Harriet Hageman

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time and for his leadership on this important issue. Since its founding in 2006, Mountain Gateway Ministries has been changing people's lives through the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the feeding and clothing of those in need, and the provision of water, food, equipment, and recovery assistance during and after natural disasters. These noble and selfless efforts have had far-reaching impacts on the lives of so many families and individuals extending far beyond the borders of any individual Nation. In 2013, Mountain Gateway Ministries began their important work in Nicaragua, spreading the Lord's word to hundreds of thousands of people. The ministry has started and supported multiple churches across the country, provided countless aid and helping hands through hurricanes and other humanitarian relief projects, and has even gone as far as to run a Fairtrade coffee farm with the goal of providing a source of stable income for local residents in nearby rural communities. Over the course of 10 years, they have operated with the cooperation and approval of the Nicaraguan authorities. Unfortunately, this all changed after the ministry held a series of evangelistic services in 2023, which nearly 1 million people attended. Shortly after those services ended, the Nicaraguan government rapidly changed its position and began a relentless campaign of wrongful persecution. In December 2023, under the guise of false money laundering claims and with little to no notice, the Nicaraguan government canceled the ministry's legal status, arrested several Nicaraguan pastors and ministry partners, threatened the arrest of U.S. citizens involved with the ministry, seized the ministry's properties, and froze its bank accounts. After spending months at a Nicaraguan prison with no access to legal counsel, no visits from their relatives, and being unable to hear the allegations against them, the trials against those arrested commenced. During the trial, the presiding judge arbitrarily elevated the charges against these individuals to aggravated money laundering claims. All the Nicaraguan defendants were found guilty of the elevated charges and sentenced to severe punishments, including over 10 years in prison and fines amounting to tens of millions of dollars. These instances of wrongful targeting and persecution have unfortunately become routine actions by the Nicaraguan government. The same government has taken similar steps against the Catholic Church, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and many other religious groups, charities, and civic organizations. Mr. Speaker, what is currently unfolding in Nicaragua with the members of Mountain Gateway Ministries is a travesty, an injustice on the greatest scale. From the time of their arrest to the handing down of their sentences, the treatment of these individuals and the ministry is in complete contradiction to the most fundamental freedoms and beliefs that we hold here in America, including the freedom of religion, presumption of innocence, and the guarantee of due process and equal treatment under the law. I commend Mountain Gateway founder Jon Britton Hancock and his family, who are constituents of mine in Wyoming, for bringing this to my attention and for their tireless efforts to advocate for the just treatment and release of these individuals. I urge President Biden, the State Department, and all of my colleagues to call on the Nicaraguan government to take prompt action to address these violations of religious freedom and abandonment of justice and due process.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate Congress's intent to further describe its expectations of the executive branch when interpreting, administering, and complying with this bill's provisions should it become law. The legislative intent of this bill is simple, yet Congress is compelled to further clarify the record on this bill to pre-empt an executive branch that routinely seeks to avoid the letter of the law through rule- and policy-making, and in the face of an administration opposed to this bill. The Fourteenth Amendment establishes that a U.S. citizen is a person born or naturalized in the U.S. Federal law further clarifies that a U.S. citizen is someone who is a citizen of the U.S. by law, birth, or naturalization. Under H.R. 7109, it is this citizenship status that the federal government is to collect through the decennial census, and then determine apportionment and the electoral college. Should this bill become law, Congress intends the executive branch to use this definition when implementing the Act, and no rule or policy can infringe on this requirement. Congress would typically expect the executive branch to execute all of the Nation's lawful force as instructed by the legislative branch and as required by the separation-of-powers provisions found in the Constitution. Congressional and judicial scrutiny of the acts of the executive branch has continued to increase over time because of its propensity to ignore, misinterpret, or misapply Congressionally imposed restrictions or mandates. The current administration has a track record of routinely pushing the limits of, and outright ignoring, the law to achieve political goals through rulemaking and other executive policy. The Biden Administration's regulatory abuse is exemplified through a variety of actions, such as the Department of Education's Income Drive Repayment Program; a slate of Environmental Protection Act rules, such as Multi-Pollutant Emissions Standards for Model Years 2027. Later Light-Duty and Medium-Duty Vehicles, and the Clean Power Plan 2.0; the Bureau of Land Management's Conservation and Landscape Health Rule; and the Security and Exchange Commission's Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors. None of these rulemakings find a foundation in the laws, yet the Administration has moved forward with them in furtherance of a political agenda. The scope of this issue is further confirmed as a contributing factor in the Supreme Court's consideration of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Congress should also be concerned about the Biden Administration's willingness to carry out this Act as written in light of its stated opposition to the Equal Representation Act. Just this week, the Biden Administration issued a formal Statement of Administration Policy ``strongly opposing the bill.'' Contrary to the Administration's statement, this law is imperative to gathering important information on the number of non-citizens living here, to the integrity of U.S. elections, and to ensuring that only American citizens are counted towards Congressional apportionment. This is especially so at a time when the Biden Administration is allowing non-citizens en masse into the country. Congress intends to collect information on the citizenship status of all census respondents, using the legal definition of a United States citizen, and to use this count to determine Congressional apportionment and the electoral college. No administrative rulemaking or policy can or should be used to waive, circumvent, provide exceptions to, or otherwise change the intent of Congress in the Equal Representation Act.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Superior National Forest Restoration Act presented by my good friend and colleague, Mr. Stauber. Northern Minnesota has a long, proud legacy of responsible mining that was pivotal in our Nation's victory in World War II. As we enter into greater strategic competition with China, we are presented with a similar challenge: We can either source American critical minerals such as those contained in the Superior National Forest ourselves or become even more dependent on our chief adversary for our mineral and energy needs. America has the most stringent environmental standards in the world, and we are being forced to source minerals from dictators and despots who use child labor and who are without concern for the ecological impacts. We have abundant resources here at home, including the abundant Duluth Complex. Despite the environmental and economic benefits of these minerals, the Obama and Biden administrations have consistently worked to block exploration and development of these lands. This bill will reinstate the mining leases for the world's largest untapped copper-nickel deposit and help our Nation dominate the critical mineral sector while providing hundreds of reliable, well- paying jobs. This is an economic issue and a national security issue. We can either be beholden and reliant on a foreign nation that seeks to supplant us, or we can be a global leader in the critical mineral industry. I support the Twin Metals project, I support this bill, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, delisting the gray wolf does not mean we no longer monitor or manage the population. In fact, the exact opposite is true. This bill allows State agencies who know their land and wildlife best and who already have management plans in place to manage wolves in a way that protects life and property and allows all species in the ecosystem to thrive. Minnesota has the largest population of wolves in the lower 48. There are over 6,000 wolves in Minnesota, and they refer to the northern part of the State as the dead zone because wolves have largely wiped out all other wildlife: the deer, the muskrats, the beavers, et cetera. It is our States, not the Federal Government, who supply the vast majority of time, money, and expertise to manage wildlife, and their record of success demonstrates clearly that species management is more effective when carried out by State and local agencies. It is State management agencies, not the Federal Government, that recovered and delisted the gray wolf in 2020, only to have radical enviro-activists sue to keep them listed. For years, populations throughout the West have been well above the recovery thresholds prescribed in the Endangered Species Act. Yet, officials in the Department of the Interior, beholden to radical environmental NGOs, continually shift the recovery goalpost to keep species like the gray wolf and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear listed as endangered, preserving their budget and control over Western lands. Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on a recovered species, the Fish and Wildlife Service should focus its time and efforts on species that are actually at risk of becoming extinct. The science demonstrates how successful State management plans for the gray wolf have been, and the Fish and Wildlife Service's own research has stated that: `` . . . wolves are likely to retain a healthy level of abundance. . . .'' And they also said: `` . . . do not meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe it is our State management officials, those who are on the ground and in the community, who are best equipped to manage our wildlife and can serve our environment, not unelected officials working from concrete buildings in Washington, D.C. Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho are classic examples of this fact. All three have maintained a recovered wolf population for well over 20 years. Contrary to what my colleagues on the other side would say, that the plans that have been passed by the States would never pass judicial muster, the facts are the opposite. In fact, it was the Circuit Court of Appeals right here in D.C. that ordered the Fish and Wildlife Service to delist the gray wolf in the State of Wyoming. I thank Ms. Boebert for introducing this commonsense bill and encourage my colleagues to vote for its passage.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Chair, I think it is important for the American people to understand the scope of what we are talking about and what our government is purchasing from these third-party brokers. Data brokers aggregate packages and sell the data acquired from a variety of sources, including those that have already been described today. Often, data brokers have thousands of different data points reflecting information about a person that, when combined, reveal valuable and intimate insights about an individual that would otherwise be unavailable. In other words, for data brokers, consumers and their information are the product. For example, data brokers can receive geolocation data, sometimes accurate to just a few yards, from a mobile device up to 14,000 times per day. This data allows a purchaser to identify patterns that can reveal where a person lives, where they work, and where they spend their free time. These actions allow government agencies and law enforcement to evade the Fourth Amendment if they are allowed to purchase this data and collect limitless information on Americans. The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act closes this legal loophole and stops data brokers from selling Americans' personal information to the government by requiring the government to obtain a court order before acquiring customer or subscriber information from a third party. The fact is that we all support our police. We want them to have the tools that they need to catch the bad guys, but I think if there is anything that has been disclosed over the last several years, it is that there are people within our intelligence community and who work for the Federal Government, including the FBI, the IRS, and similar agencies, who are abusing their power and authority and going after people for political reasons. Mr. Chair, that is one of the most important reasons as to why we need to close this loophole. As technology continues to advance and Americans incidentally share more data through the devices we use every day, it is imperative for Congress to protect privacy interests and ensure that government agencies and law enforcement abide by the Fourth Amendment. This bill does nothing more and nothing less. It simply protects our Fourth Amendment rights. Every person who has been elected to this body took an oath of office to uphold our Constitution. That is what we are attempting to do with the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today, the House will vote on H.R. 4639, the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act. Last July, the House Judiciary Committee favorably reported the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act by a vote of 30-0, with one Member voting present. This bill makes crucial changes and closes a glaring loophole that allows the government to sidestep the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to purchase data of Americans. I thank my colleague, Congressman Davidson, for introducing this much-needed legislation. This bill is the result of years of bipartisan negotiation, and I look forward to this debate and vote. The Fourth Amendment guarantees to all of us the right to be free of unreasonable government searches and seizures. However, the law and doctrine concerning the Fourth Amendment has failed to keep pace with the development of digital technologies. Nearly 40 years ago, Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, or ECPA, in an attempt to navigate the digital age, but it is clear that legislation is now insufficient to protect the constitutional rights of Americans. It is time that Congress accounts for the technological advances that have occurred in the decades since ECPA was passed. Today, seemingly every American carries a smartphone with them wherever they go. These devices contain vast amounts of information of Americans, such as where they travel, what they purchase, their health information, and so on. As the Supreme Court has noted, these devices ``hold for many Americans the privacies of life.'' Before the modern internet, the Fourth Amendment required law enforcement to execute a search warrant and subpoena the items they wished to review. The officer executing the search would have to provide a copy of the warrant and an inventory of the property seized. However, today, Federal agencies often sidestep the requirements of the Fourth Amendment and access and collect massive amounts of private information on Americans by exploiting a legal loophole in the ECPA and Fourth Amendment doctrine. While ECPA prohibits communications companies from providing customer information to the government in the absence of a subpoena, warrant, or other court order, no such prohibition exists for providing this information to third parties, such as data brokers. Instead of going to a judge to demonstrate probable cause and obtain a warrant, government agencies, like the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security can simply turn to data brokers and purchase mass amounts of Americans' data. The government is collecting vast amounts of data by purchasing it from data brokers or other third parties. Media reports have detailed that some data brokers have even tracked people at places of worship and at protests. While the Judiciary Committee has in recent years advanced major reforms to overhaul ECPA, those bills have not yet passed into law. It is long past time that Congress acts to protect the privacy of Americans. There is strong bipartisan support in Congress to finally address and close the data broker loophole. This bill is exactly the type of legislation needed to rein in the Federal Government and protect the privacy rights of Americans. The government is rifling through your personal information. You should have the right to know about it, but the government can just purchase your highly sensitive information from data brokers and use it against you without your ever knowing. The Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act would close this legal loophole and ensure that the government may only use existing statutes compliant with the Fourth Amendment to lawfully surveil Americans. When the government compels data brokers to disclose Americans' personal data, it should be required to get a court order. With this commonsense legislation, the government will no longer be able to make an end-run around the Fourth Amendment to purchase the data of Americans. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 4639.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. D'Esposito).

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde).

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, there are a couple of points that I would make. One is that I reject the notion that in order to beat China or other foreign adversaries, we must become like they are. If the real opposition to this bill is that it prevents the United States Government from becoming the same type of surveillance state that Communist China is, then I think that says everything that we need to know about those opposed to the bill, and I challenge them to explain that position to their constituents. Mr. Chair, I believe absolutely in protecting our constitutional rights, and I believe it is important to understand the significance of how these various Federal agencies have been abusing this power to surveil and persecute American citizens. As part of the Committee on the Judiciary's investigation into the IRS' troubling visit to the home of journalist Matt Taibbi on the very day that he testified before the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, we learned that the IRS collected personal data from data brokers to use in its investigation of Mr. Taibbi. For example, the IRS collected data from the data broker Anywho, a people search website. It is concerning enough that the IRS would take the extreme step of visiting someone's home on the day he testified before Congress, but the IRS also compiled its information from a data broker, potentially accessing vast amounts of Taibbi's private information. That is the nature of the abuse that these Federal agencies are engaging in in violating Americans' civil rights. Mr. Chair, the Fourth Amendment exists for a reason. There is no exception to the Fourth Amendment requirement of getting a warrant. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner) to speak on this bill.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, the security state's abuse of their foreign intelligence authorities to unlawfully surveil American citizens and search their records has been exposed for all to see. In 2021, the FBI conducted over 3 million FISA searches of Americans. In 2022, the FBI was still conducting hundreds of such warrantless queries per day. In the 2020 and early 2021 time period, the FBI conducted over 278,000 searches of the 702 FISA database that violated the Justice Department's own rules and often lacked national security connections. The FBI is querying Americans of all political and religious affiliations. The FBI is even using section 702 to target elected and appointed government officials. The FBI's abuses are well-known--using the 702 database to search for information on those individuals that it perceives to be political enemies of liberal orthodoxy, seeking to infiltrate the Catholic church, spying on parents at school board meetings, and working with Big Tech to censor Americans it disagrees with. This is Stasi level abuse, and it must be stopped. So my question for this body is, if catching the government violating the Constitution and our civil liberties is not the time for significant reform, then when is? The proposed changes to FISA are a good first step, but they don't go far enough. There are three additional amendments to assure accountability. One includes a warrant requirement to query the 702 database for Americans. There is no national security exception to the Fourth Amendment and we must ensure that these agencies adhere to the bill of rights. This warrant amendment would not prevent the government from using all of the available national security tools. It simply requires the government to get a warrant. Now there are some who would argue that requiring the intelligence agencies to obtain a warrant before spying on American citizens would be too burdensome and unreasonably delay their efforts to keep the homeland safe. My first response is to note that if these agencies sincerely cared about national security, they would be doing everything in their power to convince President Biden and Mayorkas to close the border, but that has not been their priority and their silence is deafening. My second response is to note that this reauthorization is only for 2 years. We can pass the warrant amendment and reassess the situation in 2 short years, making the necessary tweaks at that time. The second amendment offered by Mr. Cline would end, once and for all, ``abouts'' collection, and the third amendment by Mr. Roy would enhance reporting requirements and bring more transparency to the FISA court process. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these three amendments. If these three amendments do not pass, section 702 should not be reauthorized. I also urge my colleagues to reject the three additional amendments that we will be taking up, amendments that are actually designed to expand FISA. It is simply unacceptable to reward an agency's abuse of power. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the three amendments.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of this resolution, which sets up the House of Representatives to consider much-needed reform and limitations to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. With the pending expiration of 702 of FISA, Congress is tasked with reforming an authority intended for foreign intelligence collection, but which has turned into warrantless surveillance of the American people. The targeting of Americans is well documented. Reporting from the Office of the Director for National Intelligence found that in 2021 the FBI conducted over 3,394,000 U.S. person searches without a warrant. In 2022, the FBI was still conducting hundreds of warrantless searches each day. These queries target Members of Congress, State elected officials, judges, campaign donors, protestors, and more. In May of this last year, The Washington Post reported that in 2020 and early 2021, the FBI conducted over 278,000 searches of the 702 database that violated Justice Department rules and often lacked national security connections. Even the FISA court found that `` . . . the FBI's querying of section 702 information have proven to be persistent and widespread.'' Warrantless surveillance of the American people by the Federal Government in violation of the Fourth Amendment is well documented and well known. If such an alarming reality does not merit serious reform and paring back of authorities, then my question is: What does? As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I was proud to be involved in the development of the Protect Liberty and End Warrantless Surveillance Act through which we first advanced these important reforms. The FISA working group was the next installment of this important process, and the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act is a good start, but there is more work which must be done. The underlying rule makes in order three critically important amendments--one prohibiting warrantless searches of Americans in the 702 database, one ending the overly intrusive abouts collection, and one enhancing reporting requirements and injecting Congress into the FISA court process. These amendments are crucial to placing limitations and imposing transparency. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support these three amendments.

Ms. HAGEMAN

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

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1829) to require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey the Pleasant Valley Ranger District Administrative Site to Gila County, Arizona, as amended.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6011) to direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to notify applicants of the completion status of right-of-way applications under section 501 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act, as amended.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 6011, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6011, the Right-of-Way Application Transparency and Accountability Act. H.R. 6011, introduced by Congressman Valadao, would expedite right- of-way applications on Federal lands for energy projects by requiring agencies to notify applicants within 90 days if the right-of-way application is complete or deficient. The Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service would both be required to meet this deadline and specify the information needed for applicants that are deemed deficient. The Federal Land Policy Management Act, or FLPMA, authorizes the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to grant rights-of-way on Federal lands for several activities that cause land disturbance. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 allows the respective Secretaries to issue rights-of-way for oil, natural gas, and refined product pipelines over Federal lands. While both statutes include application requirements, neither includes timelines for the agencies to respond to applicants to tell them whether their applications are complete or deficient. The lack of a timeline has created a bottleneck in the permitting process for energy projects that need a right-of-way to proceed, which is why this bill is needed. During the Committee on Natural Resources' hearing on this bill, the American Clean Power Association testified in support of it and pointed out that the permitting system on Federal lands is overly burdensome and actively curtails investment. Specifically, their testimony stated that ``delays are largely due to procedural inefficiencies in processing permits and have ripple effects throughout the economy, throwing off project timelines, domestic supply chains, and the indirect jobs and economic activity that would otherwise occur. Without further permitting reform, the United States may not be able to meet our growing energy demand.'' They also noted that the current average timeline for a project to obtain a right-of-way is often over 5 years, mainly due to the delays between filing an application and beginning the environmental review process. That lag time, an unnecessary delay, is exactly what H.R. 6011 addresses. This bill will also help expedite the process for rights-of-way for oil and gas gathering lines on Federal lands, which would help increase production while reducing emissions. While this commonsense legislation is not a panacea for permitting on Federal lands, it does provide a meaningful step forward by allowing complete applications for energy projects to move forward and provide certainty to those with incomplete applications so that they can fix and resubmit those applications. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 6011, and I reserve the balance of my time. House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture, Washington, DC, March 7, 2024. Hon. Bruce Westerman, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual understanding regarding H.R. 6011, the ``Right-Of-Way Application Transparency and Accountability Act''. Thank you for collaborating with the Committee on Agriculture on the matters within our jurisdiction. The Committee on Agriculture will forego any further consideration of this bill. However, by foregoing consideration at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction over any subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. The Committee on Agriculture also reserves the right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of conferees should it become necessary and ask that you support such a request. We would appreciate a response to this letter confirming this understanding with respect to H.R. 6011 and request a copy of our letters on this matter be published in the Congressional Record during Floor consideration. Sincerely, Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Chairman.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao).

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from California, Mr. Valadao, for working across the aisle on this bipartisan, all-of- the-above energy bill. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6011, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4389) to amend the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act to make improvements to that Act, and for other purposes, as amended.