself included, could tell you we should have gone to iraq and all these simpleton ideas. i feel strongly about the myself -- them >> we'll leave this now to meet our 40-year commitment to congressional coverage. you can continue watching online at c-span.org or on our free mobile video app, c-span now. the u.s. house is about to gavel in. today, lawmakers will take up a senate-passed bill which provides enhanced security to supreme court justices families and supreme court officers. if passed by the house, the measure would go to the president's desk. members will also debate and vote on a funding bill to support wildlife conservation and protect endangered species. you are watching live coverage of the house here on c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me? eternal god, on this flag day, when we pause to acknowledge the symbol of liberty and democracy to which we pledge our allegiance, remind us of the significance of your authority over this land of the free and

the brave and the faithfulness to which we are called to give to you. in this season when we celebrate with cookouts and patriotic festivities, when we stand and salute the national held with great honor in the hands of scouts and veterans, may we pause, first, in homage to the author of our freedoms in whose hands our lives are held. and as we consider the multitude of times this emblem of our country has draped the caskets of men and women who have worn the cloth of our nation, having sacrificed their comforts, their security, their very lives in its defense, may we find strength in the covering of the peace you keep over our land and the solace you provide all those who grieve. almighty god, long may our flag wave under the banner of love you hold over us. in your sovereign name we pray,

amen. the speaker: pursuant to section 11-a of house resolution 188, the journal of the last day's proceedings is approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. williams. mr. williams: will you please join me in the pledge to the greatest country of the world? i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: madam speaker, by direction of the house democratic caucus, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york will -- the speaker: the gentleman from new york will suspend. for what purpose does the

gentleman from new york, mr. higgins, seek recognition? mr. higgins: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. higgins: madam speaker, one month ago today my community of buffalo was targeted by a racist mass shooter. the lasting toll and trauma of gun violence is evidence and perhaps most compelling to the words of buffalo students in miss o'rourke's class. one wrote, i want to go to school and earn my education without fear of making it home because of the color of my skin. one describes feeling vulnerable because he's black and worries will my family be safe when i go to supermarkets. journey says, i'm 13 years old. it's unfair for a middle schooler to regularly think about these things. she asks what will you do and the government do to stop these attacks. brianna pleads, i want somebody to do something. i want the government to do their job. too many mass shootings happened in such a small amount of time. for students and families in

buffalo and other communities forever changed by mass shootings, now is the time for congress to do its job and take action to end gun violence. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: madam speaker, by direction of the democratic caucus, i offer a privileged resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1173, resolved, that the following named members be and are hereby -- mr. jeffries: i ask unanimous consent that the unanimous consent be considered as read and printed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: wowed, the resolution is agreed -- without objection, the resolution is agreed and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mccarthy: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mccarthy: thank you, madam speaker. after three unanimous consent requests of mine that were brought, congress will finally vote to provide supreme court justices and their families with more security. i'm glad this bill is coming to the floor as is. the senate passed it unanimously, 100-0, more than a month ago. but madam speaker, the house democrats have delayed it for more than a month. the question the american public asks is, why, why would you delay it? we have all known that additional security has been necessary since the dobbs opinion was leaked last month. justice kavanaugh was targeted by an armed and dangerous man who flew clear across the country. to kill him.

he had zip ties. he had a plan. and far left groups have plans to target justice amy comey barrett and her children. they put out where their children go to school. but congress kept it here for a month. for a month. these unnecessary delays put the safety of the justice and their families in danger. by passing this bill as is, we're sending a clear message to the left-wing radicals. you cannot intimidate the supreme court justices. i hope we all take that message to heart. how can we forget what senator schumer said? he didn't just say it. he screamed it on the steps of the supreme court. you will pay the price. you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. i don't know what he meant by

you will pay the price, because the supreme court justices aren't up for an election. it couldn't be they would lose at the polls. they are lifetime appointments. now, i don't know if that young man who came all the way from california to kill a justice, if that's what he thought schumer was saying, but what was he saying? you will pay the price? i hope senator schumer understands what his words have consequences. i believe he should apologize for contributing to this heated climate. with that said, again, i am glad this bill is finally coming to the floor. it should not have been this hard or taken this long. every single person in the senate voted for it. republican, democrat, independent. and it sat there for a full month. even though we would come to the floor and ask for unanimous

consent to bring it forward, but we were denied. and it should not have taken a threat against justice kavanaugh to force action. a threat that even speaker pelosi dismissed in her press conference. she said everybody will be fine. but at the end of the day, this is the better bill. and i'm glad it will be heading to the president's desk without any poison pills to ping it back to the senate to delay it further. this is a big victory. now, let's work to defend our justice system for everyone by upholding the rule of law, which is under attack daily in our cities. we can't uphold the rule of law when there's looting, when cities and police stations are being burned down, when criminals are coddled instead of locked up. now that this congress has come together to condemn intimidation

against supreme court justices, let's take the next step to keep america safe. let's support our police, not defund them. let's enforce all the laws on the books, like the law that prohibits protesting outside justices' homes. and even president biden encouraged people to do that. let's get tough on crimes so that every american can feel safe in their homes and in their communities. just in my home state, back in the city of the home city of our speaker in san francisco, the people had a big voice. they have just recalled their district attorney because of crime. it's not me to give any political advice to the other side of the aisle, but if you want to know what the registration, republican registration in san francisco is, 6.8%.

i think your message of defunding the police by this majority party and i think your message of not upholding the law, the american public doesn't want that. they want to feel safe just as a supreme court justice. they want to do their jobs and not feel they are being intimidated. let's get tough on crime. we want the american public to feel safe in their homes and their communities. they want to feel safe. those are the things that would create a safer, stronger america just like we had before. i'll make this one promise. if democrats don't do it during this congress, i promise you we will in the next congress because there's definitely going to be a change. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek

recognition? ms. escobar: madam speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. escobar: madam speaker, i rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of the founding of the united states sergeants major academy. fort bliss is the home to the sergeants major academy that trains our military leaders to address our country's challenges. since 1972, the academy has expanded students strategic level of thinking to become capable to address large-scale combat operations. at the end of the academy, leaders leave as ajiel adaptive senior leaders with the character, competence, and effective leaders. i am proud that my office's veterans caseworker, sergeant major benito torres, graduated from the academy in 2009. i commend the continuous education that the academy provides and their dedication for our military to be ready for future challenges.

please join me in recognizing the accomplishments of the last 50 years of the united states sergeants major academy and wish them continued growth and success. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. williams: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. williams: five years ago today, the republican baseball team took to the field for their regular morning practice. that morning took a dark turn when the team suddenly became a target of a bernie sanders supporter with an agenda to shoot and kill republicans. it could have been the worst political massacre in american history. but we are alive today thanks to those brave and honorable law enforcement officers who were at the field that day and willing to sacrifice themselves to protect us. every day i wear this wristband, stamped with the day of the shooting and the words in god we trust to remember the angels

watching over us on that life-changing morning. it is a testament to that day always living in our hearts and our minds. there is no doubt that without the quick action of special agents griner and bailey along with the alexandria police the team would not be here today. we forever owe a debt of gratitude to our law enforcement and our first responders who acted swiftly to take down the gunman and simply save our lives. in god we trust, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute and to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to pay tribute to former sheriff john o'brien who passed away on june 1 at the age of 74. john was a beloved fixture of the lincoln county community in my district where he's known for his dedication to the people he

served. a dedicated oregon state beaver, after graduating from o.s.u., john was drafted in the u.s. army in 1907 and served in vietnam where he earned a service medal and bronze star. he returned home and joined the lincoln county sheriff's office as a patrol deputy in 1973. it was here john would find his calling, serving his calling in the department for 30 years, the last nine as sheriff until his retirement in 2003. mr. schrader: after retiring from the sheriff's office, he joined the pacific northwest office of fema. all that worked close to john, said he cared about people. his generous spirit touched everyone in his life. john dedicated his life making life better for those he served. he will be missed by all that knew him. he's survived by his wife of 50 years, priscilla, as well as his kids, eric and aaron, and four grandchildren. hope they can find peace during this difficult time as well as

mourning the loss of this extraordinary family. i yield back. .. the speaker pro tempore: f or what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: w ithout objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: sadly inflation has increased to over 8%. now family budgets are draining at the pump. the over $5 per gallon for gas is the highest caused by failing biden policies. american energy alliance has identified over 100 initiatives enacted by biden to restrict american oil and gas development. when he took office, $2.39. these policies discourage goods usage

without alternatives. declaring war on american energy desistes war criminal putin mass murder in ukraine and allows iran to be death to america. we need all the above energy policy. in conclusion god bless our troops for as it continues moving from afghanistan safe haven to america. happy birthday, donald trump. the speaker pro tempore: i yield back the balance of my time. >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: w ithout objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lieu: donald trump lost the 2020 presidential popular vote by over seven million votes. trump the electoral college 232-206.

trump lost the state of arizona. trump lost nevada. trump lost georgia. trump lost minnesota. trump lost wisconsin. trump lost michigan. trump lost pennsylvania. donald trump the -- lost the 2020 presidential election. the speaker pro tempore: t he gentleman yields back the balance of his time for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. lamalfa: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: w ithout objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: madam speaker, as we endure more and more of the biden-induced energy crisis in this country, i have to point out another aspect of that we get a handle on soon, our ability for our trucks to deliver the goods the products we expect to be in the stores. going to happen even more not in my home

state $7 diesel and $6 in the rest of the country but also there is a product called diesel exhaust fluid that is part of the newer truck engines and it is already in short supplies. it is not produced enough. we have to rely on urea that the major exporters of it are china, russia and qatar of the the trucks will not run without it because the computers will not run watt this fluid which is a component in the diesel exhaust system. if we run out, we will not move the products we need, food and other supplies to the stores. we have yet another crisis within a crisis. d.e.f. needs to be produced in this country and urea and i yield

back. the speaker pro tempore: f or what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: w ithout objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> last year fentanyl killed americans. fentanyl is the number one cause of death for americans between the ages of 14 and 85. not covid-19 or car accidents. c.d.c. show more overdose deaths than those caused by the atomic blast. the deaths from fentanyl is biden administration surrender on our southern border. more than 11,000 pounds of fentanyl was seized at our southern border. how much fentanyl got across the border. fient fill is a drug so deadly poisonous that russian military has appearized it.

families deserve than what we are getting from this administration. i co-sponsored fentanyl is w.m.d. from the trump administration that would treat fentanyl with the urgency it deserves. we can't turn the other way as mexican cartel kills thousands of americans. we must secure our border. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: t he gentleman yields back the balance of his time for what purpose does pursuant to clause 8 rule 20 the chair will postponeon motions to suspend the rules on which the yeas and nays are ordered the house will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker i move to suspend the rules and pass s.4160 the supreme court police parity act of 2022. the clerk: senate 4160 an act to grpt the supreme court of the united states security-related authorities equivalent to the legislative and executive branches. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. lewan the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan, each will control 20 minutes. mr. lieu: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on s.4160 the speaker pro tempore: without objection mr. lieu: i yield myself such time as i may consume.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr. lieu: i rise in support of the supreme court police parity act of 2022. while the supreme court police force is to provide protection to the justices this bill would extend their authority to provide protection to the family members of justices if there is reason to believe they are at risk. it is imperative they are free from fear of physical violence based on the constitution and law as applied to the facts of the cases before them. this is essential to the rule of law. assailants like the man recently or a threat to a democracy but with the right security, they can be stopped before they inflict harm. i thank the senators coon and cornyn and likewise introducing bills that will extend protection to the families of

justices and thank congresswoman jackson lee. mr. stanton's bill would extended protection to family of court employees. there was republican opposition to that aspect and in protecting the justice families. i hope we will move swiftly another bill to extend protection of the families of employees as well. i hope my colleagues will join me to ensure the families of supreme court justices have the necessary protection from any threats they may face. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: i ask to -- yield myself such time as i may consume. why did it take so long? why did it take so long to bring this legislation to the floor. it has been a month since a

draft of the opinion, a month of threats on supreme court justices and their families and over a month of protests at their home. why did it take so long? the protests at their home are direction violation 18u.s.c.1507, over a month. it has been over a week, a week since an assassination attempt on a supreme court justice, on justice kavanaugh. think about that for a second. assassination attempt on a sitting united statessupreme court justice and what did the speaker of the house say last week? no one is in danger. no rush on this legislation, no concern here. the senate passed this bill a month ago. why hasn't the house? why did it take so long? i think the answer is obvious. because they have always wanted -- they have always

wanted to intimidate the court. that has been their goal since the get-go and that has been their objective and think about the history first. we have the kavanaugh confirmation mess where the left made up things against justice kavanaugh and then we had the leader of -- to mr. kavanaugh and mr. gorsuch said you released the whirl wind, you will pay the price. last april, the democrat chair of the judiciary committee introduced legislation to do what? to pack the court, to add four associate justices to the united statessupreme court. why four? why not one, two, three, why four? because four would give them a majority on the court. and there was an attack on

justice thomas and his wife. then there was the leak of the draft opinion itself, something that has never happened and then there were the protests at supreme court justices' home indirect violation of the statute. and then finally there was the hearing the democrats had in the judiciary committee about the abortion issue while the dobbs' decision is pending in front of the court. that's where the democrat witness said men could get pregnant. that's the history here and then of course last week, we had an assassination attempt on justice kavanaugh. intimidation is their goal and same reason department ofhomeland security stood up the disinformation governance board and same reason they are targeting parents who have the nerve to speak up for their kids. it's all about intimidation.

that's how the left operates and we have seen it play out now against the supreme court. but the good news is finally this bill is going to pass and give the justices they and their families deserve. better late than never. we support this legislation. should have passed a darn long time ago. and we reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from california. mr. lieu: thank you, let me tell you why it took us a few weeks rather than a week to pass this legislation. it's because republicans refuse to protect the families of supreme court employees who are at risk. shame on you for not doing that. by the way, there are threats to justices across the board. i support this legislation, i

just felt -- and intimidation goes on both sides. i support this legislation and i reserve the legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time mr. jordan: that's why republicans have condemned violence every time it happens. we condemn when it happened on january 6 and we condemned in the summer of 2020. it has been a six weeks since the leak of the draft opinion. the senate passed this legislation unanimously and they wouldn't bring it you. they wouldn't bring it up. the speaker of the house said last week, there was no need to bring it up. but now now we are going to. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from california, my friend, mr. issa. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: listening to the initial debate here, you would

believe that there was a legitimate difference of opinion here on the floor about protecting the justices. clearly there was no such difference in the u.s. senate. what there is though, is a story that needs to be told. when i authored this legislation a month ago, i knew we had support in the senate and we would have support in the house. i called up the most senior member of the judiciary committee on the other side of the aisle and said to him, i believe we should do this. he agreed. not a second, not checking with staff, he agreed that this simple bill of protecting those who would be intimidated and threatened and those whose lives who could not be replaced in a timely fashion without changing the outcome. that was it.

. a bill was dropped in the hopper by the speaker's staff and it was done so without a republican co-sponsor, without a call to the republican who stands here today. that was done because they wanted to play message with it. they wanted to delay and the speaker has delayed for a month. madam speaker, 18 u.s.c. 1507 is not a suggestion that you prevent intimidation of the court. it is a law. it is a law that the president of the united states has sworn to uphold and through his attorney general has not, has negated the responsibility. so this legislation is not only essential to protect against another assassination attempt or of justice or their family but it is even more important because this administration, as we speak, is not obeying the law

that they have sworn to obey, one that the attorney general is required to. so it is a double edge sword that i come with here today. democrats who took 30 days and had to see a week after the attempted assassination of a supreme court justice before they would bring a commonsense noncontroversial piece of legislation to the floor. i applaud all those who will vote for it today and i suspect it will be voted unanimously here on the floor. but justice delayed or protection of our justice delayed could have led to the death of a justice and even as we speak still could. so let's pass it. let's pass it without further controversy and let's never again do something as shameful as ignore the law and delay protection of people who are being intimidated. and i thank the speaker and the ranking member and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

does the gentleman reserve? the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. lieu: thank you, madam speaker. the republicans are misleading you. supreme court justices already have protection. let me say that again. supreme court justices already have protection. this is about families of supreme court justices, which i support them having protection, and drts are fighting for families of law clerks, employees of the supreme court. they should have protection, too. let me tell you the threats to employees of the supreme court. soon after the draft decision leaked, a right-wing activist posted the personal details of a law clerk who he baselessly claimed leaked justice alito's draft opinion. it posted the clerk's wedding announcement and singled out the clerk's spouse and republicans don't want to protect that person or their families. after another republican

strategist claimed a different law clerk had leaked the op opinion, an extremist abortion rights group targeted that clerk and the justice the clerk worked for. the office of press release had served years in prison for conspiring to blow up an abortion clinic. referring to the people in the justice's office, the group's leader said they could -- he could smell their fear. republicans don't want to protect families of supreme court employees. shame on them. and recently, a news outlet painted d.h.s. intelligence report identifying threats to murder justices and their clerks. why don't republicans want to protect the families of supreme court employees? i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. hice. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hice: look, unfortunately, this bill is necessary because we have a radical and unhinged

left-wing activist group of individuals that also have been encouraged by slow walking democratic party in hopes of intimidation being used to influence the courts. that's why we're here today. we've sass nation attempts on judge kavanaugh. we have firebombings of women resource centers and health care facilities. we have u.s. senators sitting -- sitting u.s. senators encouraging violence against the children and families of supreme court justices. and ever since the leak took place some six weeks ago, there have been at least 14 coordinated attacks on women's pregnancy care facilities. democratic leadership has endorsed and encouraged physical threats to their political opposition. it's totally unacceptable, it's un-american. the unhinged left is not the party that empowers women.

if that were true they would not be trying to destroy women's resource centers nor would they attack or intimidate those who work there. they would not be threatening the life of and encouraging violence towards the children of the fourth woman to serve on the united states supreme court. the protests that have been taking place outside the justices' homes this past month is unacceptable and democratic le leadership has refused to condemn the threats of violence. one great example of this, the prohibition to spite the law and the prohibition against such protests, jen psaki, while she was white house press secretary, she said, quote, we certainly encourage that outside the judges' homes and that's the president's position. this isn the thing, fear, gettig out of control.

it's time democrats admit it. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities towards the senate or its members. the gentleman from california. mr. lieu: i am prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: thank you, madam speaker. i would yield two minutes to my friend, the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i thank the gentleman from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> the supreme court justices are already protected. really? really? they're already protected? the speaker said no one is in danger, no one is in danger after an assassination attempt. mr. perry: i don't know if i'd feel very protected on the very day of the assassination attempt in violation of the law, in violation of the law protesters at the very house of the supreme

court justice being intimidated by protesters. the speaker says that no one's in danger. i don't want to engage in personalities so i might say a high-ranking official on the other side of the capitol here said you have released the whirlwind. you won't know what hit you. and then down the street, pennsylvania avenue, a high-ranking official said, well, said, there might be a mini revolution. does that sound not like intimidation to you because it sure sounds like it to me? i don't know what my friends on the other side of the aisle want to happen. i don't know. i am not in their head or in their hearts but i listen what they say and watch what they do. we should have passed this much, much longer ago when it was available to us. the fact we didn't might be the reason why they come to assassinate a supreme court

justice. you don't get your way you blow up the supreme court. it is not appropriate. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. i yield the balance. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. is the gentleman prepared to close from ohio? mr. jordan: madam speaker, we have another speaker on the way. let me say this. reading from a headline here, this group, ruth -- this group hinted at targeted supreme court justice comey barrett's children and church. group gave details of justice comey barrett's routine, her children's school, and familiary's spiritual life -- family's spiritual life. where justice comey barrett goes each day, where her children goes to school and where they go to church, they gave details. last week the democrats said no one is in danger after an

assassination attempt on ms. barrett's colleague, justice kavanaugh, and they said not to worry. everything's fine. we don't need to pass this legislation. after the senate had done it unanimously. that's the position of the democrats in this body. that's why we're saying, why did it take so long? six weeks ago was when the draft leak happened and the protests started at justices' homes. after the unprecedented leak of that draft opinion. they have been doing it now for weeks and weeks and weeks. here's the email from this organization, here's one of the messages. if you're in the d.c. metro area, join us our protest at barrett's home. move the needle this -- to this coverage. falls church. she sends her seven children to her people of praise school that he sat on the -- she sat on the -- she goes to church daily.

as if it's a bad thing. i think it's a good thing. the details where her kids go to school, church and daily routine. the democrats said nothing to worry about. that's our concern. so thank goodness this bill is here. madam chair, we reserve our time. mr. lieu: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman continue to reserve? mr. lieu: i'm going to respond to that because that's a lie. the fact he's saying that democrats think there's nothing wrong, there's no danger to supreme court justices is a lie. why? we're the majority party and look, we just put this bill up and we're about to vote on it. we clearly care about supreme court justices. but we also care about the families and employees of the supreme court. and that is what we're talking about today. because, again, i just want to remind you, the republicans are misleading you.

supreme court justices right now have law enforcement protection details. they are protected by law enforcement. this bill has to deal with the families of supreme court justices. i support protecting them. i also support protecting employees and their families of the supreme court. and that is a dispute. the democrats want to also protect employees and families who are getting threats from right-wing activists, intimidation. you want to talk about intimidation? i tell you what intimidation is. it's trump supporters assaulted the capitol on january 6, brutalizing 140 police officers. that is intimidation. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: and madam speaker, we condemn what took place on january 6. it would be nice if democrats have done the same thing in the summer of 2020 or pass this legislation six weeks ago, a month ago when the senate passed it. let me just recite a few things

here that have been said by our colleagues on the other side. former attorney general eric holder said in 2018, at a campaign event in georgia, to, quote, kick republicans. when they go low we kick them. that's what this new democratic party is about. it sure is. it sure is. it's all about intimidation. intimidating the court. intimidating parents who have the nerve to set up at school board meetings. intimidating free speech rights of all americans. that's what the new democratic party is about. we've seen it time and time again. in the summer of 2018, we saw one of our colleagues from california, democrat member said, let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. and if you see anybody from the trump cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, out in a crowd, you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them -- think about this. this is a member of congress saying this to a cabinet member. you tell them they're not

welcome any more anywhere. a cabinet member not welcomed. we have another member on the democratic side said this. there needs to be, quote, unrest on the streets. calling for unrest on the streets while there was unrest on the streets in the summer of 2020. that's why this legislation is so darn important and why we cannot figure out. the gentleman just said something that wasn't accurate. the speaker said last week no one's in danger. no one's in danger. i just read what they're posting about justice comey barrett and her family and where they go to church and where her seven kids go to school. of course, this is in the context of everything they've done to intimidate the court and an assassination attempt on another justice, justice kavanaugh. i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from north carolina.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized from north carolina. >> thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman from ohio. i've missed part of the debate, most of the debate on the floor. mr. jordan just made reference to that item that bowls me over. you wonder after you've been in washington for a little while whether anything will surprise you but, yes, that tweet by the pro-abortion group ruth sent us, that identified justice barrett's church and identified the school that her children attend and encouraged protesters to, quote, voice your anger, closed quote, by demonstrating there is a new low.

. not just the identification of justices' addresses, not just crowds materializing there, which i never thought we'd see, not just the appearance of an assassin at the home of a justice, which we have never seen, and yet, the response is, what about january 6. and the gentleman from ohio made the point, i had never environs countered any republican who declined to condemn the violence and rioting at the capitol that day. i never found one.

i never heard one, and yet i never hear condemnation of such conduct as i have described from democrats. i'm not hearing it now. i'm hearing about what about january 6? i condemned the rioting and violence at the capitol on january 6. mr. bishop: i condemn democrat leader of the senate standing in front of the supreme court to say two specific justice, that you have released the whirl wind, you will suffer the result i don't remember the exact words, and the phrase that sticks in my mind, you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. i never hear condemnation for

that. i don't know why. i do think i know why. this bill had to be delayed from last week when we were here and could have passed it. and that is because you want to protect the leaker. and that implies that although this has been pending for a month and a half and the nation doesn't know who the leaker was, somebody knows who the leaker was and that's who you want to protect. amazing as that is, unprecedented as that is, we certainly ought to pass this legislation and protect the justices of the united states supreme court from assassins, assassins, responding to the

advocacy, unprecedented advocacy on the left. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from california. mr. lieu: i condemn violence whether from right-wing groups, left-wing groups. democrats say it all the time. republicans don't hear it because they are in their bubble fox news. that's why they don't hear any of this stuff because it's never played to them or their stuff. democrats condemn violence and last year, the headline of this article again, justice sotomayor was targeted by gunman. did the republicans jump up in outrage? they didn't. let's be clear, supreme court justices get law enforcement protection right now as we speak. this is actually a dispute about

employees and i'm going to ask republicans a question and i bet you they will not answer it. why do they not want to protect families and employees of the supreme court? i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: employees of the court are already protected. this is about protecting the justices' families and that is based on the headline that i read and email that mr. bishop just talked about. the gentleman said democrats they condemn violence. no they don't. no, they don't. they call rioters in the summer of 20, peaceful protestors and now vice president raised money to bail them out of jail. so you have to stick with the facts here and that is not accurate what was stated

earlier. for all the reasons we have highlighted, we are glad this bill is going to pass and wish it would have happened weeks and weeks ago when this threat was first present for supreme court justices. i reserve the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lieu: i yield two minutes of time to the the gentlewoman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. >> it is incredible to stand here and listen to our republican colleagues talk about the risks and the dangers that exist to the supreme court. i want to know where they were when the risk and the dangers existed for my community, el paso, texas, where 23 innocent people were slaughtered by a

white supremacist with an a.k.-47. where were they then? how about uvalde? buffalo, you name it. last week, we brought to the floor legislation to protect millions of americans, millions of americans, especially and including children. the vast majority of our republican colleagues voted against those protections for vulnerable people who don't have access to 24-hour round the clock u.s. marshal protection. they don't have access to round the clock 24/7 capitol police protection, which supreme court justices have today. supreme court justices have far more protections than members of congress do. but more importantly than those

innocent lives that were taken in enumerable cities across america. and as they rail about and clutch their pearls over the fact that it took house democrats some time to get this bill to the floor, the reason it took that much time is it was house democrats that wanted one concession out of this bill, to protect the staff of that institution, the united states supreme court, but they refused. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. escobar: may i have 30 seconds? mr. lieu: i yield 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. escobar: i want to remind the american public why they brought this bill to the floor in the senate and here. it's a talking point. it's not bus it does anything,

but simply a talking point and came as a result of a leaked decision on the justices' desire to take away women's reproductive care. guess who doesn't get protection in america, and it's those health care providers and patients and staff who are vulnerable every day especially because of the actions of the supreme court. i yield back. mr. lieu: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. jordan: a talking point? the left is telling people where justice barrett's kids go to school. that is not a talking point, that's a fact. that's one of the craziest things i heard, a talking point. every single senator voted for this package and that includes democrats. a talking point? you got to be kidding me. they are reporting where a supreme court justice -- where her kids go to school and family

goes to church, daily routine and the left calls it a talking point. i urge a yes vote on this bill, for goodness sake. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. lieu: thank you. s.4160 is a straightforward bill that will protect the families of the justices and democrats also tried to protect the families of court employees and republicans objected and this is the best we can get. i urge my colleagues to support the bill and i yield become. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass senate 4160. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no in the opinion of the chair 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill

is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is lai- mr. lieu: i would like to ask for a recorded vote pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> by direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 1170 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the

clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1170. resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 2543, to amend the federal reserve act to add additional demographic reporting requirements, to modify the goals of the federal reserve system, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on financial services now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 117—49, modified by the amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without

intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services or their respective designees, two, the further amendments described in section 2 of this resolution, three, the amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution, and four, one motion to recommit. section 2. after debate pursuant to the first section of this resolution, each 4 further amendment printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules not earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment,

and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. section 3. it shall be in order at any time after debate pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the chair of the committee on financial services or her designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on financial services or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. section 4. all points of order against the further amendments printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules or amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived. section 5. upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider

in the house the bill h.r. 2773 to amend the pittman-robertson wildlife restoration act to make supplemental funds available for management of fish and wildlife species of greatest conservation need as determined by state fish and wildlife agencies, and for other purposes. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 117—47, modified by the amendment printed in part c of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without

intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources or their respective designees, two, the further amendments described in section 6 of this resolution, three, the amendments en bloc described in section 7 of this resolution, and four, one motion to recommit. section 6. after debate pursuant to section 5 of this resolution, each further 5 amendment printed in part d of the report of the committee on rules not earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 7 of this resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for

division of the question. section 7. it shall be in order at any time after debate, pursuant to section 5 of this resolution, for the chair of the committee on natural resources or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part d of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. section 8. all points of order against the further amendments printed in part d of the report of the committee on rules or amendments en bloc described in section 7 of this resolution are waived. section 9. upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 7606,

to establish the office of the special investigator for competition matters within the department of agriculture. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on agriculture now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rules committee print 117—50, modified by the amendment printed in part e of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except, one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on agriculture or their respective designees, two, the further amendments described in section

10 of this resolution, and three, one motion to recommit. section 10. after debate pursuant to section 9 of this resolution, each further amendment printed in part f of the report of the committee on rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by 6 the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. all points of order against the further amendments printed in part f of the report of the committee on rules are waived. section 11. house resolution 188, agreed to march 8, 2021 as most recently amended by house resolution 1153, agreed to june 8, 2022, is amended by striking “june 17,

2022” each place it appears and inserting in each instance “june 22, 2022.” the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one hour. mr. desaulnier: thank you, madam speaker. for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. during consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. desaulnier: madam speaker, yesterday the rules committee met and reported a rule, house resolution 1170, for three measures, first it provides for consideration of h.r. 2543 under a structured rule. the rule self-executes a manager's amendment, provides one hour of general debate

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on financial services. makes in order 27 amendments and provides one motion to recommit. skd, the rule provides for consideration of h.r. 2773 under a structured rule. the rule self-executes a manager's amendment, provides one hour of general equally dwaided and controlled by the chair of the ranking member on the committee on natural resources and makes in order eight amendments and provides one motion to recommit. third, the rule provides for consideration of h.r. 7606, upped a structured rule. the rule self-executes a manager's amendment, provides one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on agriculture and makes in order two amendments and provides one motion to recommit. finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension

authority, and same day authority through june 22nd. first i'd like to say a few words about the lower food and fuel cost act. times are tough for working families across the country. food prizes are rising and gas prices are at an all time high. at the same time, food companies and big oil are making record profits at the expense of the same hardworking americans. costs are rising up and down the supply chain, the cost of fertilizer and pest at this seudz has -- pesticides has risen 50% over the past year. in part due to the ongoing war in ukraine. rising energy price, increasing trucking cost, and the worst outbreak of airvian flu in seven years are all contributing to the higher prices consumers are paying at the grocery store. plus, combined oil companies'

irresponsibility with putin's war in ukraine and you have an unbearable situation for american consumers. the lower food and fuel cost act will help us look out for working families. not just big corporations and their billionaire c.e.o.'s. this package of bipartisan legislation supports farmers and lowers prices for america's families at the grocery store and the gas pump. this rule also allows us to consider a package of legislation aimed at addressing racial and economic inequities that limit opportunities for americans to buy homes, access loans, and earn fair wages. income and wealth inequality is higher in the united states than in any other developed country. and there are examples of it in almost all parts of our lives. the reforms in this package will help. it will help us better target and measure outcomes for

underserved populations. finally, the recovering america's wildlife act helps protect the more than one third of all fish and wildlife species in the united states at risk of extinction. this legislation funds conservation efforts for more than 12,000 species of wildlife and plants. and the recovery of 1600 species already listed as threatened or endangered. taken together and taken separately, these bills will all lead to real important change for americans. thank you, madam speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. reschenthaler: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from california for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. reschenthaler: thank you, madam speaker. the rule before us today provides for consideration of three pieces of legislation that are once again missed opportunities to provide real

relief to the american people. rather than working with republicans to address the serious issues facing our nation, democrats again prioritize the interest of far left special interest groups in their radical progressive base over the needs of american workers and american families. look no further than h.r. 2543, a compilation of 13 financial services bills that prioritize woke policies and unnecessary reporting over actually fixing biden's economic crisis. as my friends across the aisle will remember under president trump u.s. employment reached a 50-year low of 3.5%. additionally under president trump minority unemployment dropped the lowest levels on record. compare that with the economy under the democrats' one-party rule. inflation is now a 40-year high. gas prices are now over $5 a

gallon. and americans can expect to pay an extra $5,200 this year compared to last year for the same goods and services. so once again rather than just working with republicans to provide real economic relief, the democrats continue to double down on reckless spending, far left policies, and have prioritized their big government socialism over free market principles. what has this led to? it's led to economic instability. it threatens the stability of our federal reserve. it piles regulatory costs on small businesses. and emboldens un-elected and unaccountable career bureaucrats. ultimately h.r. 2543 will make it more difficult for low-income and minority borrowers to start business, buy a home, and build credit. it does the opposite of the intended effect.

this will also provides for consideration much her-r h.r. 7606, a bill that claims to cloaer food costs by appointing a, i quote, special investigator. this special investigator will investigate american meat packers and live poultry dealers. this legislation -- let's be clear, this legislation is a weak attempt to lay the blame for president biden's economic crisis on american job creators. in reality, this is just another unfunded mandate that empowers washington bureaucrats in place -- and places new burdens on american food producers. alarmingly, these client costs may actually rise the price of food even higher, making life in joe biden's america even harder on average american families. finally, this bill provides for consideration of h.r. 2773, the recovering america's wildlife act of 2022. wile i support -- while i

support conservation efforts, i'm disappointed once again by the majority walk ag way from talks with republicans to find offsets and try to resolve spending concerns for the $1.34 billion in new annual mandatory spending authorized by this bill. in fact, the c.b.o., according to c.b.o. this legislation spends $12.7 billion just in the first 10 years alone. madam speaker, 80% of americans say inflation is the most important issue facing this country. but you wouldn't know it by looking at the bills democrats are prioritizing for floor action this week. perhaps it's time that my big government democratic colleagues actually listen to the american people and work with the republicans on real economic solutions. rather than doubling down on out-of-control spending and reckless far left policies that created biden's economic crisis

in the first place. i strongly urge my colleagues to vote no, to oppose this rule. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. . mr. desaulnier: always as we have these debates encourage that we work together and acknowledging that we have differences of opinion and remind people that we are in an economy that we are trying to provide some small instruments for oversight and accountability so we can have control as we can in a global economy that is impacting this inflation that is so hard for working americans. with all due respect to my friend from pennsylvania, always willing to work with him, but this package is to provide more accountability and not more

bureaucracy. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. reschenthaler: i hear this being a global issue. it is a global issue, economic economics' lesson, we are the reserve currency and largest g.d.p. we are exporting the inflation to other countries. the inflation is caused by joe biden reckless big socialist agenda and the american people have to deal with the recklessness. i yield five minutes to my good friend, representative fischbach. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs.fischbach: i thank my friend for yielding me the time. i start off by saying that i'm going to specifically talk about h.r. 7606 and many of the bills included in that bill i

supported and the butcher block act, and the precise act are all pieces of legislation i have long supported and are included in this package. i find it stunning that my colleagues in the majority after many months after sitting on these thoughtful bipartisan bills are finally bringing them forward attached to a poison pill that is duplicative and unness -- unnecessary. this is they are saying is a solution. but many of these bills are cod physicals of existing programs or duplicative efforts all packaged with a feel-good title. these will not address the underlying drivers of inflation or increasing input costs. if the majority was serious about bringing down the costs of

food and fuel, they would check on spending habits. they would roll back the biden administration war on agriculture. the packers and stock yards division have enforcement tools to address competitive behavior. the packers and stock yard divisions, the agency is understaffed and underfunded. if they were serious about combatting uncompetitive behavior in the meat-packing industry, they would have included resources. this legislation is unfunded and creates unnecessary and duplicative special investigator appointed by an administration that blames rising costs of goods and services on everyone but themselves and harass market

participants when convenient for the politics of this administration. further, the department ofjustice has already been in the process of investigating meat packers with respect to this exact issue. i would ask my colleagues if they have yet to receive any update regarding this effort and if so, what can we expect from it. i know we have been seeking an update for months to no avail. it is inappropriate for this bill to move forward. much of this package has bipartisan support but i asked why they didn't focus on the bills with strong bipartisan consensus and i said this is the package and what the majority was. the message to me was take it or leave it. this shows once again the majority's unwillingness to work in a bipartisan manner and address the issues facing

americans. that's unfortunate and i urge my colleagues in the majority to work with republicans in addressing these issues in a thoughtful and bipartisan manner and to stop playing politics while our country suffers. i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. desaulnier: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. reschenthaler: americans are paying an average of over $5 for gas. this is the first time in history. let me repeat, over $5 for a gallon of gas. the pain at the pump is a result of congressional democrats and president biden radical green new deal agenda. let's be blunt about something, the base of the democrat party,

the woke yuppies sitting at home, they don't care about gas prices, but if you are a wait trees at a diner and drive to your shift, that affects you. republicans care about working families, and that's why we believe americans deserve affordable american-made energy. if we defeat the previous question, i will personally offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider h.r. 6858 american energy independence act. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the record along with any extraneous material -- immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection mr. reschenthaler: here to explain this amendment is a good friend of the energy and commerce committee, congressman duncan of south carolina. did you know did you know i rise to amend the rule the american

energy independence. as a direct result of president biden's war on american, average national gas prices have hit $5. i paid more than $5 a gallon for diesel. while we had an energy crisis in the 1970's was global supply and what did we learn? the american people are feeling the pain. and this shouldn't come as any surprise to the american people. and really it doesn't because the president said during a presidential debate that he would phase out oil and gas production in the united states and that's exactly what they're doing, it's costing moms and dads around the country and

democrats are wondering why gas prices are so high. what is more unbelievable president biden killed american energy at the same time green lighting northwardstream 2 project. we can't do it here at home. the logic kill american energy while promoting of tyrants in russia, venezuela is unbelievable. you are playing politics with this country's energy crisis. democrats want high gas prices so they have utopian world. and americans are choosing between filling up their tank and feeding families because they are paying more at the pump. energy prices hurt low-income americans and seeing their savings erode in a volatile stock market.

more of their paychecks going for basic commodities and they are paying record high prices nationwide to fuel their vehicles. you know what the solution is buy a $55,000 vehicle. how many families can afford that? the biden administration saw that is a failed approach. we are going to cheese more of the strategic petroleum reserve to increase supply. they are currently tapping this at record levels to meet demand. s.b.r. fell to 138 million and that is the lowest level since 1987. that is a finite economy that once we drain s.b.r., buy oil from iran, russia to replenish, it is not an infin it supply.

what are you going to do then when it runs out? you blame higher prices look no further than democrats and you have blocked the emcan energy independence from russia. you blocked a commonsense piece of legislation. now this bill will approve key spoken pipeline and restore oil and gas leasing. well past time for the democrats to wake up and follow the science as you like to and stop putting special interest groups before the american people. let's flip the switch. let's support american energy and america first policies and let's support the american energy from russia act, unleash american energy production and security and lowering gas prices. quit playing games and going to release the s.b.r. oil to lower

the price at the pump because that's temporary. once that supply is used up you are not going to have that to put back in the market. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. did you know did you know i urge a no vote so the house can consider this commonsense legislation by representative mrs. mcmorrisrodgers. mr. desaulnier: 50% of inflation is caused by the war in ukraine and actions by vladimir putin. in terms of energy we believe in supporting american energy but accept the reality that we are transitioning to more choices for energy like we do in california. i ask unanimous consent to insert a june 10, 20 the 1 "usa

today" article. madam speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection mr. desaulnier: president biden nor his administration have direct control of setting gas prices. the real issue is big oil to pad their pockets. the c.e.o. of i feel now, quote that we do need to return cash to the shareholders in the form of dividends and buybacks especially during the better cycle, end quote. they are thinking of shareholders' best interests of the -- and not the americans. mr. reschenthaler: democrats and allies can blame putin all they want and it is partially true that partin's war in ukraine is partially to blame. but it has risen every month of

this administration, every month. they were up a dollar a gallon before putin invaded and the real issue is supply. why do we have a supply issue. joe biden canceled the key tone xl pipeline and dried up capital investment into hydrocarbon infrastructure. maybe it's a problem we cannot get the oil and gas to refineries to make sure we have a supply. what does joe biden do? blames everybody else and goes to venezuela and begs them to produce more oil and one administration before, we were a net exporter of energy. pieden and the democrats have created this mess. the american people will also spend $5,000 this year on gas for the average american. that is 78% increase from a year

ago. americans are spending over $2,000 extra a year on gas under joe biden. plame who you want, every time an american looks up and sees 100 plus dollars on that gas tank, they blame joe biden and democrats. i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from the state of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. van duyne: i rise to pose the previous question to senior h.r. 6858 the american energy independence from russia act. the production of oil and gas and importation and exportation of oil and gas. gas prices have topped $5 per gallon and economists predict $6 by august. every american is paying double since biden took office and the

crisis is getting worse. this administration should have seen this coming. you can say what you want and blame whoever you want, this administration is failing to recognize that its policies have had a direct result on gas prices. you don't block crucial pipelines. you pipelines. you don't shut down drilling on federal lands that -- declare war on the oil and gas industry and become rewill iant on russian oil and not expect prices to skyrocket own our global standing to weaken. this administration is obviously not going to do anything but make this crisis worse. this body must act of the the american energy independence from russia act will strengthen u.s. energy security, counter russia, create american jobs, and protect domestic oil and gas dependency and production. republicans have proposed

countless pragmatic bills, including the strategic to secure -- strategy to secure offshore energy act which i introduced. this directs of the interior to publish the next five-year plan for offshore oil and gas lease sales. we must hold this administration accountable as they continue to throw their hands up and blame everyone else for the energy crisis that they created. this bill will help provide the certainty necessary for continued investment in offshore production and support our domestic energy security. in my colleagues' home state of california, gas has reached $9.630 a gallon. sure -- $9. # 0 a gallon. surely we can all agree it must be addressed. i urge opposition to the previous question so we can pass needed legislation to put us back on course to unlocking american energy independence. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. reschenthaler: thank you, madam speaker. just a quick -- quick facts. as mr. duncan stated house democrats have blocked consideration of legislation to unleash energy's energy independence six times. six times we have been down there road. house democrats have blocked it. gas prices have gone up 49 cents since the last time republicans asked democrats to bring this bill to the floor. here we are again. to talk more about this issue i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from arizona, representative lesko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from arizona is recognized for three minutes. mrs. lesko: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to oppose the previous question so that we can immediately consider h.r. 6858 to unleash american domestic energy production. americans across the country are paying sky-high prices at the

gas pump. almost every single day for the past month gas prices have hit a new record high. the national average for a gallon of gas is now over $5 per gallon. in phoenix, my home state, arizonans are paying over $5.60 per gallon. i think yesterday it was $5.63 per gallon. filling up at the pump is becoming increasingly unaffordable for many americans. as members of congress, many of us can afford to spend $5 for a single gallon of gas. but many americans like my own kids who are working hard and my senior citizens in my district who live on fixed incomes simply

can't afford to pay this high price. republicans have a solution. we have a plan to increase american energy production today and lower prices tomorrow if only my colleagues across the aisle would agree to take up this legislation. h.r. 6858 requires the president to submit an energy security plan to congress and requires the energy secretary to develop a plan to increase oil and gas production on u.s. federal lands. this legislation reinstates the keystone x.l. pipeline, unleashes american natural gas production and oil production, reverses the oil and gas moratorium on federal lands and waters so that we can harness our u.s. abundant energy resources. republicans have brought up this legislation as said before for

consideration several times, but the energy crisis just keeps getting worse and worse and gas prices keep getting higher. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. desaulnier: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. reschenthaler: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to yield three minutes to my good friend from minnesota and former police officer, representative pete stauber. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for three minutes. mr. stauber: madam speaker, i rise to oppose the previous question so that we can immediately consider h.r. 6858, the american energy independence from russia act. which i am proud to co-sponsor with my colleagues, representatives mcmorris rodgers and westerman. the national average price for a gallon of gasoline today is $5 and climbing. let that sink in.

it's $5 and going up. and diesel fuel is skyrocketing at an even scarier rate. this is a self-imposed crisis on the american people. as candidate joe biden pledged again and again to ban development on america's federal lands and waters. he followed through on that promise with the house democrats following suit. no matter the pain they cause americans at the pump, no matter the cost they impose on businesses reliant on shipping, trucking, and more. in contrast, we republicans are here offering solutions. h.r. 6858 takes away joe biden's power to ruin our energy security and our economy by prohibiting harmful drilling bans. the bill creates a minimum

number of annual lease sales both on shore and off shore. and it re-authorizes the keystone x.l. pipeline so we can resume moving energy throughout our country. democrats are -- here are calculating that to reduce emissions it's a necessary evil to make gas expensive for americans and punish the middle class. madam speaker, let me tell you why that's dead wrong. under president trump when we were net exporters of american energy, we averaged emission reductions of 2 1/2% every year. under president biden his first year in office we saw a 6% jump in domestic emissions. these policies democrats push every day again are punishing the american families, the american workers, and the

american middle class. it makes it harder for businesses to turn a profit and it's a leading cause of why our economy officially became a bear market just yesterday. the solution, trips to venezuela and saudi arabia pleading with communist and newman rights violators -- human rights violators to bail him out of a problem that he caused. let that sink in. he's going to venezuela and saudi arabia pleading with communists and human rights violators to bail him out of a problem that he caused. madam speaker, it does not have to be that way. mr. reschenthaler: i reserve an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for another 30 seconds. mr. stauber: madam speaker, it does not have to be this way. we can bring gas prices down with republican solutions. as the ranking member of energy and minerals resources subcommittee i call on my colleagues in this body today to

do the right thing and vote for h.r. 6858 to bring relief to the american people. let's produce our energy right here in america. we have the resources, technology, and the work force. we absolutely have the need. i urge defeat of the previous question. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. desaulnier: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. reschenthaler: madam speaker, i still find it somewhat amusing my friends across the aisle continue to blame foreign nations and their actions on all this. let me give a quick history lesson on how president joe biden and democrats caused this crisis. number one, day number one, joe biden canceled the keystone x.l. pipeline. number two, he emboldened putin with nord stream 2. i would argue he embode yelled putin to invade ukraine when he pulled us out of afghanistan

when. out of afghanistan. he delayed permits for energy and infrastructure pipelines. he drained the strategic petroleum reserve. he revoked permits for critical mineral projects. he canceled oil leases in alaska anti-gulf of mexico. what has this done to gas prices? in california, gas prices are now $9 a gallon. here to talk about this is my good friend from california, mr. i yield him two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lamalfa: i appreciate my neighborhood from pennsylvania for the time here today and for this effort. i also oppose the previous question on h.r. -- and want to bring forward h.r. 6858 the american energy independence from russia act. it begs the question with what's going on in the world why are we dependent upon rush why for anything, especially our energy? if the number was somewhere

around 7% of the barrels of oil used, we can make up by our own production in this country. the amazing hydraulic fracturing that put america back on the map being an exporter of natural gas and all the other development that we can be doing to bring prices back down. this administration just seems impervious to the suffering of the american people on the cost of energy and everything else. there is another crisis that's going to be coming out of this, too. we are dependent on russia an china for a product called urea. what is that? it's made into a fertilizer that's used extensively in american crops, but also urea has a use as a component in what's called diesel exhaust fluid. that's a part of making our diesel engines run cleaner. we are going to run out of def soon. the railroad also have a hard time delivering it. when that happens that means our trucks don't run anymore because

they will not run without this fluid. so we are dependent on russia for urea. for energy. we want to blame russia for everything. no, we blame this administration because we are not doing the steps it takes to make ourselves independent that we have within our grasp to do to go for this great reset or the incredible transition the president talks about. we are being transitioned by this administration. it's very dangerous. it's harmful to families. harlful to beam's -- harmful to people's bottom line. getting their kids to school, going to work. all because we don't have an energy policy that works. whether the trucks don't have d.e.f. or get it out of the field or to the store because we are dependent on russia for energy -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lamalfa: i thank you for the time. mr. reschenthaler: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. desaulnier: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. reschenthaler: thank you, madam speaker. i have no further speakers. i'm prepared to close.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is prepared to close. mr. reschenthaler: i yield myself the balance of the time and remind everybody in joe biden's america gas prices are averaging more than $5 a gallon. inflation is at a 40-year high. in real wages have decreased 10 out of the last 12 months. yet with today's rule house democrats are doubling down on far left radical policies, really failed policies, that created joe biden's economic crisis in the first place. it's well past time the biden administration and congressional democrats admit that they are to blame for the economic pain families are facing and workers are facing and work with republicans on solutions to immediately help the american people. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question and no on the rule. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. desaulnier: thank you, madam speaker. thank you my friend from pennsylvania. and the rules committee. i just want to remind folks that

the economy under joe biden has created over eight million jobs since he took office. the unemployment rate has dropped from 6.4% to 3.6% under president biden. his first year was the greatest year of job creation in american history. the federal reserve has found that the household financial well-being reached an all time high last year. and g.d.p. grew in the president's first year by 5.2%. the fastest rate since 1984. the u.s. was the first advanced economy that reached prepandemic rates of growth. and we are seeing wages increased for workers. there is no doubt that inflation and high cost of gasoline is a challenge. that's the purpose of some of our actions today. is to hold the private sector accountable, to be responsible

to their consumers and the american people. that's why these bills are on the floor. to do something about inflation and the high cost of energy. at the same time, we are preparing for an energy transition. michigan, california we are aware of the realities of the current energy economy, but we are getting ready for the new one. . i have five refineries and represented in local, state and federal government. two of them are closed because of the pandemic. at the are about to re-open using bio fuels and better business model according to the oil industry. all of these things are combined for challenge. i would agree with my colleague, this is too important and we have our differences about the approach we should engage in problem solving for americans. i want to thank all of my

colleagues for these bills and their ideas to deal with inflation and challenges to american workers and i yield back -- sorry, i'll just say each of these bills are impactful and i look forward to voting for them all soon. i urge a yes vote on the rule and previous question. and i yield back and move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, ayes have it. pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, yeas and nays are ordered members will record their votes by electronic device [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. -- pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the 15-minute vote on ordering the

previous question will be followed by five-minute votes on the adoption of the resolution, if ordered and on the motion to suspend the rules and pass senate 4160. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. lynch of massachusetts, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote yes on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? as the member designated by mrs. lawrence and mr. schneider, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the

previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. rice will vote nay on the previous question. as the member designated by mr. gonzalez of ohio, i inform the house that mr. gonzalez will vote nay on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from delaware seek recognition? ms. blunt rochester: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. lamb of pennsylvania, i inform the house that mr. lamb will vote yes on h.res. 1170. or on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recog recognition? mr. takano: mr. speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman waters, i inform the house that ms. waters -- chairwoman waters will vote yes on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new jersey seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by m mr. cana, i inform the house that he will vote yes on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. fleischmann: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi, i inform the house that

mr. palazzo will vote nay on the previous question. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: as the member designated by chairwoman johnson and representative scott peters, i inform the house these members will vote yea on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated mr. kehele and mrs. bustos from illinois, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. continuey of new york, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. tenney will vote no on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. mace of south carolina, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that representative mace will vote no on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek

recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by representative stanton of arizona and representative speier of california, and representative correa of california i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. o'halleran of arizona, i inform the house that mr. o'halleran will vote yes on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. donald payne, ms. deana titus, mr. gerry nadler, mr. peter welch, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on

the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. van taylor of the great state of texas, i inform the house that mr. van taylor will vote no on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. stansbury of new mexico, i inform the house that she will vote yes on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. wasserman schultz: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. pingree of maine, i inform the house that she will vote yes on the previous question -- vote nay on the previous question the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. wilson of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote nay on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. john carter of the great state of texas, i inform the house that mr. carter will vote nay on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. price and mr. hank johnson, i inform the house that mr. price and mr. johnson will vote yes on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: madam speaker -- mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. newman, mr. mceachin, mr. suozzi, mr. evans and ms. moore, i inform the house that these five members will vote yes on ordering the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. neguse: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. wilson, ms. davids, and ms. kelly, i inform the house that these three members will vote yea on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognize -- the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? miss rice: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. deutch of florida, i inform the house that mr. deutch will vote yes on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. amodei, i inform the house that mr. amodei will vote nay on the previous question.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yea --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 216. the nays are 199. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. reschenthaler: on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. wilson of south carolina, will he vote nay on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. garcia: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms.

stansbury of new mexico, i inform the house that she will vote yes on h.res. 1170. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski from indiana, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote nay on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from delaware seek recognition? ms. blunt rochester: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. lamb of pennsylvania, i inform the house that mr. lamb will vote yea on h.res. 1170. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. john cart irof the freight grate state of texas, he will vote nay on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. pingree of maine and mr. lawson and mr. crist of florida, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on h.res. 1170. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition in mr. fleischmann: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi, i inform the house that mr. palazzo will vote nay on the rule. thank you.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. deutch of florida, i inform the house that mr. deutch will vote yes on h.res. 1170. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. amodei from nevada, i inform the house that mr. amodei will vote nay on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by representative stanton, speier, and correa i inform the house these members will vote yes on h.res. 1170. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? if for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. van at this letter of the great state of texas, i inform the house that mr. at this letter will vote nay on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new jersey seek recognition?

>> mrs. watson coleman: as the member designated by mr. khanna, i inform the house that he will vote yes on h.res. 1170. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. tenney of new york, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that she will vote no on h.res. 1170. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. price and mr. hank johnson, i inform the house that mr. price and mr. johnson: will vote yea on h.res. 1170. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman waters, i inform the house that chairwoman waters will vote yes on house resolution 1170. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. lawrence and mr. schneider, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.res. 1170. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. rice will vote nay on the rule. as the member designated by mr. gonzalez of ohio, i inform the house that mr. gonzalez will vote nay on the rule. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. suozzi, mr. evans, mr. mceachin, ms. newman, and ms. moore i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.res. 1170. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. kelly, ms. davids, and ms. wilson i inform the house that these three members will vote yea on h.res.

1170. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. kehele and mrs. bustos, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on resolution 1170. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. o'halleran, i inform the house that mr. o'halleran will vote yes on h.res. 1170.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by chairwoman johnson and representative scott peters, i inform the house these members will vote yea on h.res. 1170. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. lynch of massachusetts, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote yes on h. resolution 1170. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recog recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. donald payne, ms. deana titus, mr. gerry nadler, mr. peter welch i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.res. 1170.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. mace of south carolina, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that

representative mace will vote no on h.res. 1170.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 218. the nays are 204. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from california, mr. lieu, to suspend the rules and pass senate 4160 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: senate 4160, an act to amend title 40 united states code to grant the supreme court of the united states security related authorities equivalent to the legislative and executive branches. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina reek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. wilson of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. wilson will vote aye on s.4160. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recog recognition? mr. takano: mr. speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman waters, i inform the house that chairwoman waters will vote no on s.4160. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois -- indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski of indiana, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote yea on s.4160. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. wasserman schultz: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. pingree of maine and mr. crist and mr. lars lawson of florida, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on s.4160. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from texas seek recognition 1234. >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by miss tenney of new york, i inform the house that she will vote yes on s.4160. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. lang langevin: mr. speaker,s the member designated by mr. lynch of massachusetts i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote yes on s.4160. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. carter: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. mace of south carolina, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that representative mace will vote yea on s.4160. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from delaware seek recognition? ms. blunt rochester: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. lamb of pennsylvania, i inform the house that mr. lamb will vote yes on s.4160. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by

mr. amodei from nevada, i inform the house that mr. amodei will vote yea on s.4160. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. o'halleran of arizona, i inform the house that mr. o'halleran will vote yes on s.4160. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. fleischmann: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. palazzo will vote yea on s.4160. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new jersey seek recognition? mrs. watson coleman: thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. khanna, i inform the house that he will vote yes on s. 4160. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member

designated by mr. price and mr. hank johnson, i inform the house that mr. price and mr. johnson will vote yea on s.4160. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? mr. rice: mr. speaker -- miss rice: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. deutch of florida, i inform the house that mr. deutch will vote yes on s. 4160. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. suozzi, mr. mceachin, mr. evans, ms. wilson, i inform the house that they will vote yes on h.r. -- s. 4160. mr. garcia: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. stance burry, i inform the house that she will vote yes on s. 4160.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. huffman: mr. speaker, as the member designated by m mr. stanton, speier, correa, i inform the house that they will vote yes on s. 4160. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. neguse: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. davids, ms. wilson, ms. kelly, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s. 4160. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. garcia -- ms. van duyne: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. van taylor from the great state of texas, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote yea on s. 4160. ms. stevens: as the member designated by mr. schneider will vote yea and representative lawrence will vote no on s. 4160. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: as the member designated by chairwoman eddie bernice johnson as well as representative scott peters, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on s.

4160. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. mrvan: as the member designated by mr. kahele and mrs. bustos, i inform the house that they will vote yea on h.r. 6 -- s. 4160. mr. weber: as the member designated by mr. carter, i inform the house that mr. carter will vote yes on s. 41620. -- 4160. mr. pallone: as the member designated by mr. nadler, mr. welch, they will vote yes on s. 4160. as the member designated by mr. donald payne, i inform the house that mr. payne will vote no on s. 4160.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. meijer: as the member designated by mr. rice, i inform the house that mr. rice will vote yes on s. 4160. as the member designated by mr. gonzalez of ohio, i inform the house that mr. gonzalez will vote yes on s. 4160.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. newman of illinois, i inform the house that ms. nilman will -- newman

will actually vote no on s. 4160.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 396. the nays are 27. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? mrs. dingell: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1170, i call up h.r. 2773 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 271, h.r. 2773, a bill to amend the pittman-robertson wildlife restoration act to make supplemental funds available for management of fish and wildlife species of greatest conservation need as determined by state fish and wildlife agencies, and for other purposes.

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1170, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of text of rules committee print 117-47 modified by amendment printed in part c of house report 117-366 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered as read. the bill, as amended, is debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources and their respective designees. the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. dingell, and the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman, each will control 30 minutes. the house is not in order. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from arizona -- from

michigan. mrs. dingell: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on h.r. 2773. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. dingell: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. dingell: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 2773, the recovering america's wildlife act of 2022. this legislation has been years in the making, and this moment is the culmination of the collected work of a bipartisan group of members, a strong, diverse coalition of advocates and grassroots support from across the country. this work began in 2015 when the

association of fish and wildlife agencies, which represents state fish and wildlife agencies across the country, established a blue ribbon panel on sustaining americans' diverse fish and wildlife resources. after working closely with hunting and fishing organizations, as well as partners in the sportsmen community, businesses and other advocates, it was decided we needed a 21st century model of funding conservation to address the current shortfalls in wildlife conservation. because, right now, the united states is facing an unprecedented biodiversity crisis. one third, one third of all bird species are in need of urgent conservation action. in fact, the number of birds in the united states and canada

have fallen by 29% since 1970, a decline of almost three billion fewer birds. we've seen similar declines across the board. for example, 40% of freshwater fish species are also at risk. and one third of all u.s. wildlife species are currently in peril or vulnerable. these threats reduce opportunities for outdoor recreation and will require costly and aggressive interventions if not addressed soon. this legislation is particularly critical for the sportsmen community. as one of the co-chairs of the congressional sportsmen caucus, i've always said that sports men and women are one of our best

conservation advocates as they understand the on-the-ground reality of the decline in wildlife and the importance of cost-effective conservation. and their input has been critical to the historic and innovative legislation before us today. because, without a change in the way we finance fish and wildlife conservation, the list of federally threatened and endangered species will balloon from nearly 1,600 species today to thousands more in the future. the cost of inaction is immense. the longer we wait to address this issue the more resources we will ultimately need to safeguard our nation's wildlife and environment. and we cannot keep waiting. we must take the bold and urgent action that addresses the scale of the threat. we need strong proactive

conservation actions to address these unmet needs. and that's why this act is necessary. the legislation provides $1.4 billion in dedicated funding to the states, territories, and n native american tribes for pro-conservation efforts for the approximately 12,000 species of wildlife and plants identified under state wildlife action plans. . this bold investment in our nation's wildlife will pay significant dividends. it will allow states to take proactive actions to prevent species from becoming endangered. this is critical to not only preserving our heritage but supporting hunters, anglers and

the almost $900 billion outdoor recreation economy. as i said previously as one of the co-chairs of the congressional sportsman's caucus i understand the importance of these measures to support fishermen and hunters across the country and i would like to thank my three fellow co-chairs of the congressional sportsman's caucus, all of whom sponsored the american wildlife act as well. the broad group of stake holders supporting the recover america's wildlife act underscores the need for action and support for this approach. hundreds of leading sportsmen's groups, hunting and fishing advocates across the country, conservation organizations, environmental organizations, businesses, all support this legislation for good reason.

it utilizes proven funding mechanisms, boldly addresses pressing conservation needs and prevents the need for more costly interventions in the future. the recovering america's wildlife act is the product of years and years of work and consultation with these stake holders and has broad, bipartisan support. it has received bipartisan support in both the house and senate and the thoughtful input of my colleagues that has resulted in strong, consensus legislation that will benefit every single congressional district in this country. we have a conservation, economic, and moral rationale to act in order to protect and recover america's wildlife for future generations. this is an opportunity to take historic action to address a

pressing conservation need and i ask my colleagues that they support the recovering americans' wildlife -- america's wildlife act. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. >> i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in reluctant opposition to h.r. 2773 as drafted. the goal of this bill is commendable, republicans and democrats alike want to see america's wildlife thrive. unfortunately, the legislation as written contains partisan provisions i cannot support. mr. westerman: state and tribal fish and wildlife agencies have long been recognized as the primary and most well-equipped managers of local habitat in the united states. after all those on the ground are more attuned to what's happening in their back yards

than the federal government. that's why state and tribal wildlife agencies as well as prominent sportsmans groups support this bill. while the bill would provide support, the spending is mandatory and lacks any offset. this spending is not pocket change. the congressional budget office estimated the rule committees print would lead to more than $12 billion in direct spending in the first decade of the program alone. and i say the first decade because that's only what's in the so-called scoring window. in reality this program and its mandatory spending would last forever. since there is no sun set for titles one and -- sunset for titles one and two of the bill. this is not the modern day funding model suggested by the blue ribbon commission. this is an important issue and we should make the responsible, tough decision on how to fund it. this funding mold has no

offcelt, ever. and it has an average expenditure of $1.4 billion per year. it's the most irresponsible, lazy way to fund the program, especially with the record government spending that's contributing to record inflation. at a time of rampant inflation, it would be wildly irresponse to believe drive inflation even higher and saddle future generations with the consequence. the debt created by this bill will only add to our nation's current $30 trillion debt. this bill also lacks a sunset provision. without a sunset, there's no mechanism to ensure oversight or proper review of the program to fix flaws that may arise. mandating a permanent new program is boor governance and ignores precedent. congress routinely passes legislation like the farm bill or the water resources development act which have proper sunsets. those sunsets require us to come back and do our jobs by

assessing what's work, what's not working and making tweaks and changes to the law. the bill does not allow congress the opportunity to perform the needed oversight. instead, it requires spending $1.4 billion per year in perpetuity. i and my fellow republican committee members tried to resolve these fiscal issues with amendments at committee markup. we were told by the democrat majority that although they opposed the amendments at the time they'd work with us on finding a funding offset before this bill would be considered on the floor. we stayed at the negotiating table as did the bill's sponsor, mrs. dingell, who i have a lot of respect for and commend her for her efforts on this bill. but larger forces decided to ram this bill forward without fixing anything. in fact the majority made the bill worse than it was when it left our committee. they decided to airdrop provision into a new title 3 that would siphon money away from states and tribes and give it to the u.s. fish and wildlife

service. that's in direct contrast to the spirit of this bill to give money to state and tribal agencies so that they can do the management. we never even had the chance to debate this terrible title in the committee. the whole point of this bill is to empower states and tribes who are the ones again that are closest to our lands and waters. not increase washington, d.c. federal bureaucracy which is now what this bill will do. a number of republican amendments proposed to the rules committee tried to fix these problems and several other issues. but they were summarily ignored, depriving us of ways to improve the bill and debate the issues today. as a result of all of this, we have a regrettably flawed bill. the situation we are now in was avoidable. the bill before us represents a lost opportunity to forge sig nant bipartisan compromise. it didn't have to be this way. and i hope that this is not a partisan sign of the future of conservation.

i will remain at the table and hope that my democrat colleagues come back and work together with us on a lasting solution. until then i am opposed to h.r. 2773 and i encourage, reluctantly, encourage my colleagues to vote no on the resolution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. mrs. dingell: mr. speaker, i appreciate my colleague's perspective on permanent funding. and i have a great deal of respect for him and we have and will always continue to work together on conservation issues. but the fact is we know that stable, predictable funding is critical to effective conservation efforts. and that is what the blue lib ribbon panel on sustaining americans' diverse fish and wildlife resources which included 26 members from the hunting, fishing, business and outdoor recreation communities found in their 216 report whose recommendations formed the basis of this legislation.

and we have seen that this funding structure has been fundamental to the success of pittman-robertson and dingell-johnson conservation program upon which h this is built. i appreciate my colleague's views on oversight. this legislation contains robust guardrails to ensure appropriate use of public funds including reporting requirements and other oversight provisions. the recovering america's wildlife act does meet the moment because of its funding structure and because of the strong oversight language which is supported by the coalitions of hundreds of organizations. mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california. >> i thank representative dingell for the time and for her great work on this landmark, bipartisan legislation, the recovering america's wildlife act, rawa, as we call it that bright spot amidst so many

problems facing our nation. as our constituents are well aware the climate crisis and other impacts have dramatically harped our nation's wildlife. mr. huffman: state agencies identified 12,000 wildlife species in need of conservation assistance. in the u.s. alone there are currently 1,300 species threatened or endangered. if we fail to act, these profound and irreversible losses will continue to have devastating ecotipple impact. states, territories and tribes are doing great ■worktoaddres threats to wildlife but their conservation efforts have been chronically underfunded for decades. this string of dedicated funding from rawa is a lifeline for local wildlife agencies. the bill also provides local governments the resources to address key elements impacting biodiversity loss, wildfire and drought, which are worsening as the climate crisis accelerates. rawa lays the groundwork for

wildfire threat mitt tbaition on a number of fronts including managing vegetation and cree eight wildlife friendly fire management ploons the front end, before the fire. performing emergency rescues during fires. and restoring critical habitat after fires. rawa funding will also allow local communities to restore habitats that have been hard by drought and protect vulnerable ecosystems from further damage because we know these drought conditions are going to continue. and we cannot lose sight of the cultural implications of this legislation. the funding in this bill for tribal nations to recover fish and wildlife is critical to protecting the species that have been integral to their cultures since time immemorial. biodiversity is declining at a rate not seen since the last mass extinction. tackling this crisis simply cannot wait. as chaim of the water oceans and wildlife subcommittee and the house natural resources committee, i am incredibly glad to see this bill on the floor today with strong bipartisan

support, 42 republican co-sponsors and 152 democrats. madam speaker, i urge all of my colleagues to vote yes and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to point out that even though there's reporting requirements in the legislation, once you approve mandatory, permanent spending, then congress loses our leverage. there's creating a permanent program doesn't bode well for oversight from congress. and programs that were mentioned like wittman-robinson, think about the -- pittman-robinson and the land and water fund, those had dedicated funding streams. this funding is coming out of the treasury. out of our kids' and grandkids' piggy banks. i want to yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from oregon, mr.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bentz: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article from the claremont review of books, spring 2022, titled "in the red" by jeffrey h. anderson. i rise in opposition to h.r. 2773. although protecting our endangered species is truly a worthy cause our country is not fiscally sound and to commit $1.4 billion a year in perpetuity is exactly the kind of spending that landed us in the mess we're now in. we do not have the money. in the 30 years since 1992, the national debt has increased from $4 trillion to $30 trillion. mr. anderson notice in his article that, quote, at that rate over the next 60 years our debt would increase by more than 50-fold and surpass $1.5 quad rillon. in case one is wondering, that's a thousand trillion. some might say just raise taxes. but mr. speaker, the author of

the article point outs that in fact the federal government last year taxed over 100 times what it did in the first postwar year and spent nearly 200 times as much. so taxes are not the problem, spending is the problem. $1.4 billion per year is perpetual. under anyone's measure, perpetuity is a long time. since this will never be paid back, some might say like those deep in credit card debt we'll just pay the interest. that interest at current rates is $51 million a year. but mr. speaker, you have to look at the current coe tall interest bill. it's estimated to be almost $400 billion a year. or about 8.7% of everything we spend. why would we add to the nor mouse obligation? there's a quote by ernest hemingway? how did you go bankrupt? gradually, then suddenly. this is how bankruptcy works. you can keep spending recklessly and rack up debts if air while,

even a long while, but at some point it comes to an end, abruptly. we ignored the nation's spending problems for far too long. we have been going bankrupt gradually, i fear the day will come when we will go bankrupt immediately. i cannot support this bill and i yield back to mr. westerman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. >> including over 1.5 million jobs, as well as almost $15 billion in federal tax revenue. mrs. dingell: my home state of michigan, the great lakes state, is home to almost 650,000 licensed hunters and over 1.1 million licensed fishermen and women as of last year. however, with over 40% of freshwater fish at risk and significant declines in game and nongame species that support local ecosystems, we need rawa's

investments in the on the ground conservation to support hunting and fishing for future generations, which is why the major sportsmen groups like the congressional responsemen foundation and lucks unlimited have endorsed this legislation -- ducks unlimited have endorsed this legislation. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady from michigan. i rise in support of recovering america's wildlife act. this is a proactive piece of bipartisan legislation that would help our state and tribal, fish and wildlife agencies with the recovery and conservation of close to 12,000 species of fish, wildlife and plants. i support this bill not only as a united states representative for the central coast of california, a district that values and cherishes our wildlife, but also as the vice chair of the congressional sportsmen's caucus. as some of the most passionate wildlife conservations across our country.

many sportsmen and women, including those in the congressional sportsmen foundation, no matter ha their political persuasion -- what their political persuasion, support this critical piece of legislation. mr. panetta: in addition to enhancing the act, sportsmen and women want to ensure that our species are protected and perpetuated. from big horn sheep to the sierra nevada red fox from the california condors to the coho salmon and from moose to monarch butterflies, the intent of this legislation is to protect those and thousands of other iconic animals well before they need to be listed as endangered or threatened. this way rather than impose burdensome and costly regulations on fish and wildlife managers, sportsmen and women and private businesses, those species can be recovered and renewed well before any measures are mandated. look, it's estimated that it costs the federal government more than $19 million on average to recover a single species once it is listed.

including $1 million to just list the species and $18 million for the science and habitat work. let's simply take 2,000 of the 12,000 species this bill would help conserve and it would cost the federal government at least $38 million. this bill is a preventive measure to ensure that does not happen. through this legislation we would not only save billions of dollars by not having to list species, but we would save thousands of plants and animals by ensuring that they are protected. by providing millions of dollars in funding for the on the ground efforts, we could recover, reintroduce and restore wildlife, fish, flawra -- flaura and fawna throughout our nation -- fauna throughout our nation. as many species face risks, this legislation and its proposed funning would protect those species well before they become endangered. that's why sportsmen, community members and my country members

support this bill and that's why i urge my colleagues to do the same, by voting for and passing the recovery -- recovering america's wildlife act. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. westerman: mr. speaker, i know we like the idea of dynamic scoring. i spent a lot of time on hunting and fishing myself arksz well as a lot of other members of congress, but c.b.o. unfortunately does not take that into account. i know we all think that this bill could help not have listings of endangered species, but case studies clearly show that federal money alone will not keep species off the endangered species list. i would ask unanimous consent to submit the c.b.o. score from the senate version of the language that's in this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. westerman: and this report does show that it will cost over $12 billion in the first 10 years and $1.4 billion in years

after. i now recognize the gentleman from minnesota, mr. stauber, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stauber: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise today opposed to the underlying bill. americans are living in paralyzing fear, watching all of their household income get eaton up by the price of -- eaten up by the price of gas and household needs and watching their retirement security disappear in our new bear market. the biden and house democrat approach has been to spend their way out of every problem and look where it's gotten us. they're recovering america's wildlife act -- their recovering america's wildlife act is well intended. of course us conservationists support investments in our species. but there is still no pay-for. this is $1.4 billion in perpetuity with no pay-for or offset. during committee markup, republicans on house natural resources simply asked to offset

the spending that continues to punish americans. but democrats declined to negotiate in good faith and are choosing to ac ago are avate inflation -- to aggravate inflation instead. however, i offer legislation that will actually help fix the problem, the endangered species act flexibility act will give the interior secretary options to help endangered species without crippling our economy. too often the e.s.e. is a-- e.s.a. is abused, science is ignored and the law is used as a weapon to stop. -needed development. take, for example, the northern -- much-needed development. take, for example, the northern long-eared bat. the bat's massive range goes from maine to texas to montana with everything in between. and you can see it on the map right here. northern long-eared bats are sadly afflicted with white nose syndrome, a disease caused by a

fungus that interrupts hypernation, leading to their -- hibernation, leading to their death. and the science is clear, this disease has nothing to do with human activity. but because of declining populations, the fish and wildlife service is deciding whether to uplist the species which would severely restrict logging, mining and infrastructure building like roads, bridges, ports and more. would you like to spend that infrastructure money on upgrading projects anywhere on this map? good luck, if the northern long-eared bat is listed as endangered. my e.s.a. flexibility act will give the interior department the latitude to make species-specific habitat plans for endangered species. so we don't punish americans who need a transmission line to get

reliable power or need a bridge upgrade to drive to work. i don't think a single member of congress here, across both aisles, would disagree that the endangered species act is an imperfect law in desperate need of tweaks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stauber: therefore, i regret that my e.s.a. flexibility act was not accepted as an amendment, but i look forward to the eventual passage of the e.s.a. flexibility act into law. and, mr. chair, i yield back. mr. westerman: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. dingell: mr. speaker, before recognizing my colleague, i'd like to talk about these costs and address the fact that dollars invested properly do save dollars. i'd like to note that the american west cost $8.6 billion

last year, according to noaa, and that the impact of wildfire costs, over $10 billion last year alone. restoration efforts, which this bill would help do, that make habitats and communities more resilient to climate change, have an exceptionally high return on the investment. such as reducing droughts and wildfire risk, increasing job opportunities and growing local economies. conservation and restoration of key habitats helps reduce the threats of wildfires and helps states conserve water and improve water quality, making their water systems more resilient to the drought. and finally, full implementation of state and tribal wildlife plans will help species recover, be removed and even stay off the endangered species list, which is what we want, saving the u.s. taxpayers millions of dollars each year. the large economic and social benefits of this legislation would boost our economy and help

us deliver our climate commitments for years to come as well. for now, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield three minutes to my distinguished colleague from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: i appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy and i appreciate her leadership on this. and she's right. looking at these issues in a comprehensive fashion, we see opportunities to not just save species, but to save money and to deal with serious consequences that we're seeing. i'm from the pacific northwest. we're in the middle of a climate crisis. last year we had all-time records three days in a row for temperatures. and that same week in british columbia, they set an all-time record for canada. and in the city that they set it, it burned down the next day. climate change, loss of habitat, severe weather, including

wildfires and the spread of invasive species, are taking their toll on animals from fish and am fib evens to birds -- amphibeans to birds an animals. i'm particularly aware of the importance of saving our at-risk wildlife species. more than 1,600 are already listed as threatened or endangered under the endangered species act because of our failure to act. oregon alone is home to more than 50 of these threatened and endangered species. in states like oregon, in partnership with tribes, we've identified thousands more species that are at risk and need conservation assistance. with states and conservation partners working diligently to pass and develop conservation plans, we can make a significant difference. but we lack dedicated annual comprehensive funding to implement the plans which would

be cost effective. awith this bill the federal government is stem stepping up in -- is stepping up in full partnership. the recovering america's wildlife act will provide more than $1 billion in dedicated annual funding for proactive, cost effective model efforts. collaboratetific efforts by the state -- collaborative efforts by the states and tribes to recover and protect at-risk species. i fear it's a false economy to sometimes engage in shortchanging these efforts. the long-term costs to the environment, to our communities, is immense. and i'm pleased to support this legislation because i think we can change this dynamic. i strongly urge people to support its passage. mrs. dingell: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: mr. speaker, i would encourage the majority to

put their estimates to the test. let's make this a bill with a seven-year sunset, like the amendment that i proposed. let's come back and look at it and see if it really did save money. if it really did save species. maybe we should fund it at more than $1.4 billion a year, maybe we can find that funding with an offset. but the simple truth is it's also speculation right now. and we're getting ready to put a permanent mandatory spending program in place with no way to come back and have checks and balances on it. without repealing the law. and how many times has that happened when congress passes a law? i now yield five minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. tiffany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tiffany: thank you to the gentleman for yielding. regrettably i will not be able to support this bill either. it's another $1.4 billion of mandatory spending. no offsets, no sunset. this is another case of the

runaway biden inflation train, gaining speed and the only question at this point to the american people is how spectacular the crackup is going to be. and the american people know that. when i go out and talk to them, i hear about two things. energy prices and inflation. well, here we got it. another $1.4 billion that are going to be poured into the tinder box of the train, to send it careening down the rails even faster. the only question is how spectacular the crackup is going to be. and unfortunately the american people are going to suffer the consequences. the author of this bill just said that you'd like to take some species off from the endangered species list. there's one that can come off right now. right now that's recovered. and representative boebert and i proposed an amendment to delist the gray wolf. it is recovered.

the gray wolf is in the e.s.a. hotel california. they can enter, but they never leave. 25 wildlife scientists from the upper midwest a decade ago said you need to delist the wolf. we put together an amendment for this bill and it was not considered. terribly unfortunate because it is time for the endangered species act to either be used properly and delist a species like the wolf that is fully recovered, according to wildlife scientists, or else the e.s.a. itself has to be reformed. and those scientists, when you read their those scientists, when you read the document they wrote, he said the endangered species act is in endangered because it's not being used properly. also there's no language in this bill that prohibits funds from

going to acquire new federal lands. think about it this way. if you have a neighbor, doesn't repair their roof. it's leaking into their house and they say, we're going to go buy that lot next door. that, in effect, is what this bill will allow the federal government to do. and we're seeing across america, including in my district, that the federal government is not taking care of their lands appropriately. the federal government is becoming america's slum lord. this bill has grant programs that even the most extreme environmental groups can apply for. every time some taxpayer funded, so-called corporate green group runs an ad and you're going to see a lot of them here in 2022, clipping the sky is falling, just remember, you may have paid for it. and you may pay twice because

you'll get hit with the inflation as a result of spending that the american people cannot afford. i want to thank the gentleman for an opportunity to be able to testify on this bill. unfortunately, i will not be able to support it and i hope in the future that we can do be better. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from michigan is recognized. mrs. dingell: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from washington. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlelady for yielding and her work on this issue. i rise in support of the recovering america's wildlife act, bipartisan legislation i'm proud to co-sponsor that aims to make the most significant investment in wildlife and habitat in a generation. mr. kinzinger: we're facing widespread species decline that doesn't just threaten the health of ecosystems, it threatens the

tourism industries we we rely on. mr. kilmer: that's why chems -- democrats support taking bold action to conserve and restore habitat, to reintroduce native species and mitigate wildlife risk. this bill is critical to helping our state and tribal wildlife managers put conservation measures in place to protect species before they become threatened or endangered. on top of that, this bill will help us combat threats to ecosystems, including the european green crab, an invasive species that's destroying essential marine habitat for dunn gee ness crab and pacific salmon and threatening our shellfish industry that so many families i represent depend on. last year, more than 102,000 european green crabs were caught in my pugh jept sound -- puget sound. that was an astronomical 5500%

increase from 2015. a series of declarations wither made by several about the impact of the green crab on tribal culture and commis and another disaster was declared by the state of washington to mobilize more resources. while our tribes and states and local partners are working diligently to protect our area against the invasion of these species they need ways to pursue eradication of this species. this burden shouldn't fall entirely on thebacks of our tribes or on local taxpayers' backs. the federal government can and should step up and be a better partner in this effort and this bill will do that. that's why i encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. westerman: i yield five minutes to the gentleman from idaho, mr. fulcher. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. fulcher: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, as i speak, the west is literally burning. major infernos are devastating states like california, arizona and alaska. in new mexico, the hermit's peak fire became the large nest state history nearly one month ago and is still not fully contained. this catastrophic fire has burned over 320,000 acres, cost taxpayers a whopping $224 million in fire suppression costs. in total, over 2.6 million ache verse burned this year already, putting us on pace to surpass every wildfire season in the past decade. homes have burned to the ground.

thousands of brave fire fight verse put their lives on the line. hundreds of millions have been spent trying to tame fires so intense they create their own weather systems known as firenados. why? the answer is simple. the lack of active forest management, decades of fire suppression and mismanagement have left our nation's forests as dry as powder degrees and ready to ignite from a single spark. in the last decade, mismanagement caused over 70 million achers to burn and we have no science of it slowing down. according to the u.s. forest service over one billion, billion with a b, across the country are at risk of experiencing severe wildfires. that's why i'm offering an amendment. my amendment seeks to add forest management activities such as mechanical thinning and prescribed burning that enhance

or create wildlife habitat. that's enhance or create wildlife habitat. or reduce the risk of destruction to wildlife habitat due to fieldfires as acceptable projects under the recovering america's wildlife act. catastrophic fires remain one of the single greatest threats to western states like my home state of idaho in. california, "los angeles times" reported in 2020 that the bobcat fire turned one of the most abundant wildlife h habitats wih lush canyons and a mick of rare species into, quote, an apocalypse that looked like ground zero after a nuclear explosion. experts believed the fire would deevers decades of conservation efforts in. oregon, the 2020 wildfires burned over 360,000 acres of critical spotted owl habitat, pushing the species into what researchers call an extinction vortex. catastrophic wildfire forced the

state of washington department of fish and wildlife to recommend moving the greater sage grows from threatened to endangered status in their state. this is the very action that rawa seeks to prevent. these wildfires also killed nearly half of the state's endangered pygmy rabbit population. "seattle times" report stated that rabbits asphyxiated as the fire and its fury devoured oxygen from the atmosphere. there was nothing but ash and dust. no movement. no footprints. there was no chance anything survived. is this what we're cover -- is this what recovering america's wildlife looks like? choking animals, suffocating them with smoke, burning them alive? these catastrophic fires are polluting our air, degriergd water, releasing massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and turning rich and diverse

wildlife habitat into bayeren moonscapes. incentivizing bettering more active fire management through my amendment will create healthier ecosystems and abundant habitat for diverse wildlife. that's exactly what this bill is intended to do. if we truly care about recovering america's wildlife then you'll support my amendment. we will instruct the committee, we adopt this, we will instruct the committee on natural resources to add my amendment to the included forest management activities that modify, improve, enhance or create wildlife has been teat as acceptable uses of funding under this bill. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment into the record immediately prior to the vote on the motion -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. fulcher: thank you, mr. speaker, i yield back. mr. westerman: i thank the

gentleman from idaho for making a point that's really the underlying reason, or the underlying question we should be talking about, why do we need to recover america's wildlife? because we've messed up badly. we've mismanaged our federal lands. catastrophic wildfire runs rampant. that does nothing to help wildlife habitat and it's sad that we're actually here looking for funding and ways to fix something that we should have already fixed. snag we shouldn't have broken in the first place. so i think there's a way to recover wildlife if we would just simply manage the habitat that the wildlife lives in. that's the purpose of this bill. but it's going to have to take some worldview changes around the so-called environmental groups pushing to stop the management activity will have to allow this activity to take place. doesn't matter how much funding we put out from the federal government, we're going to continue to see wildlife habitat destroyed and we're going to see the loss of wildlife.

so it's not a problem that simply throwing money at will fix. and it is again a problem that we should paw program in place, come back and evaluate it and decide whether we want to continue the program based on the merits of the successes of it. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: senate 3580, an act to amend title 46 united states code with respect to prohibited acts by common carriers and marine terminal operators and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from smvp recognized. mrs. dingell: thank you. i would say to my colleague, i deeply agree that these fires are horrific. and what they're doing to our natural resources and our habitat. but that's why this bill is so

important. and what we're not -- it's not washington telling the states or the native lands -- territories in native lands what to do. it's the state wildlife plans being drafted at the local level where they need -- where they know what needs to be done. that we will be funding. and trying to prevent fires like that. with that, mr. speaker, i will yield as much time as he may consume to the very distinguished chairman of the natural resources committee who leads all of us on so many of these issues. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 2773, recovering america's wildlife act, and to thank representative dingell and her colleagues that have worked diligently on this legislation for considerable amount of time and in the midst of species extinction crisis that we had, accelerated climate

change, the loss of biodiversity, droughts, the wildfires that we just heard about, it's important to note that this legislation was built from the ground up. 1,800 organizations as diverse as duke energy on one side of the political spectrum and environmental defense fund on the other side both agree that this approach of this legislation is the right approach. mr. grijalva: 180-plus co-sponsors represented in a bipartisan fashion and this bill before us today will transform the state of wildlife conservation in our country. as we know, america's wildlife faces numerous threats including habitat loss, pollution, wile fire, drought, invasive species and emerging diseases. it provides a historic $1.3 billion of dedicated funding for

states and territories and $97 million for traps to assist in their efforts to conserve, restore and protect wildlife and hhabitat each year. with that protection comes the resiliency for habitat and the overall resiliency for communities and our environment. in the long run, this investment will save taxpayers money. it creates jobs, promotes tourism and provides safety and resilience to those communities across our country. through habitat conservation and restoration, this bill makes habitats and communities much more resilient to the ongoing and accelerated issue of climate change. this is an important piece of legislation for each and every state, territory and tribe in our country and i urge my colleagues to support it. during this present time and to my friends on the other side of

the aisle, my republican colleagues are fiscal conservatives when they're not in the majority. when they're in the majority that's not the pattern of behavior. and the present time, nothing should be done, with is what's being preached. nothing should be done about the climate crisis. nothing should be done about wildlife extinction. nothing should be done about january 6 and our democracy that was merely a mirage, a walk in the park we should all forget. nothing should be done about our children and the danger that they're exposed to in our very schools. nothing should be done about the rising health care costs and prescription drug costs. we can't do anything because of inflation and the rising gas prices. so the best thing to do is to do nothing. well, my colleagues, i support h.r. 2773 because it does something. it does something in a

bipartisan, comprehensive way. and if my colleagues want to talk about climate change, they want to talk about droughts, they want to talk about wildfires, they want to talk about fiscally prudent things to do, let's talk about this bill today, support it, dedicated funning, make the investment that will guarantee the dividends for ourselves and future generations. i applaud representative dingell and all the work of her colleagues in this piece of legislation and i urge its support and urge a vote yes. with that, i yield back. mrs. dingell: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. westerman: mr. speaker, there's been a lot of talk about this bill being bipartisan. the original text, the house version of the text, it did have 42 republican co-sponsors on it. which is a sizable number. that is a bipartisan bill. and there will still be republicans who vote for this

version. but as long as we're in the business of estimating today, i'm going to estimate that it won't be 42 -- the 42 co-sponsors of the original text, which again was is up planted -- supplanted by the senate version, that didn't send all the money to the state and tribal governments, it sent the money to u.s. fish and wildlife, part of the funding to u.s. fish and wildlife. i've talked to some of the republican members who have co-sponsored the bill and their understanding was that the pay-for was going to be worked out. but we just sponsor the bill, we'd get the pay-fors worked out. we were told the bill would go to the floor and we'll work out the pay-fors. well, here's the bill on the floor and there's still no pay-for. it's still permanent, mandatory spending, $1.4 billion a year. and if this bill passes out of the house and if for some reason it doesn't make it through the senate and become law, then i hope to come back and work on a bill that does the same objectives, but is fiscally

responsible. a bill that has pay-fors. a bill that is not borrowing from our children. and a bill that is not permanent. one that actually gives congress the authority to have oversight and to come back and analyze the language, to analyze the success of it, and make changes as needed, as we go on. we do this with the farm bill. we do it with other bills. i'm not sure why we can't do it with recovering america's wildlife. because it is a very important subject. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. mrs. dingell: mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time. i do want to say to my colleague, we have worked in good faith. we will continue to work in good faith. you know, the senate, which doesn't work as closely at times the way that we do together, has negotiated a legacy fund that's

a bipartisan negotiated provision by the chairman and the senate ranking member of the senate e.p.w. committee. actually more republicans voted for that than democrats did. this bill has been supported by a broad cross-section of senate republicans and senate democrats and, quite frankly, there's some of your republican senate colleagues that will only support it the way that this is now. i've talked to many republicans who want to see this bill go through. i don't know how the final vote will be today. i know people want to support it. and by the way, it addresses the shared goal, what the senate did, that their provision helping to move species off of the e.s.a. listings more quickly. and it contains guard rails on the use of funds that i know are important to my republican colleagues. these include prohibitions on the use of funds to make any listing or critical habitat determination relating to the endangered or threatened status of any species, or to acquire

any federal land, which i know is really important on your side. the broad coalition supporting the bill, including the state wildlife agencies and sportsmen group, have also backed this provision. so we're not done. we passed the house, it will go to conference with the senate. we'll all be at that table. but the time is now. we need to get this done. we've lost almost three billion birds since 1970. we're losing 40% of our fish, we both fish. i'm not as great a hunter as you guys are. but i was married to one. but they know what's happening. the time for action is now. so with that we are prepared to close. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman is recognized. mr. westerman: we have no more speakers and we're ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. westerman: mr. speaker, i just want to go back through the facts as we know them.

we know that we need to do better habitat management, whether it's forest, rangelands, oceans or rivers or lakes. we know there's areas where we need to manage better. and that's the intent of this bill. is to let those management activities be done by the people who do it best. state and tribal agencies. i think there's a huge agreement in the house, both republicans and democrats alike, that that's a good thing. and the problems we have with the bill, though, is the way that we're going to implement it in the financial times that we're in now, and looking back at history and seeing how we got in the condition that we're in, the spending problem in this country is not discretionary spending. it's not the appropriation bills that we should be debating and approving every year. it's the mandatory spending. it's the cruise control programs that previous congresses have put in place, that are driving

the deficit, over 70% of our debt is due to mandatory spending. and here we are with record debt, record inflation, we're talking about putting more on the mandatory side of the equation. there is a path where we could get huge support, we could probably do this on -- maybe even do it on a unanimous consent bill. and that would be if the majority would accept the amendment that i offered in the rules committee. as the ranking member on the committee i offered an amendment that would bring a lot of our members onboard. it simply put a seven-year sunset in, make it an authorization, and let the appropriations committee do their work. we're not even going to vote on that. we're not even going to put it on the floor to see where the members of the body are at. the rules committee took that off of the table. so we have no choice. no choice but to recommend that we vote no on this bill, that we

come back to the table, that we look at something that everybody can agree on, not just on the authorization, but on how we fund the bill. and i think we can get there. i hate to take it out of the house's hands and put it into the senate's hands, when we didn't give it a full effort on how to not only craft the legislation on what needs to be done on the ground, but how to pay for it. how to be fiscally responsible going forward. so, again, i support the idea. i don't support the way we're paying for it. i have to recommend a no vote. and i encourage my colleagues to vote no. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. dingell: i want to thank my colleague. and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the constructive debate and input that we've had to date on recovering america's wildlife act. this legislation is historic. and our shared efforts today

will help move us one step closer to a bold solution to the biodiversity crisis and will establish conservation measures that will endure for generations, which i know we both care about. the recovering america's wildlife act has strong bipartisan support, the backing of hundreds of leading sportsmen's groups, hunting and fishing advocates, environmental advocates, businesses and countless others. it will fund proactive conservation measures that will benefit every state and territory and contains a strong tribal title to support tribal organizations' efforts to protect wildlife on tens of millions of acres of land. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the recovering america's wildlife act. it will make a difference in every congressional district in this country.

thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman has yielded. all time for debate has expired. each further amendment printed in part d of house report 117-366 not earlier considered as part of the amendments en bloc, pursuant to section 7 of house resolution 1170, shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and opponent. may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put therein, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. and shall be ordered at any time if the chair or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part d of house

report 117-366 not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources or their representative designees, shall not be subject to amendments and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? mrs. dingell: mr. speaker, pursuant to h.res. 1170, i offer amendments en bloc. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 1. consisting of amendments numbered 1, 3, 6 and 7 printed in part d of house report 117-366 offered by mrs. dingell of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1170, the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. dingell, and the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from michigan. mrs. dingell: thank you, mr.

speaker. this en bloc consists of four amendments. amendment number 3, offered by the gentlewoman from texas, amendment number 7 offered by the gentleman from georgia, amendment number 6 offered by the gentlewoman from washington, and amendment number 1 offered by the gentlewoman from florida. amendment number 3, offered by the gentlewoman from texas, requires the secretary of the interior to submit a report to the house committee on natural resources and the senate committee on environment and public works outlining the dollar amount of grants, contracts, subcontracts and the percent of total awards and grants that were awarded or allocated under rawa to hbscu's and minority-served constitutions -- institutions, minority and women-owned businesses and community-based organizations serving minority communities. current conservation and restoration practices underutilize the breadth of

traditional, indigenous and local knowledge found in our communities. to be successful in our restoration and conservation goals, we must use all of the tools at our disposal. amendment number 7 offered by the gentleman from georgia adds activities that support native pollinator conservation and restoration to the list of appropriate uses of funds from the wildlife conservation and restoration subaccount. while many state wildlife action plans already include projects that will conserve and restore native pollinator species and habitats, we recognize the important role that pollinators play in the ecosystem's functionality. 27 states included monarch butterflies in their state wildlife action plans and thousands of other pollinators are identified as species of the greatest conservation need. our pollinators are at risk and

it is important that we not forget the important impact they have on our landscape. amendment number 6 offered by the gentlewoman from washington clarifies that the wildlife conservation and restoration subaccount funds may include conservation infrastructure projects related to the protection and conservation of a species of greatest conservation need and the habitat of those species. conservation infrastructure projects are cost effective methods to enhance conservation and build climate resiliency. they can protect against excessive heat and coastal storms, while improving wildlife habitat and carbon sequestration. conservation infrastructure projects improve the health and management of ecosystems so that they provide important benefits and services. examples include managing strong water runoff, improving