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 water

quality for wildlife, restoring wildlife habitat in the built environment and attracting beneficial species. finally, amendment 1 offered by the gentlewoman from florida broadens the appropriate uses of wildlife conservation and restoration subaccount funds to include using innovative technologies, tools, strategies or collaborative partnerships that accelerate, expand or replicate effective and measurable recovery efforts for species of the greatest conservation need and endangered species. supporting the supporting the implementation of new methods is important if we wish to interrupt the ongoing massive extings event. we and our ecosystems need all the help we can provide.

funding in innovative ideas will fill the gaps in conservation methods while spurring research and jobs. i urge my colleagues to vote yes and reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: i also rise in support of this en bloc of amendments. none of the amendments in this en bloc would add more spending, three of them amend title 1 by adding more flexible for state fish and wildlife agency when they make conservation investments funded under the bill. these amendments do not impose new mandates but provide states more tools to manage wildlife as they see fit. mr. scott's amendment on helping pollinators and their habitats will enhance ongoing efforts aimed at helping the monarch butterfly. pollinators are critical to ecosystem management around the world. that's why my republican colleagues and i have continuously supported the agreement with assurances for

the monarch butter fly which allows private companies and landowners to contribute to proactive conservation. the amendment from congresswoman cher phiulous mccormack stresses partner sthoip recover species. the current species recovery framework is not only outdated but it is broken and needs innovation. republicans have offered numerous ideas to use innovation to spur see vees -- species recovery. one idea from representative harrell of new mexico would enhance agreements that allow private exeans and land owners to contribute toward at-risk species conservation through their own dollars and efforts. sounds like a good, commonsense idea. the outdated endangered species act has become a top-down government approach that rarely works to help species or people.

innovative approaches like ms. harrell's are much needed. i was disappointed to see that the majority discarded agreements or amendments like ms. harrell's without even giving us a chance to debate its merits on the house floor. representative stauber also had an innovative idea to update the endangered species act he offered as an amendment. his amendment would have provided the u.s. fish and wildlife service with flexibility to utilize so-called 40 rules for engage species. under a 4-d rule the secretary of interior can issue a rule tay tailors protections to that series' conservation and recovery. unfortunately again the majority ignored that amendment. the amendment by congresswoman schrier is also included in this en bloc by encouraging states to invest in, quote, conservation infrastructure projects, unquote. while states already have flex to believe the decide how to spend the funding provided in title 1 of the bill this amendment would give them the option to invest in natural

solutions such as buffer strips, wetlands, one of my favorite things, planting trees and other natural solutions to environmental challenges. lastly, congresswoman jackson lee's amendment would require the secretary of interior to issue a report within one year of this bill's enactment detailing the percentage of total awards and grants award or algated to institutions serving minority communities. while i support the amendment and this reporting requirement, i have bad news for the sponsor. because the bill lacks a sunset provision there's little incentive and recourse for congress to fix any problems. in other words, if the reports from this highlight a glaring flaw with carrying out the bill there's no guarantee congress will fix the problem. the same is true for state reports required thirn bill nample reason i offered a commonsense amendment that would have included a seven-year sunset to ensure that congress

would have to fix any flaws associated with the new program. unfortunately, as i stated earlier, my amendment was also blocked by the majority. this bill and the process to rush this bill through the floor today is unfortunate. it could have been avoided. but at least the amendments included in this en bloc do not spend any more taxpayer money and provide some needed accountability. i support the en bloc and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized -- the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. mrs. dingell: i'm glad we found an area of agreement this afternoon. i think we've got more than that with that, i would like to yield three minutes to the author of one of these critical amendment, the gentlewoman from texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is reneck id -- is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i am delighted

to be recognized by the gentlelady and i thank my good friend for acknowledging the en bloc and i would like to say there's good news. the good news is that recovering america's wildlife act is a once in a generation funding for the conservation of threatened species of and maps and plants as well as habitat preservation. and i'll discuss the importance of it as i also present to the body my amendment. but let me first of all say i pay tribute to elson, 7 years old, and to roy, 7 years old, my twin grandchildren who love every species that they can find within their backyard or any place else that you would take them. i see in their lifetime the vision of this legislation. they love the outdoors. they love to see crawling things and they are both a boy and a girl. but yet what are we facing today in the world is -- the world is facing an unprecedented loss of wildlife.

bird populations have declined almost 30% in the u.s. since 1970678 over 40% of america's freshwater fix are at risk of extinction and state agencies have identified 12,000 species of wildlife in need of conservation. the speaker knows that we experience, texas and louisiana, a catastrophic oil spill some years ago. i remember visiting oyster fishermen and others who were devastated. we need to get in there and make a difference. 12,000 species are currently identified as endangered in the united states. and 1,300 of them are in my state of texas. as i said, fishermen are still crying out for help. climate change poses unprecedented challenge to plant and animal species due to wildfires, floods, fires, hurricane harvey devastated the coast and the opportunities for wildlife. the resulting threat to biodiversity has the potential to disrupt our ecosystem and

with it human quality of life and sustainability. urban sprawl as well as development of suburbs and exurbs all encroach on the habitat that supports biodiversity and has ripple effects for the degradation of environment. we want to be hanging in there with fishermen, sportsmen, bikers, hikers, bikers in the appropriate atmosphere but hikers in particular. our children deserve to know the natural beauty of their country. they deserve to see the beauty of wildlife. they deserve to be good custodians of that. and the children need to be diverse. so the amendment that i offer is to ensure that children will continue to spend their days fishing, gardening alongside bees, watching the migratory birds but also looking at the wild and the species that are in them. in addition to providing $1.3 billion in funding to protect our nation's wildlife, $50

million of which will go to texas, the recovering america's wildlife act -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mrs. dingell: i yield another minute to the gentlelady. ms. jackson lee: this is a great effort my amendment fixing and adds to this by adding title 4, we stipulate the secretary of the interior must no latter than one year after passage provide a report on the $amount of grants, contracts and subcontracts to historically black colleges and universities, hispanic serving organizations and tribal colleges and universities. my amendment brings them into the arena and gives need investment into people of color who need to be targeted in new conservation investments to open their eyes to give them the opportunity to ensure our native american friends are inclued as well. let them have an investment as well.

in addition with the enactment of this legislation my amendment would create a framework for prioritizing historically disadvantaged groups and environmental efforts bring them again into the fold that should be replicated in future efforts. this is an important step. i want you to listen to me, historically black colleges, hispanic serving, that is day for you. support this legislation and we will expand and build on support america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. dingell: i have no further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas. mr. westerman: thank you, mr. speaker. again, i support this group of en bloc amendments. encourage a yes vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. mrs. dingell: i encourage my colleagues to support this en bloc package as well as the bill upon final passage and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. pursuant to house resolution 1170, the previous question is ordered and the amendment en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. dingell. the question is on the amendment en bloc. for those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments -- the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. >> request a roll call vote. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman request the yeas and nays? >> thank you, request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. further proceedings on this question are postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? mrs. dingell: pursuant to h.r. 1170, i offer amendments en bloc. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate amendments

en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number two, consisting of amendments numbered 2 and 8 printed in part d of house report 117-366 offered by mrs. dingell of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 117, 0 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: mr. speaker, en bloc number two consists of two good government amendments offered by play republican colleagues. amendment number 2 offered by the gentleman from oregon and amendment number 8 offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. amendment 2 stipulates that no more than 1.85% of funds can be used for administrative costs in the grant programs authorized by title 3. the purpose of the recovering america's wildlife act is to fund on the ground efforts that are focused on conserving and restoring wildlife and habitat.

this 1.85% cap will ensure that these dollars are being used toward actions that create the most impact. amendment 8 offered by the gentleman from wisconsin requires that half of 1% of the money in the endangered species recovery and habitat conservation legacy fund be directed to the office of the inspector general of the department of interior to oversee the expenditure of the fund. this amendment will ensure that money from the endangered species recovery and habitat conservation legacy fund is used appropriately and in a manner that is in line with the spirit of this legislation. i urge my colleagues to vote yes en bloc number and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. westerman: thank you, madam

speaker. i rise in whole hearted support of this en bloc amendment which includes amendments from our colleagues from oregon, mr. bentz, and from wisconsin, mr. tiffany. these amendments would ensure that the funds provided in title 3 are subject to the same overhead cap requirements and oversight measures as title 1. the original part of this bill was to empower states and tribes to carry out spy into cease conservation, not set up another washington, d.c., based federal program which is what the bill does. not only does title 3 change that intept by giving more than $180 million annually in the first four years of the u.s. fish and wildlife service, it was also added at the rules committee and was not part of the bill the committee marked up in the natural resources committee. because the committee on natural resources never had the chance to debate this title when we marked up the original bill, we did not have the opportunity to add these good governance amendments to it like we did for titles 1 and 2. i believe that title 3 should be

removed altogether. unfortunately representative moore's amendment which would have removed title 3 was not made in order so we didn't even get the chance to debate it or much less vote on it today. in the absence of that amendment, the least we can do is ensure funds allocated by title 3 are being spent responsibly and with some oversight. i urge my colleagues to join me in support of the amendments and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from michigan the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. mrs. dingell: i have no further speakers and i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. tiffany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for two minutes. mr. tiffany: thank you. i'll be very brief here. and thank you to the ranking member for saying it quite well. the least we can do here is make sure that these funds, we tried to have some oversight and responsibility in terms of how

they're going to be spent. and i do want to thank the author for including this amendment in the bill. if there's no pay-for, then there must be some measure of accountability to the expenditure of these funds, ensuring interior inspector general's w office has the propr resources to monitor this spending. unfortunately the bill in its current form has no sunset on the mandatory spending of 1.-- $1.4 billion. and so i want to thank the lady for including this in the package. and i will yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. westerman: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas reserves. the gentlewoman from -- mrs. dingell: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is prepared to close. the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oregon -- excuse me, three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. bends. bends bends -- bentz.

mr. bentz: thank you,. mel. i rise in support of my amendment, number -- thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of my amendment, number 8. title 1 of the bill, which provides funding to state fish and wildlife departments for species conservation includes a $1.85 billion -- they didn't carry any of the good amendments made in committee. under the current text, the state and tribal portions of the bill would be subject to strict administrative caps, but the federal government would not be.

this is backwards as the u.s. fish and wildlife service it through this, instead of air dropping in another layer of state -- statute and bureaucracy into the legislation. for these reason, title 3 should be struck from the bill. unfortunately the majority refused to allow a vote on my colleague from utah's amendment that would have done just that. the very least we can do is at least ensure that title 3 is subject to the same administrative requirements as are the other titles. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. mr. westerman: madam speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. westerman: madam speaker, i again encourage adochtion these

amendments and i -- adoption of these amendments and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized. mrs. dingell: mel, i encourage my colleagues to support the en bloc package, as well as the bill upon final passage, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment en bloc. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. mrs. dingell: yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in part d of house report 117-366. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. kildee: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed, offered by mr. kildee of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1170, the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. mr. kildee: thank you, madam speaker. and thank you to my colleague from michigan, congresswoman dingell, for offering this very important piece of legislation. and to my colleague, congressman meyer, for his support on the amendment that i'm offering, and all of our dedication to the great lakes being quite evident by this work. growing up in michigan, my family would camp and fish every

year in michigan. we grew up in the great lakes, on the great lakes. these are really fond memories that i have from my childhood and it's a particular honor as a result to represent 118 miles of lake heron shore line in congress. but over past couple of century, nearly 200 non-native species have established populations in the great lakes. in my home state, invasive species like asian carp, zebra mussels threaten the health of our great lakes. zebra mussels have clogged our water infrastructure, costing millions in cleanup. asian carp eat the wetland plants that are critical habitats for native fish and water foul. we have to prevent the spread of invasive species in our great lakes. we have an obligation to do that. this bipartisan amendment would expand the ability of the fish and wildlife service eng

dangered species recovery and habitat conservation legacy fund to manage and prevent invasive species. we believe this simple amendment makes this very good bill stronger and will have a positive impact on the great lakes economy. when we protect our wildlife and natural resources, we strengthen our economy. and we preserve our way of life. the great lakes are a source of drinking water for millions. a critical wildlife habitat. and helps support one million jobs in boating, fishing and tourism industries. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bipartisan amendment, to protect our great lakes and strengthen our natural resources. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? mr. westerman: madam speaker, i wish to speak on the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as -- is the gentleman claiming the time in opposition? mr. westerman: i am. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. five minutes. mr. westerman: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in opposition to this amendment which adds more responsibilities to the already duplicative and expensive title 3 portion of this bill which was never debated in the committee on natural resources. i have no objection to efforts aimed at controlling invasive species and these efforts are already being carried out by many federal agencies. for example, the u.s. fish and wildlife service, the agency funded by title 3 at the the exe of state and tribal funding, already administered invasive species control programs including the coastal program and the partners for fish and wildlife program. two programs that title 3 would duplicate. the animal and plant health inspection service or aphis at usda conducts control and eradication programs to address invasive species that pose a threat to u.s. agriculture. these and other similar programs are subject to federal

appropriations which is what title 3 should be subject to as well. not permanent, mandatory funding. if the majority would like to increase federal funding for invasive species control, they should do it through the appropriations process instead of air dropping another layer of bureaucracy into this bill. for these reasons we should be striking title 3 from the bill, at least until the committee of jurisdiction has a chance to consider and markup its provisions. unfortunately the majority refused to allow a vote on my colleague from utah mr. moore's amendment, which would have done just that. i oppose this amendment to allow the funding for title 3 to be used for even more duplicative federal bureaucracy. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. kildee: thank you, madam chair. i appreciate the gentleman's comments and i agree that we ought to do everything we can to address this issue of invasive species. i just happen to believe that this bill is a very appropriate

approach to this and coming from the great lakes i'll say, we need every tool we can get our hands on to protect this incredible resource. and i welcome the opportunity to include this language in this legislation. and with that, i now yield two minutes to the sponsor of this legislation, the gentlewoman from michigan, my colleague and friend, conch woman dingell -- congresswoman dingell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. mrs. dingell: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague and friend from michigan for this amendment. this bipartisan amendment, offered by the gentleman from michigan, and co-sponsored by the republican gentleman from northern michigan, makes it clear -- western michigan, not from where dan and i are, but it's michigan, makes it clear that conservation activities' eligible funding under the fund include invasive species and disease management control and prevention efforts. invasive species and diseases

pose severe threats to our nation's wildlife population. especially for species that are already threatened or endangered. few places in the united states are more familiar with invasive species than the great lakes region. which has been battling sea lamps and zebra mussels and now asian carp. native species are smaller and less plentiful than they once were thanks to these invasive species. on the disease front, chronic wasting disease, a fatal disease for north america's deer, elk and moose, has spread to 25 states, posing significant risks to those populations. to properly recover native species, we must provide the resources and coordinate efforts to eradicate or control invasive species, prevent new introductions and better understand emerging diseases. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, thank the gentleman for it, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. mr. kildee: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. westerman: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. kildee: i have no more speakers. i'm prepared to close. i yield to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas has the right to close. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. kildee: thank you, madam speaker. look, i appreciate the debate and the conversation. but for me, i think for congresswoman dingell, certainly for congressman meijer and anybody else who has grown up knowing and loving the great lakes, this is an important economic resource, it's an important cultural resource. it is literally the definition of the lines of our state. protecting the great lakes is an incredibly high priority for democrats and republicans, liberals, conservatives, people all across the spectrum. and every opportunity we have to take even a small step, to do more to protect this precious

water resource, we're going to take that opportunity. for that reason i support the underlying legislation. i advocate on behalf of my amendment. i hope my colleagues will join me and mr. meijer and mrs. dingell in supporting it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has yielded back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: thank you, madam speaker. once again, we all have invasive species that we deal with. it's something we should be focusing on. we just don't need another duplicative federal program to do that. so i encourage a no vote on the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas yields back. pursuant to house resolution 1170, the previous question is order on the amendment offered by the gentleman from -- ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? mr. westerman: 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. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 85 printed in the -- number 5 printed in part d of house report 117-366. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman rising as the designee of the gentlewoman from arizona? disble, i offer this amendment on behalf of -- >> yes, i offer this amendment on behalf of mrs. kirkpatrick of arizona. the speaker pro tempore: the

clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number five printed in house report 117-366 offered by mr. butterfield of north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1170, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina for five minutes. mr. butterfield: let me thank you for yielding time and thank you to mrs. dingell and the ranking february more their courtesy and thank the natural resources committee for all the work they do. a. not on that committee but i have great respect and admiration for the committee and its chairman and so i thank you for letting me have five minutes this afternoon to present this amendment. madam speaker, this amendment is rather simple. it's straightforward. the underlying bill establishing a -- establishes a new competitive grant program to support innovative grant strategies to help species recovery. that's the underlying bill we

have been debating all afternoon. however as drafted, the bill limits those grants, those come pet toiv grants, to only state wildlife agencies. and so specifically my amendment expands the eligibility of the grant program to include nonprofit organizations like the north carolina wildlife resources commission, the north carolina wildlife federation, the family co wildlife conservations and so many more wonderfulling orny snags your state and perhaps your states across the country. many of these nonprofits have tremendous expertise in helping species recover and they should be eligible to participate in this new program under this amendment. and so, 345*78s. to -- and so, madam speaker, to my colleagues, i urge all of you to support this amendment which will strengthen our species recovery efforts. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas. for what purpose does the

gentleman from arkansas rise? >> i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> madam speaker, this amendment would actually make the bill worse by authorizing nonprofit organizations to receive funding under title 1. mr. westerman: this amendment is in direct contravention to the intent of the legislation to empower states and tribes in species conservation the current bill directs funds provided under this program to state and tribal fish and wildlife departments or to regional associations of fish and wildlife departments. the amendment would allow activist environmental groups, many of whom are serial litigants against the kinds of projects this bill aims to support to receive funding under title 1, decreasing money available for state fish and game departments. radical special interest groups have weaponized the endanger -- endangered species act by suing the u.s. fish and wildlife service. this sue and settle process

overwhelms regulatory agencies, resulting in settlement agreements and consent decrees that require them to promulgate major legislation in an arbitrarily imposed timeline. these are often negotiated behind closed doors with little or no transparent soir public input, allowing radical interest groups to promote their own agendas outside of the normal processes. to make matters worse, these groups are financially reward for suing the government, for suing the american taxpayer. according to the government accountability office from 2000 to 2010, e.s.a. lawsuits cost taxpayers nearly $24 million in attorneys' fees and associated costs. private citizens with a net worth of $2 million and for-profit businesses if a net worth of $7 million cannot receive attorneys' fees under the equal access to justice act. however there's no such cap for nonprofit organization which is allows these wealthy groups to

rake in taxpayer money. according to the u.s. chamber of commerce from 2009 to 2017 there were 109 endangered species act settlements. the majority of these settlements came from just three group, the center for biological diversity, defenders of wile life and wild earth guardians. the center for biological diversity was individually responsible for 41 of the 109 settlements. this is not surprising. after the centers for biological drertty's director said in 2009 that, quote, when we stop the same timber sale three or four times run, the timber planters want to tear their hair out. they feel their careers are being mocked and destroyed and they are. psychological warfare is a very underappreciated aspect of environmental campaigning, end quote. and we're paying home to do that. today we can see the legacy of this mentality in the lawsuits out west where we've had two of

our worst fire years back-to-back and this year is not looking any better. i cannot in good conscience support allowing these radical groups to receive funding under this bill. especially since it will pull money away from state fish and wildlife agencies and tribes as the bill was intended to fund. i oppose this amendment and i urge my colleagues to join me in opposition. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. butterfield: thank you, madam speaker. i listened carefully to the gentleman from arkansas, i respect fizz position. but i just want to remind my colleagues that in my state and most states, these organizations that are nonprofits who care about the environment, who care about protecting endanger ed species, in most state, in i would say in all of your states, these are not radical groups. these are good, grass root nonprofit organizations who really, really care about the

environment and want to do their part in protecting our economy. and our environmental economy. so i ask my colleagues to please vote for this amendment. i understand the gentleman's concern. but i want to assure him that the nonprofits i speak of are not radical groups. they're good environmental organizations. thank you, i reserve. i yield to mrs. dingell of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. dingell: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague. this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from arizona and the gentleman from north carolina adds nonprofit organizations to the list of entities that are eligible to compete, compete, for innovation grants funded by the wildlife conservation and restoration subaccount. 10% of subaccount funds are used to fund innovation grants. these grants are meant to catalize the innovation of techniques, tools and strategies while fostering collaborative

partnerships that accelerate, expand or replicate effective and measurable recovery efforts for species of greatest conservation need and species listed under the endangered species act. including nonprofit organizations in this competitive, in this competitive grant process, will foster collaboration and ensure that the best strategies and efforts are being funded and i am sure that most -- that none of the groups are radical groups that you are referring to but i don't know but it is a competitive process that will be carefully managed. with that, i support my colleague's amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: thank you, madam speaker. there are some wonderful groups out there that do great work but this bill is not about funding private groups or nonprofit

groups. this bill is about funding state and tribal entities. that's what it was originally about. it's chaimed, it's funding the u.s. fish and wildlife service as well so i guess the majority is thinking, let's throw in environmental groups. who else will will this bill be putting funding out to before it's said and done. but there are groups that abuse the process. they abuse it at the expense of the american taxpayer and they abuse it at the expense of the environment. they claim they're wanting to help the environment and they're destroying the environment. so aisle opposed to this amendment and i hope my colleagues will join me in opposing it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. bulletterfield: i thank -- mr. butterfield: i thank the gentlelady for supporting this amendment. it's a simple amendment, a

commonsense amendment. it will allow, authorize, nonprofits to compete for funding. it's not a guarantee of funding. it's an opportunity to compete for funding. it's a worthwhile amendment. i ask my colleagues to vote yea. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina yields back. all time having been yielded back, pursuant to house res. leulings 1170, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. the question is on the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. westerman: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. westerman: i request the craze and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. further proceedings on this question are postponed.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, proceedings will now resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order. number 1, the following amendments to h.r. 2773. amendments en bloc number two. number one. amendments en bloc number 2. amendment 4. offered by mr. kildee of michigan. amendment 5 offered by mr. butterfield of north carolina. a motion to recommit h.r. 2723 if offered. passage of h.r. 2773 if ordered. and motions to suspend the rules and pass senate 516 and h.r.

7211. the first vote in the series will be a 15-minute vote. remaining electronic votes will be a five-minute vote. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on amendments en bloc number 1 printed in part d of house report 117-366 offered by the gentleman from michigan, the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. dingell. the clerk will redesignate 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: the question is on the amendments en bloc. offered by the gentlewoman from michigan. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-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 georgia seek recognition? mr. carter: madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. mace of south carolina, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that representative mace will vote yea on en bloc 1.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new jersey seek recognition? mrs. watson coleman: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. khanna, i inform the house that he will vote yes on the amendments en bloc number 1.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from delaware seek recognition? ms. blunt rochester: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. lamb of pennsylvania, i inform the house that mr. lamb will vote yes on amendments en bloc number 1.

>> madam speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski from indiana, i inform the house that ms.mrs. walorski will vote nay n en bloc number 1.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition?

>> as the member designated by chairwoman eddie bernice johnson and representative scott peters, they will vote yes on the amendments en bloc number 1. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> as the member designated by mr. taylor, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote nay on amendment en bloc number one.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition snr ms. wasserman schultz: as the member designated by ms. pingree of maine and mr. crist mr. lawson, these members will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

>> as the member designated by mr. john carter and ms. kay granger will vote yes on en bloc number 1.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon ria? >> as the member designated by mr. o'halleran, i inform the house that mr. o'haller ran will vote yes. >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi, i inform the house that mr. palazzo will vote nay on en bloc number 1. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. amodei, i inform the house that mr. amodei will vote yes on en bloc number 1.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: as the member designated by mr. donald payne, ms. titus and mr. nadler, these members will vote yes on amendments en bloc number 1.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by representative stanton, representative speier and representative correa, these representatives will vote yes on the amendments en bloc number one.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. gonzales of ohio, i inform the house that mr. gonzales will vote yes on en bloc number one. and as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. rice will vote yes on en bloc number one.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. amodei, i inform the house that mr. amodei will vote no on en bloc one. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady michigan seek recognition? ms. stevens: as the member designated by mrs. lawrence of michigan and mr. schneider of illinois, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on amendments en bloc one. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. wilson, ms. kelly and ms. david, these three members

will vote yes on the amendments en bloc number one. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. sand bury of new mexico, she will vote yes on amendments en bloc number one. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: as the member designated by mr. lynch of massachusetts, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote yes on amendment en bloc number one.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. price and mr. hank johnson, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on amendments en bloc number 1.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. tenney of new york and pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. tenney will vote no on amendments en bloc number 1. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. kahele and mrs. bustos, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on amendments en bloc 1.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. moore, ms. newman, mr. evans, mr. suozzi, mr. mceachin, and

mr. davis of illinois, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the amendments en bloc number 1. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does 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 amendments en bloc number 1. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. takano: madam speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman maxine waters, i inform the house that chair waters will vote yes on the amendments en bloc number 1.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 276. the nays are 147. one person is present. the amendments en bloc are adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on amendments en bloc number 2 printed in part d of house report 117-366 offered by the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. dingell. the clerk will redesignate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number 2 consisting of amendments numbered 2 and 8 printed in partipart d of house report 117-366 offered by mrs. dingell from michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from michigan.

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. 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 the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. carter: madam chair, as the member designated by ms. mace of south carolina, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. mace will vote yes on en bloc 2. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. moore, ms. newman, mr. danny davis of illinois, mr. meceachin,

mr. evans, mr. suozzi, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on amendments en bloc number 2. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady 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. taylor will vote yea on en bloc number 2. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. price and mr. hank johnson, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on the amendments en bloc number 2. 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 yea on en bloc number 2. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady 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 the amendments en bloc number 2. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from 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 en bloc number 2. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. khanna of california, i inform the house that he will vote yes on the amendments en bloc number 2. 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 and pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. tenney will vote yes on amendments en bloc >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by by chairwoman maxine waters, i inform the house that chairwoman waters will vote no on the amendments in en bloc number two. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by the gentleman from texas mr. carter and gentlelady kay granger, they will vote yes on en bloc number two. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from jean.

>> as the member designated by mr. kahele and mrs. bustos, they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi, i inform the house that mr. palazzo will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. deutch of florida, i inform the house that mr. deutch will vote yes on amendments en bloc number two. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by

mr. rice of south carolina, i inform the house that he will vote yes. as the member designated by mr. gonzales, i inform the house that mr. gonzales will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon? >> as the member designated by mr. o'halleran, i inform the house that mr. o'halleran will vote yes. mr. pallone: mr. donald pain and mr. gerry nadler, they will vote yes on the amendments en bloc number two. 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 and representative scott peters, they will vote yes on the amendments en bloc number two. 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 amendments en bloc number two. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by representatives stanton, speier and correa, these members will vote yes on amendments en bloc number two. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. wasserman schultz: as the member designated by ms. pingree of maine and mr. crist lawson of florida, i inform the house they will vote yes on amendments en bloc number two. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> as the member designated by

ms. davids and ms. kelly, these members will vote yes on amendments en bloc number two and as the member designated by ms. wilson, i inform the house that she will vote no on amendments en bloc number two. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? ms. stevens: as the member designated by mrs. lawrence of michigan and mr. schneider of illinois, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on amendments en bloc number two.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 412, the nays are 8. the amendments en bloc are adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20,

unfinished business is the question on amendment number 4, printed in part b of house report 117-366 offered by the gentleman from michigan, mr. kildee. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report of 117-366 offered by mr. kildee of michigan. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. 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 ohio seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. amodei, i inform the house that mr. amodei will vote nay. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recog recognition? >> as the member designated by chairwoman maxine waters, i inform the house that chairwoman

waters will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. mace of south carolina, pursuant to h. res. 8, i inform the house that ms. mace will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. deutch of florida, i inform the house that mr. deutch will vote yes on the kildee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from texas seek reek anything? >> as the member designated by mr. taylor will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from new jersey seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. khanna of california, i inform the house that he will vote yes on the kildee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. walorski, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will

vote nay on amendment number 4. >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by by mr. price and mr. hank johnson, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the kildee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi, i inform the house that mr. palazzo will vote nay on amendment number 4. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from jean seek initiation? >> as the member designated by mrs. bustos and mr. kahele, they will vote yes. >> as the member designated by mr. carter of texas and kay granger of texas, i inform the house that they will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? ms. stevens: as the member designated by mrs. lawrence of michigan and mr. schneider of illinois, i inform the house these members will vote yes on the kildee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?

>> as the member designated by mrs. tinny of new york, i inform the house that mrs. tinny will vote no. >> as the member designated by mr. lamb, i inform the house that he will vote yes on the kildee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. rice will vote nay. and as the member designated by mr. gonzales of ohio, i inform the house that he will vote nay. >> as the member designated by chairwoman eddie bernice johnson and representative scott peters, they will vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by representative correa and stanton, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the kildee

amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: designated mr. donald payne and dina titus and mr. gerry nadler, they will vote yes. 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 the kildee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? -- as the member designated by -- mr. langevin: as the member designated by mr. lynch of massachusetts, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote yes on the kildee amendment.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: as the member designated by ms. moore and ms. new man, mr. evans, mr. suozzi and mr. mceachin and mr. danny davis of illinois, these members will vote yes on the kildee amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition?

>> as the member designated by ms. wilson, ms. kelly, these members will vote yes on the kildee amendment.

the speaker pro tempore: have all members voted? for what purpose does gentlelady florida seek recognition? ms. wasserman schultz: as the member designated by mr. crist lawson of florida and ms. pingree of maine, these members will vote yes on the kildee amendment.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 231. the nays are 189. the amendment is adopted. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question of amendment 5 printed in part d of house report 117-366 offered by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5

printed in part d of house report 117-366 offered by mr. butterfield of north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from north carolina. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. coverage 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 texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, mas the member designated by ms. tenney of new york and pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. tenney will vote no on amendment number 5. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from delaware seek recognition? ms. blunt rochester: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. lamb, i inform the house that he will vote yes on the butterfield amendment. 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 amendment number 5. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? dr. walensky: mr. speaker -- ms. wasserman schultz mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. crist, lawson,

i inform the house that they will vote nay on the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. lawrence of michigan and mr. schneider of illinois, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the butterfield amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition ms. van duyne: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. van taylor, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote nay on amendment number 5. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, mb meb -- as the member designated by ms. titus, mr. payne, they will vote yes on the amendment. mr. weber: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. carter and ms. granger, i inform the house that they will vote no on amendment number 5. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new jersey seek

recognition? ms. mrs. watson coleman: : thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by -- >> mr. speaker, mr. gonzalez will vote nay on amendment number 5. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: mr. speaker, as the member designated by chair johnson and mr. peters, i inform the house that they will vote yea on the butterfield amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. moore, ms. newman, mr. danny davis, mr. evans, mr. suozzi, mr. mceachin, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the amendment. 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 amendment number 5. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. kahele and mrs. bustos, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the butterfield amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady 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 butterfield amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. takano: mr. speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman maxine waters, i inform the house that chairman waters will vote yes on the butterfield amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: as the member designated by gregory meeks, i inform the house that mr. meeks will vote yea on the butterfield amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by representative mace of south carolina, president zelensky, i inform the house that representative mace will vote no on the kilpatrick-butterfield amendment

number 5. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. huffman: mr. speaker, as the member designated by representative stanton and correa, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on the butterfield amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. manning: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. price and mr. hank johnson, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on the butterfield amendment. 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 yea on the butterfield amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. o'halloran, i inform the

house that mr. o'halleran will vote yes on the butterfield amendment. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. neguse: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. dachdz, ms. wilson, ms. kelly, i inform the house that -- ms. davids, ms. wilson, ms. kelly, i inform the house that they will vote yea on the butterfield amendment.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 216. the nays are 206. the amendment is adopted. the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the pittman robertson wildlife restoration act to make supplemental funds available for management of fish and wildlife species as determined by the state fish and wildlife agencies and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from -- the house will be in order. the house will be in order. for what purpose does the

gentleman from idaho seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. fulcher of idaho moves to recommit the bill h.r. 2773 to the committee on natural resources. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 19, the question is on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is -- for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho seek recognition? mr. fulcher: yeas and nays, please. 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. inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. 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 gentlewoman from delaware seek recognition?

ms. blunt rochester: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. lamb, i inform the house that he will vote no on the motion to recommit. 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 yea on the motion to recommit. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new jersey seek recognition? mrs. watson coleman: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. khanna, i inform the house that he will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. balderson: thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. amodei, i inform the house that mr. amodei will vote yea on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by representatives correa and stanton, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. van duyne: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. van taylor of the great state of texas, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote yea on the xhit. 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. kelly, ms. davids, i inform the house that these three members will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. weber: mr. speaker, as the member designated by kay granger of texas and john carter of texas, i inform the house that they will vote yea on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. wasserman schultz: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. crist and lawson of florida and ms. pingree of maine, i inform the house that these members will vote nay on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from 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 the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: as the member designated by chairman eddie bernice johnson, chairman meeks, and representative scott peters, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit. 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 and pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. tenney will vote yes on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. lawrence of michigan and mr. schneider of illinois, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. takano: mr. speaker, as the member designated by chairman maxine waters, i inform the house that chairwoman waters will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. dinah titus, mr. donald payne, and mr. jerry nadler, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. kahele and mrs. bustos, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady 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 no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. moore, ms. newman, mr. suozzi, mr. evans, mr. mceachin, and mr. danny davis of illinois, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? ms. manning: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. price and mr. hank johnson, i inform the house that these members will vote no on the motion to recommit. 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 no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. rice of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. rice will vote yea on the motion to recommit. and as the member designated by mr. gonzalez of ohio, i inform the house that mr. gonzalez will vote yea on the motion to recommit. . 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 nay on the motion to recommit. 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 house resolution 8, i inform the house that representative mace will vote no on final passage of -- mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. mace of south carolina, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that representative mace will vote yea on the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 202, the nays are 220. the motion is not adopted. the question is on the passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the bill is passed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? mr. westerman: mr. speaker, 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 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 georgia seek recognition? mr. carter: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. mace of south carolina, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that representative mace will vote no on final passage of h.r. 2773. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. kahele and mrs. bustos, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on h.r. 2773. 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 h.r. 2773. as the member designated by ms. gonzalez of ohio, i inform the house that mr. gonzalez will vote nay on h.r. 2773. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new jersey seek recognition? mrs. watson coleman: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. khanna, i inform the house that he will vote yes on passage. 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 h.r. 2773. thank you.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. price and mr. hank johnson, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on h.r. 2773. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. van taylor of the great state of texas, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote nay on h.r. 2773. 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 and ms. davids and ms. kelly, i inform the house that these three members will vote aye on h.r. 2773. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. carter and msm the house that they will both vote no on h.r. 2773. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by representatives correa and stanton, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 2773. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. teny of new york and pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house

that -- tenney of new york, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. tenney will vote no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. wasserman schultz: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. pingree of maine and mr. lawson and crist of florida, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on h.r. 2773. 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 h.r. 2773. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. takano: mr. speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman maxine waters, i inform the house that chairwoman waters will vote yes on h.r. 2773. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. walorski of indiana, i inform the house that mrs. walorski will vote nay on h.r. 2773. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. moore, ms. newman, mr. evans, mr. suozzi, mr. mceachin and mre

house that these six members will vote yes on h.r. 2773. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: as the member designated by ms. johnson, mr. meeks and representative peters, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on h.r. 2773. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? miss rice: as the member designated by mr. deutch of florida, i inform the house that mr. deutch will vote yes on h.r. 2773. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from delaware seek recognition? ms. blunt rochester: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. lamb of pennsylvania, i inform the house that he will vote yes on h.r. 2773. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? ms. stevens: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. lawrence of michigan and mr. schneider of illinois, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 2773.

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 yea on h.r. 2773. 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, mr. jerry nadler, ms. titus, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 2773. 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 be voting yes on h.r. 2773.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 231, the nays are 190. the bill is passed. without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, to suspend the rules and pass senate 516, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: senate 516. an act to plan for and coordinate efforts to integrate advanced air mobility aircraft into the national air space system and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended. 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 gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. wasserman schultz: as the member designated by ms. pingree and mr. lawson and crist, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on h.r. 7211. 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 and pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. tenney will vote yes on s. 516. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from delaware seek recognition? ms. blunt rochester: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. lamb of pennsylvania, i inform the house that this member will vote yes on h.r. 7211. 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 yea on s. 516. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new jersey seek recognition? mrs. watson coleman: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. khanna, i inform the house that he will vote yes on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by -- mr. fleischmann: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi, i inform the house that mr. palazzo will vote yea on s. 516. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. takano: mr. speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman maxine waters, i inform the house that chairwoman waters will vote yes on h.r. 7211. 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 yea on s. 516. as the member designated by mr. gonzalez of ohio, i inform the house that mr. gonzalez will vote yea on s. 516. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. kahele and mrs. bustos, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition?

ms. van duyne: as the member designated by mr. van taylor of the great state of texas, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote nay on s. 516. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? ms. stevens: as the member designated by mrs. lawrence of michigan and mr. schneider of illinois, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. carter and mse of texas, i inform the house that they will both vote yea on s. 516. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? mr. neguse: 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.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from 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. 516. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? miss rice: as the member

designated by mr. deutch of florida, i inform the house that mr. deutch will vote yes on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. price and mr. hank johnson, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on h.r. 7211. 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 house resolution 8, i inform the house that ms. mace will vote yea on the house amendment to s. 516. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by representatives correa and stanton, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: as the member designated by ms. johnson and mr. meeks and mr. peters, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on h.r. 7211.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? mr. beyer: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. newman, ms. moore, mr. suozzi, mr. mceachin and mr. evans and danny davis, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. lynch of massachusetts, i inform the house that he will vote yea on s. 516. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

seek recognition. >> as the member designated by mr. o'halloran of arizona, the member will vote yes on s. 516. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? mr. pallone: as the member designated by mr. jerry nadler, ms. dina titus and mr. donald payne, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on s. 516.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 380, the nays are 30. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 7211 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: union calendar number 272, h.r. 7211, a bill to amend the robert t. stafford disaster relief and emergency act, review the federal emergency management agency and for other purposes. 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 seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. tenney of new york, i inform the house that ms. tenney will vote yes on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> as the member designated by chairwoman waters, i inform the house that chairwoman waters will vote yes on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. van taylor of the great state of texas, i inform the house that mr. taylor will vote yea on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida seek recognition? ms. wasserman schultz: as the member designated by mr. crist and lawson of florida and ms. pingree of maine, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. palazzo of mississippi, i inform the house that mr. pa lou zoe will vote yea on h.r. 7211. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady 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.r. 7211. 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 yea on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. deutch of florida, i inform the house that mr. deutch will vote yes on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from 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 h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from delaware seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. lamb of pennsylvania, i inform the house that mr. lamb will vote yes on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from new jersey seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. khanna of california, i inform the house that he will vote yes on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition?

>> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. carter of texas, ms. granger of texas, i inform the house that they will vote vote yea on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. danny davis, mr. evans, mr. mceachin, mr. suozzi, ms. newman and ms. moore, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from michigan seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. lawrence of michigan and mr. snyder of illinois, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7211. 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 house resolution 8, i inform the house that representative mace will vote yea on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island s seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member

designated by mr. lynch of massachusetts, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote yes on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mrs. bustos and mr. kahele, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> as the member designated by chairman meeks, chairwoman johnson, representative peters, i inform the house that these members will vote yea on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: as the member designated by mr. jerry nadler, mr. donald payne and ms. dina titus, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by representatives correa and stanton, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7211.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. o'halloran of arizona, i inform the house that mr. o'halloran will vote yes on h.r. 7211. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. wilson, ms. kelly and ms. davids, i inform the house that these members will vote yes on h.r. 7211.

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 yea on h.r. 7211. as the member designated by mr. gonzalez of ohio, i inform the house that mr. gonzalez will vote yea on h.r. 7211.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the the yeas are 396, the nays are 14. 2/3 being 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: the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam. i have the honor to transmit -- the speaker: the house will be in order. the clerk: i have the honor to transmit here with a scanned copy of a letter received from ms. janet m. lee, chief elections division, california secretary of state, indicating

that according to the preliminary results for the special general election held june 7, 2022, the honorable connie conway was elected for representative to congress for the 22nd congressional district, state of california. signed, sincerely, cheryl l. johnson, clerk. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from california, the honorable connie conway, be permitted to take the oath of office today. her certificate of election has not arrived but there's no contest and no question has been raised with regard to her election. the speaker: without objection. will the representative-elect and members of the california delegation present themselves in the well.

all members will rise and the representative-elect will raise her right hand. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely and without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office to which you are about to enter, so help you god? ms. conway: i do. the speaker: congratulations, representative connie conway, you are now a representative of the 117th congress. without objection, the gentlewoman from california, msr one minute. ms. lofgren: thank you, madam chair. on behalf of my california colleagues and the house of representatives i'd like to

welcome representative connie conway to congress. a lifelong san joaquin valley representative, representative conway has served as a businesswoman, health care worker, tulare county supervisor, president of the california state association of counties and director of the national association of counties. from 2008 to 2014, she served in the california state assembly and during her tenure also served as assembly minority leader. in 2019, representative conway was appointed to the usda farm service agency as the california executive director. in that role, she administered more than $100 million in safety net and disaster relief programs, serving california farmers, ranchers, foresters and agricultural producers. representative conway previously operated her own consulting business and comes with experience in the health care sector. previously working for the women's health department at

tulary district hospital and coordinating a wellness program for the caway health medical center. we look forward to working with representative conway and i'd like to yield now to my friend, representative calvert. mr. calvert: thank you to my mr. calvert: thank you. it's my privilege and honor to honor and welcome now representative connie conaway as the newest member -- conway as the newest member of the u.s. house of representatives. she's a proud life long resident of san joaquin valley. she's dedicated the better part of her life to public service. as a county supervisor, a legislator and a -- in the california state assembly, and in the california executive director as the usda's farm service agency. the constituents of california in the 22nd district stand to benefit from congresswoman conway's vast experience and dedication. i want to congratulate the entire conway family on this exciting occasion, including connie's husband, craig, her children, and of course we can't leave out her black lab, jake.

and with that, i yield back to the dean of the california delegation, ms. lofgren, to introduce our new colleague. ms. lofgren: thank you very much. we would like to now welcome our newest representative to the podium, and i would like, madam speaker, to yield to representative conway. ms. conway: thank you very much. thank you all. thank you so much. actually,gic wanted to come. but -- jake wanted to come. but so did my husband and he wasn't able to make it. but i want to thank him, my sons, anthony and tim, my grandchildren, cane and audrey, for their constant, loving support. i hope to make them all proud. as an aside, my grandson, cane, tomorrow will be 16.

he told me, i can't go watch because i've had an appointment at the d.m.v. for six months and i'm getting my license and i'm not giving it up. so, all i have to say to that is, watch out, he's off the tractor and onto the roads. i stand before you today and vow to give everything i have to be capable, zealous representative that my constituents deserve. i often look to the words of luke and paraphrase, to whom much is given, much is expected. i take these words to heart in the role that's been entrusted to me, to honestly, loyally and passionately represent my constituents in the united states house of representatives. i accept this charge with deep humility, my constituents, the great people of california's 22nd district are facing water shortages, rising inflation and many other trials, none of their

own making. their pain is my pain. their concerns are my concerns. i stand shoulder to shoulder with them. as a daughter of the central valley and a life long fighter for our values, it is my duty to ensure that our voices -- their voices are heard in congress. as your representative, you have my commitment that my door will always be open to those seeking to make the central valley a better place. i look forward to serving with you. i close my remarks with a local colloquial saying. go dogs. win the mountain west. i yield back. ms. lofgren: madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker: thank you. in light of the administration of the oath to the gentlewoman from california, the whole number of the house is now 429.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, the biden administration abandoning tariffs on imported solar companies is terrible.

what is the administration's strategy to protect american companies and american workers who are going to be harmed? first solar and ohio companies whose products are unrivaled anywhere on earth are at risk with thousands of workers' jobs on the line. these firms employ hardworking ohioans earning living wages that support themselves and their families and it's unacceptable to allow china to lay waste to american industries. china has violated the rules and tilted the playing field in its favor. our workers are sick of it. i've introduced a bill to create the office of manufacturing within the white house to champion good jobs in the u.s.a. this. bipartisan bill would ensure there's an explicit long-term plan to grow american manufacturing industries and unleash our full manufacturing potential. domestic manufacturing is the backbone of our region's middle class and it's time the federal

government recognizes. enough is enough. let america's workers succeed. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. carter: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. carter: mr. speaker, i rise today in memory of dr. james emmett jimmie ducey sr. a veteran, a veterinarian and an exceptional georgian. jimmie was born in savannah in 1934, the youngest of four children, and spent his entire youth in the state of georgia. he then went on to graduate from savannah high school and attended university of georgia where he earned his doctorate in veterinary medicine. in 1959, jimmie and his wife moved to fort hood, texas, where jimmie served in the u.s. army as a vet naryn -- veterinarian. in 1960 he returned to savannah and took over his father's veterinary practice, are we continued to serve his community

for 60 years. jimmie eventually retired from the army, achieving the rank of major. jimmie founded and coached the cardinals baseball, soccer and football teams, winning multiple city championships in soccer. thankfully jimmie was able to see the university of georgia win their third national championship before his passing. a loving father and husband, a vet naryn, a -- veterinarian, a veteran and fellow georgia sports fan, jimmie is sure to be missed. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, 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 gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. porter: our nation's populations of fish and wildlife are dwindling. to save threatens and endangered species, we need the bipartisan recovering america's wildlife act, which will boost

science-based conservation efforts. the united nations has warned the world that human actions will continue to drive plant and animal species to extinction if we do not act. in my home state of california, native species have declined by 20%. and over 600 species risk extinction. as a member of the house natural resources committee, i have learned from scientists and advocacy groups that we need dedicated funding to recover and sustain healthy populations of threatened and endangered species. importantly, protecting these species is good for our economy. wildlife focused recreation generates $140 billion annually. the recovering america's wildlife act will sustain biodiversity, create jobs and protect our planet. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek

recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. today's flag day and the u.s. army's 237th birthday. every year on june 14 we celebrate our stars and stripes. we celebrate on june 14 because on this day, in 1777, the continental congress approved the design for our first flag. over the years, our flag has been changed to reflect the growth of our nation. the one thing remains the same, it will always stand for freedom. our flag is a glorious symbol of hope for our brave service men and women who salute it, defend it, serve it and in some cases die for -- to protect our freedom and liberty. today is also the u.s. army's birthday, for the last 247 years our service members have been defending freedom at home and abroad. today our nation celebrates our army and our flag which

symbolize both america being the land of the free and the home of the brave. thank you, mr. speaker. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor of life and service of sylvia is as, an extraordinary -- sasse, an extraordinary public servant in the state of washington. sylvia was a vital player in the early development of the sister cities international organization shessments even appointed washington state coordinator due to her work in helping president dwight eisenhower rebuild international ties and selected as a delegate to have lunch with him. ms. strickland: in 2017 sylvia received the sister cities international lifetime achievement award and to this day she remains an active and honorary board member of the organization. sylvia sasse is known as the

first lady of sister cities international. mr. speaker, sylvia exemplifies hard work, perseverance and selfless service to others. i'm proud to call her my friend and i offer these remarks in her honor. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i seek 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. speaker, the united states is a nation of laws, not mob rule. whoever leaked a draft opinion of dobbs v. jackson broke the law and did great damage to the integrity of our judicial institutions. in the five weeks following the leak, protesters have taken to the streets of justice -- in front of justices' homes to intimidate and harass them for fulfilling their constitutional duty to interpret the law. and even one deranged individual plotted to assassinate justice

kavanaugh. because of this, i am dumb founded by the speaker's refusal on three separate occasions to allow a vote to provide protections for the justices and their families. finally, more than one month after the senate passed the bill by unanimous consent, we were able to hold a vote today. it took way too long. but thankfully it wasn't too late. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. grothman: i'd like unanimous consent to speak for a minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. grothman: the talk of everyone back home is over inflation. i want to give the press corps something to do. we are told that the current inflation rate is 8.2%, the highest the been in 40 years. i believe the number's higher than that.

they claim that housing has gone up 5.2%, be it the cost of rent or the cost to buy a house. i've talked to builders in which the cost of identical homes has gone up 30%. interest rates have gone up from 2.5% to 4.5%. i know somebody who is looking might flip a house that's gone up 20%. i would like the press corps in this country to look for examples of housing that's only been up 5.2%. the other thing i'd like to look up is used cars have gone up 16%. i've talked to car dealers and they tell me the price of used cars has gone up 25% to 35%. so i beg the somewhat slumbering press corps to look into this and see whether a leg is being pulled at the claim that interest is only up or it's only up 8.2%. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy

of january 4, 2021, the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. speaker pro tesm we're going to try to do a continuation on a theme. last week came to the floor and sort of walked through what inflation was doing to -- was doing to seniors. today i'm going to try to walk through what it's doing to the poor, the working poor, the middle class, all of society. and one of the difficult things i'm going to turn and i know it's somewhat rhetorical is ask my brothers and sisters on the left, are you happy with what you've accomplished? democrats took functionally power here 15 months ago. they had the house, the senate and took the white house.

and we got to see the playbook, and this is important because we often are so busy chasing shiny objects that we never sort of talk about the economic differences and the way the left and those of us on the right view the world. the left sort of believes in this model of consumption. send people checks and they'll go buy stuff and somehow that will make society their utopia. of course ital sets off really bad societal problems like hey, i have money, i don't have to participate in society and the economy. hey -- so when a worker is paid

more money it's from two things. inflation which doesn't mean they got anywhere. as a matter of fact when you raise someone's salary because of inflation they're often always behind the curve. and the second part is productivity. investment in plants and equipment to be able to be more productive. to have that newest, best functional product. and that's a supply side model. that's functionally what we accomplished in tax reform. and the other challenge i'll give to our friends on the democrat side is, take a look at our couple of years. when we did regulatory reform. when we did tax reform. 2018. 2019. the poor got poorer. the middle class got much wealthier. income inequality shrank.

food insecurity shrank. minority populations had their best economic period in the modern economic time. i would visit the homeless shelter in downtown phoenix and st. joseph's the worker had a list of businesses that were desperate for anyone who would just show up. now the contrast, the democrats took over. and functionally 15 months ago, they moved $1.9 trillion of spending. and i've been to the floor multiple times, i've shown you all the charts saying isn't it fascinating that almost from the day you did this, you can actually see actual functional price changes in the wholesale markets. you can actually see the curve going hey they passed a bill. there's inflation.

some of that is not completely fair because some of it was actually built into the policy sets the democrats had adopted. when they blew up the capital stack, meaning when the biden administration took over and they had a compliant democrat congress, democrat senate, and particularly the left controlling the house of representatives, when they threatened capital markets for investing in hydrocarbons. when they threatened capital markets investing in the transportation of hydrocarbons. moving natural gas. oh, you're going to build a pipeline. we're going to do everything that you have to report to the s.e.c. we're going to basically make it so the company, the investors in this have to do documentation. of their environmental scores. you wonder why september a year ago you actually looked at the futures markets and saw it was

already beginning. natural gas. crude prices. so the horrible prices you are paying today at the pump, it's not because of the russian inflation of ukraine. that just moved it forward. this was already built into the democrat's policy set. so let's actually focus on something that's the derivative, that's the next level over from last week's. last week we focused substantially on what the left's policies were going to do to seniors. how many of them will be in poverty a decade from now because of inflation today? let's actually sort of talk through inflation through the economy. because my fear is we do the headline discussion. hey, did you see the number last week? it was 8.6. my community, it's 11-something. i happen to live in number one

or number two, the scottsdale-phoenix area, inflation in the nation. but what does it actually mean? it's much, much, much more than the little number you saw saying hey, last month it was to this. it's what did it do to your retirement a decade from now? what did it do to your kids, your grandkids' ability to ever purchase a house? to ever build up savings when every single day their savings becomes worth less. there's a reason inflation is the bookie man. it's because -- the boogie man. off government with debt the size of our economy. and we're out there taxing all of you, whether you understand it or not, that's the scam of inflation. this is what the democrats have set up. every single day, your savings becomes less.

but also the value of that massive debt the united states has becomes less because we're transferring your wealth. we're functionally devaluing your savings and then devaluing our debt because it's being paid for by inflated dollars. i don't believe it's purposeful. but now that they've set it off i promise you there's economists in this government who basically look the other way and say, you know, let it run this way for a couple of years and think about it, the actual value of the debt, in constant dollars, stays the same but in -- excuse me, it decreases because the dollar value has changed dramatically. it's cruel, it's crushing, and the economic violence that the

democrats' failure to understand basic economics has done to the poor, the working poor, the middle class, please just stop hurting people. and it's math. so let's take a look at this. ok. we all got the may number. and we saw the price increases, the p.c.e., the -- when you start to look at the consumer price index, 8.6. do you happen to remember before may, april, march, oh, we hit peak inflation. um. that's absolute crap. and structurally how many of you have actually looked at the gas pump in the month -- in this month? have you seen where gas prices are? put that as a factor in the inflation and tell me that prices are going down, prices have stabilized.

there's an argument out there that we've hit a plateau, it just happens to be an outrageously high plateau. i don't see it yet. we are functionally in what we call a wage price spiral right now. i was made fun of about three or four months ago when i came here and said i think we're on the cusp of a wage-price spiral. guess what? i was right. what's a wage price spiral? a business raises its prices. for my workers to be able to afford twhings need to raise their wages. if we raise their wages, we have to raise our prices. if we raise our prices, you raise the wages. it's the puppy chasing the tail. and right now the only solution the left is offering, the only solution the biden administration is offering is, let the federal reserve break people's back. raise interest rates enough, pull liquidity out of the markets, break their back, put

people in the unemployment lines, that will slow it down. the cruelty of what's gone on here. and there's other solutions. i've been here to the floor multiple times saying there are things we could do tax policy wise. incentives to save. other things that would be great for retirement security. great for growing the economy. and would help. doesn't solve the federal reserve's problems but it would help. the problem is i would need my brothers and sisters on the democrat side to basically open up an economic book and say yeah, maybe making more stuff, maybe become manager productive would be good for society and would be good for pushing down inflation. but god knows the way the democrats run this place, i can't even get an amendment in the ways and means committee anymore. assuming they would actually hold a real hearing. this place is nothing but virtue signaling anymore but it's a virtual signaling that if they would actually talk about what

they've done to people, and the hits keep coming. you start to look -- i know some of these charts are noisy. one of the tough things about talking about this right now is these numbers have been moving so fast that trying to make sure you're using credible third party sources so you're not just making up numbers out of your own office and building a pretty chart but you go out and find the experts. the experts can't keep up with the movement of prices. the economic distortion that's going on, and part of my challenge is go look at your 401k right now are you happy? now you need to add in also the fact of the matter is, the money you have in there is substantially worth less than a year ago. so it's not that your savings, your investments have crashed, also it's buying about 10% less stuff anyway.

you needed to discount rate that. you understand what we have real negative interest rates right now. that's one of the reasons the federal reserve is probably going to have to jack up rates dramatically more than the talking heads are telling you on cable finance news. think about it. if you're living in a country where the interest rate, let's just use 10, it's an easy number. i know the number was .6, in my community it's probably 11. and federal funds rates, let's do a 10-year is what 3 1/2. you see that gap there? that's actually negative. you invested in a 0-year t-bill, 10-year, u.s. sovereign instrument. you just lost all that. the model basically says the federal reserve is going to have to jack up, jack up, jack up interest rates to close that g gap. and be scared. be scared. i've been here on the floor with

charts before that basically said if the mean interest rate is two points higher on u.s. sovereign debt for like 25 years, at the end of that 25 years every dime of tax receipts, every dime of tax revenue, goes to just interest. do you understand the scale of the dystopian misery that the democrats' economic policy has set off? i had great virtue signal, we're going to give money to all these people. great job. they're all poor today. than a year ago when you handed out $1.9 trillion. and you start to look at who you're hurting. you start to look at, you know, folks with -- social security. they're already upside down another percent. you start to look at major

health care programs. the inflation there packing into that. you start take a look at other mandatory spending, at least that's actually been deflated upside town because they don't have the same cola tickers but you start to add up what's going on. major changes in projected outlays. the budget process here is going to be really interesting coming next year when we take the majority because the mess that has to be cleaned up economically is not going to happen in a year. for everyone who may be participate, crazy enough to listen to me, it's going to take years and years, maybe a decade, to just clean up this functionally 24-month cycle of what bad decisions did and for everyone listening, please, rethink your retirement. please, rethink your savings.

please, rethink your investments. you are poor today -- poorer today than you understand. because it multiplies out into the future. and i'm scared. we did one model in our office where, and i have some boards here that are going to touch on this. let's see if i can try to describe it. let's say, let's go back to my retiree. you're on medicare. you're on medicare. there's a hold on the cost of medicare, but not your co-pay. so if medical inflation is going up at almost double the inflation rate, so we had 8.6%, but we have some charts that show medical inflation in the previous month may have been as high as 16.8%. so if you have almost double, that 20% of cash that comes out of your pocket also just doubled.

so you're going to get an 8% hold on your social security. ok. but your medicare premium will adjust some. but your co-pay is skyrocketing. and if you carry that out through the decade, the number of our brothers and sisters who will be in their retirement who will be in poverty, it's math. but doesn't this place care about people? or is it just too painful to step up and say, we screwed up? well, they screwed up. we're going to reach across the aisle. we're going actually work with people who actually showed up to their economics classes. there are some ideas that would be good and they should be bipartisan that actually would help productivity, help people, help people save for retirement and would be great for bending the inflation curve. do you think any of us could get an amendment, actually even

listened to? because they don't care. it doesn't fit the -- remember, we do public policy now by virtue signaling. the incredible difference -- i'm realizing the difference between my brothers and sisters on the left and those of us on the right is my constituents judge us on what did our policies accomplish? i swear to you the media and the left judge their folks on what was their intention, what were their feelings? because if they were judged from what they've accomplished, they've accomplished misery. as of may, 2020, inflation is plateauing. really? rather than peaking. understand what these economists were basically saying is, this isn't the transitory that we were promised over and over and over from the treasury secretary, from the president, from democrat leadership, even my brothers and sisters on the

democratic side of the ways and means, oh, it's temporary. this is a supply chain spike. no, it isn't. such horrible policies, they built a structural inflation problem. and now you're in a wage price spiral and so many of the economists now are trying to say is it's not a peak and a fall, it's a plateau. and one of the things that scarce the crap out of me, i'm sorry, but i don't know a better way to try to -- without crossing the line and cursing and getting my words taken down, is you hit an inflationary stifle with stagflation. meaning you have some economic growth, you have employment, federal reserve is jacking up interest rates, so you're trying to push up some of the employment, you're going to see some unusual charts and data we have here, but the inflation is sticky. and you basically have a plateau

of inflation, you have a plateau of misery, and you're not able to raise it, crash it. and one of the reasons i come to you with that as a personal theory, and it drives some of my economists nuts on the joint economic committee when i say this, is i think we have a much more difficult demographic problem. inflation in the late 1970's, very, very early 1980's, you had this huge baby boom population that was available for labor. available with new technologies and investments to spike productivity. we got a demographic problem. functionally in seven years, 22% of americans 65 -- americans are 65 and older. we've gotten old. we have huge, massive social entitlement promises that we have a moral obligation to keep. the financing of social security, the financing of medicare.

remember, every new dime of debt over the next 30 years is just social security and medicare. i know a lot of folks don't like to hear that, but it is. it's our demographics. the rest of the budget is functionally imbalanced. really hard to break a stagflation cycle without that available population spike, to have that productivity to start to say, we're going to make more stuff, we're cracking inflation. and when you start to see some of the smart economists saying, hey, we got a problem, we're plateauing, it's not a spike, this may be the mei -- the meanr a while. and what's amusing in a very dark way is, i've used this chart once before.

so the projections of where inflation was going to go. and the number of talking heads who would repeat the white house's line that, oh, it's transitory, or it's just temporary or it's putin inflation. come on. at some point treat the american people like adults. they may not have spent their life bathing in the numbers, they don't go home every night and read the economist magazines and these things, that's our job, that's what we're paid to do. other people need to take care of their families and have a life and try to survive these prices. but the tread line on inflation -- trend line on inflation is heading toward almost a 10% plateau. god, i don't think we're going to get there, i really don't. but that's my charting. you know, this was our target, we are nowhere near our target.

we blew through our target by 2.8%. i'm trying to show the happy talk that was going on in the previous three or four months, oh, inflation's transitory, we're going to get -- they've been wrong. and i'm going to do something slightly jerky. i've been here on the floor and i got it right. because we actually looked at the real numbers. you know, when you looked at the april inflation and realized, well, damn it, april inflation, they were calculating they had fuel prices, they had base energy going down .6%, .4 based into the number. that's not what happened in may. all you had to do was break apart and look at the numbers and own a calculator. but remember, we work in a math-free zone. and you start to understand, i know i'm a republican, i come behind the microphone, i sound

like an accountant on steroids, that's not my point. these numbers are people. these numbers are hurting people. there are millions -- as a matter of fact, almost all of america is poorer today than they were 15 months ago when the left took power. judge us by that. and it didn't need to be this way. i mean, what is it, larry summers. i mean, a leftist economist is begging the democrats saying, don't do this. don't do it. don't do it. you're going to hurt people. and oh, no. i'm a member of congress. i understand better than a guy with a ph.d. from harvard. turns out the ph.d. leftist from harvard who is begging you not to do you what did, you went ahead and did it, now you have a republican quoting him on the floor.

only large businesses. , now this one's important, are adding sufficient numbers of workers. so you remember how president biden just -- i think it was yesterday got behind the microphone and said, we have such great employment. the pessimism on small and medium sized businesses has skyrocketed and that's actually where much of our job creation and disruption in the economy and new spikes of productivity come from. they're the risk takers who will try new methods and systems. so right now big business is still doing the hiring. what happens, is that functionally where the federal reserve goes by jacking up interest rates? they're going to crush midmarket and small businesses. is it big business? will once again the outcome, i hope it doesn't come, but every number i look at says it's going to come, the recession the democrats have brought us, is it

going to continue the movement of the united states being a country of oligopolies, because we're going to wipe out a bunch of our smaller businesses, our midsized businesses will get wiped out, but the big boys stay because they can afford the regulatory, they can actually participate in capital markets, is that going to be the outcome once again? that this, once again, becomes more and more of a monopolistic economy? and you also know the problem with that is you don't get a productive society when you have massive players that control so much of the society. the economics. and some of these numbers, got to understands, this number walz the worst reading -- was the worst reading in 49 years for the smaller and midsized businesses doing hiring. so you functionally have almost two economies running at the same time. but this economy here, these small and midsized, are most of our employment.

be worried. these numbers are not warm and fuzzy. now we start to go to some of the cruelty that the democrats' economics have done. you see that bottom line? that's functionally real wages. so, hey, here's inflation wages. hey, i got a raise. look, wages are going up. real purchasing power, i'm poorer today than i was the day before. this gap -- when you hear leftists come behind these microphones and talk about income inequality, they did it. it's driven by crap policy like this. this is what's going on right now. it real wages, people are getting poorer every single day.

and yet the folks here who are willing to just completely mislead on facts, oh, but wages are up. yeah, they're up, but they're not up nearly at the pace of inflation. this is really dangerous. you've got to understands. if numbers like this continue, this is whattaries apart -- this is what tears apart societies. this is not a game. this is beyond me being a republican and i'm beating up on democrats, please, just -- i know we're heading into an election season. i know everything's about knifing each other. but this chart is actually -- this line here are people. these are people getting poorer every single day. and we keep offering suggestions and we can't even get an amendment considered.

i understand the partisan cruelty to our side. we're not in charge. you're in charge. but why the cruelty to your own constituents? because this did not need to happen. and it doesn't need to continue. there are solutions. but maybe those solutions also require something very difficult. if you enter a 12-step program, god knows i've had enough family in 12-step programs, what's the very first step? admit you have a problem. democrats, i challenge you, admit, take the first step. admit you screwed up, you screwed the american people. and you're willing to make it right. you're willing to work with those who own calculators to make it right, to help our brothers and sisters not continue to be poorer every day. and this -- these numbers should

start to scare you. there's a number of economists out there, i believe, who have gotten this wrong. where they say, well, we handed out so much free money in 2021, everyone had so much cash in their bank accounts, they set off inflation because everyone went out and bought a new television. fine. ok. but what happens by the end of 2021? by the end. so several months ago. credit card debt was climbing and had climbed rather substantially. that basically lets you know the way people were maintaining their consumption, their lifestyle, it wasn't that they were building it in their earning power. they chewed up their savings. they were using debt to maintain their lifestyle. this is dangerous because at a

certain point you hit that debt wall and you have how many of your brothers and sisters who all of a sudden now are in real financial stress? you start to see 28% annualized increase in the fourth quarter was the fastest on record. basically saying, hey, fourth quarter last year was the fastest on record of credit card accumulation of debt. so when when my democrat colleagues say, look at the economy, building the economy on fake money and borrowing it to their credit cards. and at the end of the fourth quarter, there was a sizeable but shrinking pool of excess liquid, what they are saying is do you remember how many of us

were coming to the mic and 9.1 trillion you did at the end of march, and pumped this liquidity as you set off inflation and people paid off some debt and had lots of cash in their bank accounts and it was substantially gone by the end of last year. how have been people financing the consumption of these incredible price hikes over the last few months? and we are hunting for the latest borrowing data and seeing preliminary numbers is that a lot of americans now are in substantially more debt so they are poorer than when the democrats handed out $1.9 trillion. within a year, they made people poorer and in debt and have to figure out how to pay for it.

everything that you could do wrong has been done in the 15 months of democrat power. mr. speaker, may i ask for the time? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 28 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. schweikert: thank you mr. speaker pro tempore. and this is the same chart as the last one except the points i'm making on this one, we functionally moved from a trillion 126 billion up. before that, we were at $1.3 trillion of household savings, savings basically has collapsed. anyone talking about this? remember, that was supposed to be the big democrat talking

point, we gave allot of money but shored up people's bank accounts. it's gone. it's gone. and productivity, it wasn't done to investments that lead us into a greater future. the left keeps saying we invest in green energy. fine. but that's not what you did. you basically -- and almost every policy, you do realize in the 15 months the democrats have been in charge, we are burning a hell lot more coal today. 2021 number is 23% more coal was burnt to produce u.s. electrical energy because they ply up the natural gas market and made the united states dirtier. so even on that, they screwed it

up. and then here is the punch line of why i'm here tonight. you see the chart, you see the red, the red line, is that red or maroon? let's go with red. you see this chart right here? that's where folks under $40,000 a year. and red basically means severe hardship. they are in economic stress. this number has exploded under the 15 months of democrat control. this is what they have caused by inflation. by everything around them. they have taken almost modest quart aisle of incomes and brutalizing the poor, they are brutalizing the working poor.

those folks over $100,000, yeah. but most of it is no real hardship. income categories they are doing better. but if you get down to $40,000 and less. so if you ever let someone on the left that they care about the poor, working poor and working middle class, they may care, they may care, and they brutalize them by their policies. and look, it's in the math. once again, the math doesn't lie. the math will set you free. but we seem to do policy by virtue signaling here, not by some of the most compassion nature which is do the right thing and look at the model and look at 2018, 2019 and first quarter, number of our brothers

and sisters that were less poor, one of the most economic rev revivalals and think about this. every bit of those gains are gone and not gone because of the pandemic. they are gone because the last 15 months of horrible economic policy that set off inflation, set off option atlanta and flat lined productivity and screwed up the next decade of our economic future. and these get more difficult to show, but basically, trying to demonstrate when we hit the biden inauguration and the democrats had absolute power here and how quickly, how quickly the financial cushion disappeared. now a lot of this disappeared

because you have the occasion where we are going to hand you a bunch of cash and turns out the inflation chews up the cash than we are handing out money. as of april, 2022, the average retirement benefits -- now this is going to make complete sense and in a scale, the reality is much, much worse, but what we are trying to do is a calculation, if you are getting retirement benefits, how much are you losing, how much is it changing? and our first calculation was about 162 and add more months to that but we are trying to model is every month people on a fixed income, how much poorer are they getting? and that is adjusting and

adjusting colas and going up but the actual purchasing power even adjusted with the cola, they are getting poorer every day and we are getting some of the data about three months behind of trying to do hard calculations. and now you start to look -- and this one is really important and i don't have a brilliant way to try to lay this out, when we look at different demographics. a young family is going to have different consumptions than a couple in their 70's. this is much more medical costs and this one might be education and a new bicycle and what happens when you start to realize that food, energy, when you start to moving it in the charts and come down here and

see medical services where they are in the inflation graph and adjust them to populations and realize you are ending up with a bell curve of misery where older americans are getting crushed and they don't have assets. and this is what what's going on. and i don't know why there isn't a fire drill around here. what would it take for those of us as republicans to basically turn to the democrat majority and white house and speaker pelosi and the left who is in charge here and say, we actually care about americans. we are willing to work with you. let's actually do the fire drill and do the things that set off productivity and expensing on the tax code, let's do this, and do that and instead of the

federal reserve jack up interest rates and they can blame them and not their own policies. our job is to make peoples' lives freer, economically more stable, better, but also someone like myself and i have a six-year-old daughter and we are the same age and yes, i'm an old dad. greatest thing. what is my moral obligation to her future? seriously. for every person, on occasion who shows up and works here, what is your moral obligation to your parents and grandparents and also to these kids? we already have this demographic curve that is going to make fixing inflation much more

difficult. and we are basically shifting. if you are functionally under 40 years old and you are still voting for the left, please, please go to an economics class, go buy a calculator. understand that the amount of misery that has been shifted on to your future. my back of the napkin math says for someone who is ready to graduate college today when they hit their peak earning years, their tax rate will have to be doubled what today's is just to maintain today's benefits. congratulations. look, mr. speaker pro tempore, i still have a number of charts but they are all saying the same thing when the democrats took

power and just what they did in blowing up affordability in our communities, blowing up affordability, productivity in the country and democrat policies, because it's more than just what we voted on here, it was basically threatening investors. it was threatening -- the s.e.c. is going to look at your investments and they used the regulatory state and used up-and-down and virtue signaling within businesses. how many businesses sold their souls so democrats wouldn't say mean things about them? and you start to look at family economic insecurity and it just has exploded again. since the democrats took power.

mr. speaker and to whoever is interested, i am blessed to be the senior republican for the joint economic activity. i have access to very smart people and we are doing our best to understand the numbers and also what we can do with the numbers. last week i became the senior republican for social security. and you are reading the actuary report and you are teaming it with the actuary report for medicare and you start to realize the scale, the numbers here are stunning, the numbers of zeros and we will get the clone show around this place that says we'll fix wages and fraud and if you get rid of foreign aid, none of those things are close to being true. the scale of the problem that was already built into our demographics and promises.

remember the shortfall for social security and medicare is 120 trillion and that hits in 29 years and that is adjusted to today's dollars. add in inflation and the distortion. so my last comment i really want to share is one of our projects we are working hard in our office is if the democrats' inflation continues for 24 months, how much of our society will be in poverty, how many seniors, how many younger people because of the distortion? the function has wiped out all the amazing progress that we made in 2018 and 2019 and 2020.

you hated the last president and the republicans fine, you got rid of it and wiped it all out. but understand in just 15 months, we have all regions, whole populations of our society that are several percent are poorer today and it just doesn't go away and can't do another transfer payment to make it turns out who you vote for does make a difference. and now america gets to pay a price for what they did in the last couple of elections. but they were lied to. they basically thought virtue signaling was policy and it wasn't. it was about winning elections. at some point, mr. speaker, the calculator tells the truth.

at some point we should be judged by our accomplishments for the american people. speak and if -- and if that accomplishment is misery, be held to it. if it's prosperity, take joy in it. but we need to step up and demonstrate we actually understand what's going on in our communities and we're willing to step up and try to fix it instead of talk away from it. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 4, 2021, the chair recognizes the gentleman from montana, mr. rosendale, for 30 minutes. mr. rosendale: thank you, mr. speaker. appreciate that. for tonight's special order, the house freedom caucus would like to discuss our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. i think it's really important that we make exceedingly clear that every one of the members who is going to be here speaking this evening is as upset and disturbed by the tragic events of uvalde as everyone else.

but what we will not do is allow the folks on the left side of the aisle to use that as a tool to, instead of addressing our school safety issues, instead of using it as a tool to address the mental health issues that are rampant across our nation, instead to use it as a tool to diminish the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens across our country. not only reducing their rights, but additionally putting them in jeopardy as well at the same time that they continue to try and undermine law enforcement and compromise the law enforcement community to protect these very same individuals so that they are forced to go out and make sure that they can

defend themselves. and their families. and their property. and this is a problem that we see taking place time and time again across our nation. and this isn't just happening in seattle and in portland and in minneapolis-st. paul. unfortunately we are seeing some of these exact same leftist radicals that would try and strip the power of law enforcement from cities even in the state of montana. no one would ever believe it. but we had ordinances that were proposed in helen, montana, in bozeman, montana, in missoula, montana, to try and defund our law enforcement. at the same time that we've seen crime levels rising everywhere. and they are violent crimes. and i've talked to the attorney general and he has verified that very information. and so the members that are

going to be here tonight, they're going to talk about the second amendment and they're going to talk about it in great detail. because they understand, as the million montanans do, that the second amendment is about much, much more than just hunting. as a matter of fact, there are people, yes, they enjoy hunting with firearms and they also enjoy just target shooting with firearms. but they also have weapons that are antiques or family heirlooms that have been in their homes and their families since the 1800's. the most important thing that the second amendment is about is home security, defending your home and your household. and that's what we're going to hear a lot about tonight. i'm proud to say that montana ranks as the number one state with the most guns per household. and that, my friends, is how we can keep those crime levels

down. 64% of montanans' homes have a gun within them. and guess what, criminals know that. and when you put a sign out that says, we defend our homes, people tend to stay away from those areas. we've got a lot of information to go over this evening and i've got several of my colleagues that are going to be here to help me. and i'm going to start off with my dear friend, representative biggs from the great state of arizona. mr. biggs: i thank the gentleman from montana. it's important for us to be here tonight. it's important for us to address the attack on second amendment. the reason i say that is some people don't care about that second amendment. some people would pack the court to do away with that second amendment. that's an important right. it's so important that in the

heller decision, justice scalia said, quote, the very text of the second amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed. what does it mean when you say that right is pre-existing conditioning? it means that it's not pre-existing? -- is not pre-existing -- is pre-existing? it means it's not a right given by the government and therefore cannot be taken away by the government. instead it's inherent in every individual, every person. the reason i use the word individual is because justice scalia made very clear, after a very lengthy discussion regarding militia versus individuals, that this is an individual right. it isn't some kind of collective. it isn't some kind of government-organized right. it is a god-given right and thus

it is prohibited for the government to infringe upon that right. justice scalia went on to say exactly what i just said. he said, this is not a right granted by the constitution. neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. the second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed. how can anyone who has taken an oath of office to honor, defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, how can they then vote for legislation that would surrender that right to the government? my friends across the aisle have failed to remember how important it is. i'm going to make three quick points. number one, why is an ar-15

important? it is a gun that is light and easy to handle for people who are being attacked. it is a perfect defensive weapon. it is important that we remember that. second thing, good guys with guns actually do, actually do save lives. democrats ignored the recent incident in west virginia where a woman used her ..9 millimeter pistol to stop a shooter who was shooting toward a crowd of people with an ar 15rbgs by the way -- with an ar-15, by the way. they ignored the actions of someone who stopped a shooting at soght soarland springs -- southerland springs, texas. if you're relying on solely the police to come, i love my friends of the blue, we rely on them, we depend on them, but when someone's attacking you, you don't always have time to wait for those first responders to get there. and my last point is this, if you're 18, 19 and 20 years old,

you still have that god-given right to defend yourself and to the second amendment. the proposals of this body ignore the fact that the ninth circuit recently recognized and realized that they have thoseritis and they struck -- those rights and they struck down a california law that imposed a restriction on 18, 19 and 20-year-olds. ladies and gentlemen, those who are listening, don't give up your right. and if you're a member of congress, don't take away this important god-given right. mr. rosendale, thank you for letting me speak. i yield back to you. mr. rosendale: thank you very much, representative biggs. one of our strongest defenders of the second amendment here in the body. you know, if the left wants to address this issue, let's be up front about it. let's be honest about it. let's stop trying to undermine

the second amendment through changes in statute. let's stop trying to strip away people's rights by inserting something into a law that later would be struck down by the supreme court. if you want to be honest and upfront about stripping away people's rights, then come to this floor, propose an amendment to the constitution, debate it here on the floor. send it to the united states senate. see if you can get that done. and then send it back to the people of the united states and see how they feel about it. that's how this is supposed to take place. you cannot violate the constitution and strip away people's rights. with that, i'm going to yield time to my good friend from colorado, mrs. boebert. mrs. boebert: thank you very much. you know, i love what mr. biggs from arizona was saying, how these are our god-given rights. that right there is fundamental.

and that is why we have a government, to secure our god-given rights. none of our rights come from politicians. our rights are not granted to us by the executive, by the legislative, by the judicial branch. they are granted to us by god. these are our natural rights. they're inalienable. and for anyone to say i'm from the federal government and i'm here to help, well, those are very dangerous words. another thing that is dangerous is gun-free zones. i am a co-sponsor of congressman massie's bill that would remove the law that makes our schools gun-free zones. that makes them soft targets. our children are our nation's most valuable assets. and the more value an asset has, the more protection it should

have. we secure our banks, we secure our airports, we secure the white house, we've even seen the capitol surrounded by fences, miles of razor wire on top of that fence, 26,000 armed national guard because even my colleagues on the other side of the aisle understand that borders that are secure and armed security works. we need to harden our schools. we need to secure our schools. i believe that this starts at a very local level. maybe there's something there that can be a boost from the federal government, some of this unspent covid money to go towards boosting security in our schools. but we don't need to be inching away the rights and liberties of american citizens. liberty lost never comes back. we don't get that liberty back that we give away and we certainly were not elected to

legislate away liberty from our constituents. we are here to keep the american people free. that is the proper role of government. and a lot of people would like to say that the second amendment, well, it's great because we know you want to hunt. the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. our founding fathers did not just return from a hunting expedition when they created the bill of rights. when they drafted that. no, they just got done liberating a nation from a tyranical, oppressive king, and they wanted a government that was so strong and powerful that it would be able to fight off that tyranny and oppression that anyone from around the world might seek to reimpose on this people. but they also wanted a government so limited that it would never impose that same

tyranny and oppression on its own people. isn't it interesting that we heard for weeks how american taxpayers need to send money to ukraine to make sure that those citizens are armed. now the same people who are saying that we the same people who said we were bought by outin, while our southern border is unsecure and we have an invasion taking place at our southern border and supply chain crisis and inflation that is skyrocketing and put america first but the same people who voted against that spending are now seeking to take the rights from american citizens and these same people who had no problem arming ukraine and wanting to disarm

american citizens also called to defund the police and we saw 24 of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle just today vote to not provide added security to our supreme court justices who have had mob violence at their homes. murderous attempts against a supreme court justice and 24 of these radical leftists said no, they're fine. we are not going to send police to protect you. you won't be able to protect yourself. all rogue. this is a lawless administration that we are serving under and i would imfloor the senate to not compromise on the american citizens' rights and i would note that the 10 we have heard are that would limit the freedoms of americans are either

not coming back to the senate, retiring or not up for re-election and that is very, very telling and i will not give an inch of the second amendment of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and protect themes especially when cries from this chamber are calling to defund law enforcement and our southern border is wide open allowing the cartels to send whatever they want through those borders. thank you for lead us tonight and i want to make reference it is the house freedom caucus that is setting the standard in protecting american liberties and thank you very much for holding this tonight. mr. rosendale: thank you very much. you know, we continue to hear the democrats talk about the flawed arguments that the founding fathers didn't know that weaponry would advance the

way it has that the founding fathers would never force us to do something against our will or deny us of due process. please consider some of the activities that have taken place and the mandates placed upon us over the last two careers and don't tell me that we have a government that has reached well beyond its boundaries. with that, i would like to turn some time to my good friend from ohio who knows what it means to fight for our country. >> mr. speaker, i don't think there could be a more serious matter before this body. everyone in the country and in the world knows we can't continue to see what is happening in our cities and our schools, in vulnerable communities and can't continue to see those things happening. and sadly, democrats have a

preconceived play for every tragedy. our famous democrat coined the phrase never let an emergency go to waste or a crisis go to waste. it is a crisis for sure but it isn't the fact that america has guns or americas have guns. what is difference is the level of despair in our and not just in mass shootings but in the rise of violent crimes and rise in suicides and fatal overdosees.

>> they know how it's going to end. it's a gun. but the solution that the democrats play, a longstanding wish list and had a dream to repeal the second amendment and don't want to campaign on that. our colleague, mr. mondaire jones from new york, when we were moving some of these bills through committee said, quote, you will not stop us from passing gun control. if the filibuster obstructs us we will abolish. we will not rest until we have taken weapons of war. justin trudeau agrees. but he is the prime minister of canada. canada doesn't have a second amendment. just today i was walking from the senate side to the house

side and reporter asked me and pointed out inaccurately does the second amendment grant us the right to bear arms. nothing. the bill of rights grants us nothing. the second amendment is the limitation on the ability of government to infringe our preexisting rights just as the declaration recognized. we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights that is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. this is the extension of the right to life and hopefully tomorrow we will see the supreme court defend life. you can't defend freedom without defending life. one of the key instruments defending life is the right to keep and bear arms. people refer to some weapons as

weapons of war. no, they are not the same weapons as weapons of war. those were outlawed in the 1930's under the national firearm act and been outlawed for a long time. a semi-automatic rifle or pistol is not a weapon of war although they are used in that mode in combat. they are very effective in war but our founding fathers didn't vest the defense of this nation originally in a standing army. they said we don't want a standing army. we have to defend the defense budget every cycle. we can't have it operate in perpetuity without re-authorizing every time. we had a standing navy, but we didn't have a standing army. let's read the text of the second amendment. the second amendment says, and i quote, a well regulated militia

being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. famous words. people want to pretend that somehow the second amendment granted the state the ability to keep and bear arms. the -- if you are in the military or militia. that is the same right that the north korean army has. what a fallacy and i can't believe some of our countrymen fall for that. they know, though, they know, but they say the lie any way. what are we going to do about it? we are not going to surrender our freedoms because freedom surrender, we aim top keep our second amendment as ben franklin

after walking out of the constitutional, what have you wrought sir, a republicic, we aim to keep it as the peoples' representatives. who defends freedom in congress? the freedom caucus and we are taking this time tonight but people have the right to say, what are we going to do about it? if you listen to the debate, you might know there are a lot of shooters that turn into mass murderers, doers of evil deeds that people will say after the fact, well, you know everybody knew johnny or whoever was crazy. we saw this coming. maybe we could have stopped him. if only there was a red flag law. so people in america might not realize that in every single

state and in the district of columbia, it's already possible to stop such a person. the laws are known as baker acts. it's possible to have a person even involuntary against their will adjudicated men tallly incompetent. the person has the right to confront his or her accusers. that law locks up the right thing, you can't deprive the person under the 5th amendment or 14th, life, liberty or property without due process. red flag laws get rid of the due process and first you seize the guns and get the due process. it locks up the guns. the person is the dangerous thing. so you take the guns away from the person. the person if they are mentally dangerous, they could get access

to guns perhaps in other ways as a substantial portion of shooters do. perhaps they could drive a car, they could use a blade and all kinds of ways to harm others and they could harm themselves turning into one of the tragic suicides that occur every day in our country. the baker acts ought to be the things that people focus on and focus on things why aren't those laws used. my colleagues know of these but they don't bring them up and the om way to stop is with the red flag laws and democrats have had a longstanding desire to go after the second amendment and republicans break ranks. i was disappointed to see they voted for gun control in the

house five of them are not running again. in the senate, there is 10 that are openly supportive of this outline framework of a deal and haven't seen text but it encourages red flag laws that ought to be ruled unconstitutional as all civil asset forfeiture. it is disproportionately used in minority and disadvantaged communities and why and how? because they don't have the money to get the assets back. and you have to go to court to prove the property is yours or you are able to own it safely and when you talk about a gun, guns aren't always cheap. lawyers are more expensive. so most people will buy another gun rather than go back and

fight the unjust action in the courts. so ripe for abuse and supports susm measures and people will pull back and rethink not rethink and look at baker acts and acts of despair that are wrecking ing our lives and stop falling for the fallacies that gun control is going to control the evils. i yield back. mr. rosendale: i am proud to stand here with the members of the freedom caucus because they are the ones that we are standing here on a simple task to defend the rights of the people across this nation and with that, i turn over some time and yield to my good friend from

georgia, representative hice. mr. hice: i thank you for your leadership on this issue and all the members of the house freedom caucus who stand for the issues that are both constitutional and extremely important to the american citizens. all of us, all of us, all of us have been shocked over and over to see the unspeakable acts of violence that have been taking place and rising in intensity and see the heart-wrenching situations that these tragedies create and families and communities and we see the effect they have on our nation as a whole. when these type of things happen, the reaction has become predictable from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle from the media and others who jump to conclusions and

politicize the tragedies and transfer to an agenda that includes disarming law-abiding citizens and stripping our con stocious neal protected amendments. stricter regulations is not the answer. stripping constitutional rights is not the answer to these when considering how to deal with issues like mass shootings we've got to dig down to the root cause. this is smon sense. we have a major problem, let's get to the cause of the problem. firearms are just a tool. like with any tool, the tool is only as effective or ineffective as the one operating the tool. look, i am not a violent person. that's why i don't have violent guns. the guns are not the problem.

the person is the problem. and if you have a violent person as has already been stated tonight, a violent person is going to commit violent acts. what's our response here? let's not go after the person, let's not deal with the cause, let's go after the tool, the instrument that was used. that does not solve the problem. look, we -- if we are ever going to deal with issues like mass shootings, and a host of other issues of that nature, then we have got to look at the problem, which is the shooter. we in this country right now, we are a nation in deep moral and spiritual crisis. among other things, we are watching our values in the family unit deteriorate right under our nose. just today we had a hearing in

oversight committee where the democrats were yet again offering one piece of legislation after another that continues to deteriorate and dismantle the most critical unit in this country, that is the family unit. and here we are having -- i would challenge anyone to not -- to take a deeper look at those who committed such violent, heinous crimes we have watch and see what their family life was like. what their spiritual life was like. and we will start finding some of the issues here. that must be addressed. yet we have so many attempts right now to address all the wrong things. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 4, 2021, the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. smucker, for 30 minutes. mr. smucker: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to discuss something that has been on my mind, discuss an issue that we've been talking about, been holding hearings in the budget committee and the ways and means committee. and that is the state of our economy. and what i would characterize as

the dire state of our economy, which i believe, and i'll demonstrate with some charts this evening, is due to the reckless budgetary policies of this administration. and what i'm talking about is today we have inflation at 8.6%, which is the highest level in over 40 years. we also have a g.d.p. or gross domestic product, the total output of our economy, that is shrinking in the first quarter. it shrank 1.4%. we may well be on the way to a recession if the second quarter shows that it's shrinking as well. so there's no better time than right now to renew our nation's commitment to fiscal responsibility and to make a difference in the lives of the people that we represent. let's talk a little bit about

inflation. food prices are up 10.1%. real wages, that's the difference between inflation and the rise of wages, are down 3.4%. as of today. meaning that the average family is facing an effective pay cut of $1,500 just this year. gas prices, everyone knows, gas prices are at their highest ever. with average prices in my hometown of lancaster, pennsylvania, now reaching -- exceeding $5 a gallon. overall energy costs, home fuel oil and others included, is up 34.6%. unfortunately, as i'll point out tonight, the spending spoils enacted and pushed by the biden administration and by democrats in congress are really responsible for driving inflation and are certainly even

if you don't agree with that, they were certainly saddling future generations with debt. our kids, someone will pay the price for the massive debt we have now. unfortunately that will be kids and grandkids and future generations. you know, it's been said, congress has a habit of only addressing a problem when we reach a crisis. only addressing issues when we reach a crisis. but that crisis may have already begun right now. we're in a pretty tough spot in our economy at the moment. and people are feeling it every single day. so we must step up to begin to address this. every -- every member of congress, i'm sure, has talked to their constituents and can share stories about how their constituents are impacted by rising prices. i can tell you myself, growing up as a child, i experienced what it was like to have it be

difficult for my family to afford food. i was one of 12 kids. my father was first a farmer and roofer. my mom was a stay at home mom. and i can tell you, stressful time for my mother was going to the grocery store. and the reason for that is because she knew she would not have quite enough money to buy everything that she thought she needed. i remember walking with her up and down the aisles and she was calculating in her head how much she was putting in the cart, was very concerned and she would get to the register and be embarrassed that she would have to put some things back. and today people are feeling that. i hear in my district, for instance, my constituent, lamar, he put the impact of inflation in clear terms. he tells me that he spends more now but has less. he's doing with less. paul says he's sadly giving up on his hopes of retirement.

at this time. tim said he that is to choose between gas and groceries every week. laverne, 66 years old, had to go back to work to help out his children and his grandchildren now. though the impact of inflation on future debt will mean that his grandchildren will be paying the costs of the reckless spending that we're seeing now. they'll be paying for that for decades. so we've all heard from our constituents. we've heard their outcries. we've heard them talk to us about needing to rein in inflation. i think it's time we take it as a wakeup call. let's identify the causes of inflation and work to mitigate them and that's one of the reasons that i wanted to get up and speak tonight. because we've had debates in both the committees that i mentioned about the causes of inflation and that's not just a political debate, it's not just

because, it's because the only way we can begin to solve it is to understand the root cause of inflation, what led to where we are now and then what we can do to change it. it's going to take leadership at all levels of government to address not only inflation but the $30 trillion now in debt and trillions of dollars in deficits as far as we can see and as far as the biden budget projects. now i'm a business owner, not an economist. so i can't even say that i have all the answers. but what i can tell you is that i believe that capitalism, freedom, free enterprise have made the united states the most powerful nation in the history of the world, has provided more opportunity than ever before in the history of humankind and i

think returning to those core values can help lead us, will help lead us out of this mess. so let's talk, first of all, a chart i want to show you, inflation, it does not arrive randomly. there are forces that cause inflation. every time we've seen inflation now history there are forces that cause it. and in this case we've had things that are outside of our control and democrats will argue the president blames inflation on covid-19, supply chain disruptions, russia's invasion of ukraine, the big bad oil and gas companies, and other things. i don't know what the next thing is that he'll be blaming inflation on. but i agree. they certainly is li have played a role in causing inflation. however, those challenges are the same challenges that every

other country across the world has faced. and they do not explain why inflation in the united states spiked earlier and is much worse than what we are seeing in other countries. this chart shows the annual corps c.p.i. inflation compared to oecd which is sort of peer country, the organization for economic cooperation and development countries. it shows how inflation spiked started roughly the beginning of 2021 and far exceeded that of comparable countries. so what caused that? well, i have another chart that puts a little finer point on this. this shows that inflation started about the time that biden took office. and really accelerated after the

passing of the american rescue plan, which put trillions of dollars in spending into our economy. now i showed that chart today in a hearing in budget to mr. steven moore of the save america coalition and he agreed that the clear difference between what we saw in the past chart, the blue line, and the other countries, the clear difference was the stimulus that was provided, the increase in demand that was provided by inserting trillions of dollars into the u.s. economy through the american rescue plan act. and by the way, mr. speaker, i have a -- i have an article i'd like to insert into the record, if i may. i wrote an op-ed that was published in "the hill" on how president biden's policies have caused and will further fuel inflation. i'd like to submit that for the

record, if i may. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smucker: thank you, sir. march, 2021, the biden administration, congressional democrats, rammed through $1.9 trillion in deficit spending and by the way, only a small portion of that really went to solving problems and helping people that needed help through the pandemic. that helps to defeat the pandemic. so much of this was not needed and only served to fuel inflation. and by the way, they were warned by many economic experts, we warned them, republicans on the committees, both budget and ways and means, warned democrats at the time this was passed in early 2021 that we would see exactly this result. we were relying on the forecasts of many economists who were saying exactly that, who were warning the administration of that at the time. not just republican economists, by the way. there's a name that many of you

will know. former obama and clinton economist, treasury secretary larry somers. warned that the american rescue plan would be the biggest macroeconomic mistake in 40 years. and it would cause inflationary pressures of a kind that we have not seen in a generation. again, larry somers. very well respected. democrat administration. economist. warning that we would be seeing the inflation that we're seeing now over a year ago when the american rescue plan was passed. just recently, a study by the san francisco federal reserve confirms that prediction, attributing the american rescue plan for at least three points of the current eight-point -- current 8.6%. mark golwin of the committee for responsible federal budget,

crfb, described the american rescue plan as, quote, pouring gasoline on the fire, in terms of an already overstimulated economy. in my discussion with c.b.o. director fillip sweyingle, during a house budget committee hearing last month, he also agreed, head of c.b.o., that the american rescue plan act pumped trillions of dollars into the economy that artificially fueled demand and ultimately drove today's inflation crisis. so what happened in we we had f. he tweeted and wanted to send more money to people all across pennsylvania after people jobs were open and people were back to work because he said and you see it, states are swimming with

cash. they have an unusual problem. this is the week they are finishing the pennsylvania budget and much of that came as a result of the american rescue plan and was excess money that wasn't needed in the economy. those funds would have been far better used paying down the deficit and the debt and not fueling inflation by boosting demands. it is unfortunate, because this hurts my constituents, hurts people all across the country that the white house did not heed the call of experts sooner and did not take steps to reduce the impacts of inflation. for a while, the white house instead said that inflation would be tran shy tower. and just recently secretary of the treasury and jerome powell

backed off that argument and agreed they were wrong that inflation wasn't and we haveal real problem. secretary yellen said in a ways and means hearing just last week and i think i was wrong then about the path that inflation could take. sad thing about inflation is that it impacts different people differently and the white house has claimed that inflation are high-class woes and the economy challenges that we are seeing today but instead, it's the people on the lower end of the economic scale who are making less money who are impacted more than any others by inflation. the penn-wharton model said that

inflation disproportionately impacts lower-income americans who have to pay a food and it out paces the general inflation rate. as i mentioned earlier, the white house tries to blame corporate greed, gas companies, russia, whatever may be at the source of inflation and it only serves to deflect plame and obscure the truth and prevent us from coming to an agreement where we can begin to solve this. i think that the president became more interested in inflation after he seen his plummeting approval rates. he is talking about inflation being a top priority. and he wrote an op ed titled my plan for fighting inflation and

i would like to talk about that. and begins the op ed by arguing that our economy is in great shape, which strikes help about being as out of touch. he isn't talking about the constituents that i talk to on a regular basis and lays out three points for combatting inflation, one, it's the fed's job and energy policies and build back agenda will fix it and three, new-found discipline and he said he welcomes debate on his plan and p map tonight, we are debating what really are the ways we can combat inflation and whether his plan will work. let's talk about the fed. the president's first point saying it is the fed's responsibility to control

inflation and the president has spent a year and a half pushing policies that fuel inflation and points to the fed to fix the problem. i do agree that the fed has a role in controlling inflation. and essentially the tool they have will be to raise interest rates to try and slow down the economy. but we all know that raising rates, which will be required, which they are doing now, tomorrow they are talking about .75% increase in the federal rate which is a significant increase and talking about doing it multiple times. it has significant consequences both in the short and long-term. it makes it more expensive for businesses to bore money and individuals to bore money. we are seeing home mortgage

rates go up significantly already and will continue to do that and hundreds of thousands less fewer people today are able to buy a home than they could have when the rates were lower. there will be a decrease for goods and services and attempt to tamp down the economy to decrease spending. but the other entity that is affected is the fed. the government. and we have $30 trillion in debt. and for every -- this chart shows what will happen as interest rates are being raised. just raising a half of a percent, you see the first line,

will increase interest costs over the next 10 years by $1.3 trillion and going up 2% will increase interest costs by 5.3 trillion over the next 10 years. let's put that in perspective. that would be under the president's plan, 1.5 times our current medicare spending and 1.4 times our defense spending and 11 times our current veterans' health care spending. every single dollar that we have to pay in additional interest costs will be taking dollars from programs that will help people across the country and will be taking dollars out of our economy. increasing national debt is also a threat to our national security.

and mr. speaker, if i can introduce another article, also wrote an op ed in may that was published in ""washington times"." laying out how increased was ultimately undermines our national security. china perhaps our greatest adversary owns $1.1 trillion of the national debt. that is the second highest total and increased dependence on china is a clear threat to our national security. if it continues, china's portion will increase to 1.7 trillion over the next decade. interest payments as they rise will mean more income for china and will directly china's growth

making them a stronger economic adversary. joint chiefs of staff admiral mullen said the most significant threat to our national security is our debt. that was 12 years ago. most significant threat to our national security is our national debt. at that time, the nation's federal debt was 13.5 trillion. now it's at $30 trillion and growing. what could be even worse is if our lenders lose faith in the ability of the united states to pay back, make good on those loans, essentially lose faith in the credit of the united states, that would be what we call a korch debt crisis, a major

economic impact in the united states affecting every single american and that is not merely a hypothetical. we have seen major nations face sovereign debt crises. grease's 12.7% of its g.d.p. by 2012, it was 160%. under the analysis, our debt held by the public will reach 126% of g.d.p. by 2032 with the anticipated increase interest rates and will put us well on the way if we don't change our trajectory and fiscal calamity that grease experienced not long ago and long past time for the u.s. to get our fiscal house in order and abandon the reckless

budgetary policies that comping the greek economy at that time. let's talk about energy, another big factor in the inflation area in the rising prices we are seeing and this chart blows me away. average price of gas exceeds $5 a gallon. think about that. a year and a half ago, two years ago, no one would have imagined that we would be spending $5 per gallon and see the same thing in heating costs and so on and the president blames and focuses on the role of russia but you know what is amazing under president trump and president biden took office, our nation was energy

independent becoming a net exporter of oil in 2019 and some of the very first action that president biden took was to halt drilling on federal lands and halt the keystone pipeline and even as prices went up, the administration doubled down on limiting the supply of our drilling. no new permits. so it is a classic economic formula and dramatically increased demand and reduced supply which led to the prices that we are seeing now. the president just put out his new budget. and he says now really the first time, i think, since he has been office that it is important to reduce deficits.

welcome that. i think it is important that we reduce deficits. we have to reduce the debt -- debt long and he claims he reduced due to the reduce of spending in the american rescue plan and he says that this reduction demonstrates a new-found commitment to fiscal discipline. let's look at that for a little bit. the 10,000 calories today, which is way more than i need and tomorrow i eat 5,000, that doesn't make me a model. doesn't mean i'm on a diet and when you look at this plan, this is the president's budget straight from his budget documents, i got there was an

anomaly during covid and it was a challenge for all of us and the deficit went way up during covid but look at the deficit before covid, which is the second bar on the left side. and coming out of covid, what happens? do you see, if you take out the two covid years which was an exception, an anomaly, do you see deficits declining at all? no. they are going up every single year. that is not fiscal responsibility. to say we are reducing deficits to say this is what it looks like in their budget, it is swamp math. you step one foot outside the beltway and every single american that looks at this does not believe we are reducing

deficits in any way. and i don't mean -- i mean it as a knock on the administration, but what i mean to say is that we have to get serious about implementing policies that will drive growth and will result in lower deficits over time or we will be going down that path of fiscal calamity besides this, ts

adjourned until 10:00 house purity for supreme court justices and their families. 27 democrats voted against the measure which now heads to the president. members passed a funding bill to support wildlife conservation and the protection of endangered species. live coverage of the house when they return here on c-span.

>> -- the student administrator testified before a subcommittee. watch tonight on c-span. c-span now, our free mobile video app, or anytime online at c-span.org. c-span is your unfiltered view of government. funded by these television companies, including cox. >> squatting in a diner for internetwork is hard. we are providing lower income students access to affordable internet so homework so -- so homework can just be homework. >> cox along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >>