Cynthia Lummis

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I am excited to announce the founding of the Senate Financial Innovation Caucus with my friend and cochair, the Senator from Arizona. I am delighted that you also have joined our caucus. We are grateful for your participation and look forward to working with you. One of my top priorities and a legacy I hope to leave in this Chamber is to ensure the United States remains a global leader in financial services for future generations. The U.S. dollar is the world's unquestioned reserve currency. Since the Second World War, this leadership role has given our country enormous advantages, including affordable credit and trade finance. China is not hiding its ambition to knock the U.S. dollar down a peg by offering a competitor payment system that sidesteps the United States. This year, the Chinese Government launched a pilot program for their digital yuan in multiple cities around China. They expect to completely release the central bank digital currency at the 2022 Winter Olympics. A video released by China state-controlled media in December of 2020 openly stated that the digital yuan will allow China to ``actively participate in reforming world economic governance'' and is ``one of the building blocks of China's move toward world market status and greater involvement in setting the framework of the global economy.'' China does not share the same values as our country relating to fair competition. This chilling reality is one of the many reasons the United States must advance financial innovation and do so now. China is serious about the future. Chinese President Xi stated in 2018 that financial innovation is ``the new industrial revolution.'' In another part of the world, digital assets are protecting many Venezuelans during their current economic crisis and ensuring corrupt government officials cannot seize or devalue their hard-earned savings. The U.S. Government is also using digital assets to achieve its foreign policy objectives and to provide humanitarian aid to Venezuelan groups faster than traditional channels. We must work hard today to ensure the next generation of Americans can enjoy the opportunity and prosperity made possible by responsible innovation. Failure to do so could have astronomical impacts on the freedoms and privileges that are essential to the American dream. I have been encouraged by early signs from the Biden administration that they understand the existential threat of China and the promise of financial innovation. China's moves alone should create a sense of urgency in this Chamber to take action. But it is not just a threat from China that should motivate us. In addition to protecting the U.S. position as the world leader in the financial system, proper regulations for financial innovation will have lasting effects in the financial industry in several ways, notably financial inclusion and entrepreneurship because financial innovation encompasses topics as diverse as faster payment and equities settlement, central bank digital currencies, financial inclusion, digital assets, distributed ledger technology, consumer protection, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. This area has remained bipartisan, following in the tradition of many other financial service issues. The Financial Innovation Caucus is rigorously committed to the tradition of bipartisanship and will create a lasting legacy by doing so. Innovation is core to the American identity, and innovation isn't confined to one party. Our job here is to create a framework that allows innovation to take root. Regulatory certainty fosters entrepreneurial innovation. A lack of regulatory clarity, on the flip side, strangles regulation, restrains entrepreneurship. In many cases, financial innovators are simply hungry to know the rules of the road and how they fit into existing law. We need a right- sized regulatory framework for financial technology that both enables new market opportunities and emphasizes consumer protection. The innovator too often loses when competing against business giants with lobbying arms. Together, we can craft regulations that foster innovation, not stifle or unnecessarily direct it. We also need a new consumer protection framework for emerging tech, which promotes access and innovation but ensures appropriate guardrails are in place. Innovators are the lifeblood of America. Each new idea strengthens our future. Innovators have done hard work in coming up with ideas which will bring underserved populations into the financial system, reduce systemic risk, and strengthen our competitive nature on the global stage. Yet there is only so much innovators can accomplish due to our maze of financial regulations. American innovators need clear rules of the road so they can responsibly turn innovation into reality. It is our obligation as government officials to create a framework that clearly enables responsible innovation rather than stifling it. We must do a great deal more in the coming years to clarify and modernize our financial laws. Citibank, Goldman Sachs, Avanti Bank and Trust, State Street, Deutsche Bank, Kraken, and other large financial institutions are now doing much more than dipping their toes into this realm. They are diving into the financial technology and digital asset markets. Financial innovation is here to stay. Younger generations are turning to and prioritizing technology for their investments. In February, CNBC reported that there may be as many as 100,000 millionaires from the appreciation of digital assets like Bitcoin. These technologies, if harnessed wisely, see no color, no creed, and no sex But financial innovation is not limited to regulating digital assets. This caucus will also focus on issues like faster payments, including a U.S. central bank digital currency and FedNow, which have real potential to allow all Americans to receive their paychecks instantly. The lack of real-time payments costs disadvantaged Americans millions in overdraft fees each year and would reduce many Americans' reliance on high-interest loans. It also traps large amounts of capital for companies, which could be deployed more productively. Tackling these issues will help bring millions of unbanked or underbanked Americans into our financial system. In Wyoming, we live by the doctrine that you have to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. What you earn is a direct result of your hard work. All Americans should have access to their hard-earned money and investments whenever they would like. We can and should use innovation technologies to reduce settlement times in our payment networks and capital markets and to reduce systemic risk and improve transparency. Threats to the world economic system, coupled with the benefits financial innovation can create, is why, today, alongside many of my colleagues from both parties, we are founding the Senate Financial Innovation Caucus. The caucus is a bipartisan group committed to promoting responsible innovation to help the U.S. financial industry truly meet 21st century challenges of a globally interconnected economy and to harvest technology to make markets more inclusive, vibrant, and safe for all Americans. After all, our financial innovation is critical in our pursuit to ensure equal access to financial institutions and opportunities. It is my hope that the work done by the Financial Innovation Caucus will deliver comprehensive legislation to clarify, regulate, and protect America's edge in the financial industry when it comes to innovation. We live in a digital world. Technology is now engrained in our everyday lives. Our lives should reflect this shift and should not hinder innovation. Only together can we secure the U.S. role in the future of finance. So let's go to work. I yield the floor.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. President, when I joined the Senate Banking Committee last February, I pledged to fairly examine every issue that came before us, with an eye for detail and a fresh perspective-- promoting innovation, free markets, and our dual banking system. I support the policy goals of the true lender rule in promoting access to credit for underserved communities. I also recognize how vital it is to provide legal clarity to financial technology innovators during this time of change. I support all banks' powers, both State and national, to export interest rates across State lines and to make unassigned loans with clear regulatory certainty. Again, this promotes access to credit. The issues raised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's true lender rule and S.J. Res. 15, however, are not limited to ensuring access to credit or protecting consumers from predatory lending and have much larger implications for our banking system. State-chartered banks have existed since the founding of our Republic. After the passage of the National Bank Act of 1864, our country fostered a dual banking system, and our country is all the stronger for it. The United States is the leader of the global financial system because we have a banking system that is based on competitive equality, flexibility, and innovation. Under the Federal laws that protect our dual banking system, State and nationally chartered depository institutions have nearly identical powers to carry out the business of banking across State lines with legal clarity. This is because of State parity and the so-called State wild card laws, the Riegle-Neal Act, and subsequent amendments over the years. The Federal Reserve and the FDIC have broadly supported these policies as well, adopting rules that promote equality for State banks vis-a-vis national banks. Esther George, President of the Kansas City Fed, noted in a 2012 speech that ``the dual banking system has provided and continues to offer significant benefits to our financial system and economy . . . multiple options for state and federal charters have led to considerable innovation and improvement in banking services.'' So Congress and our Federal bank supervisors, on a roundly bipartisan basis, have always been committed to maintaining parity between State and nationally chartered institutions. This brings us to today's vote. The problem with the true lender rule before us is that it has the potential to upend parity between State and national banks. In a nutshell, the OCC true lender rule determines which banks or other financial institutions actually make a consumer loan. Many States have different legal standards for determining this. Ultimately, this would allow national banks to make and assign loans more easily than State-chartered banks, giving them a distinct advantage in the lending business. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation did not adopt companions to the OCC true lender rule. It is likely those Agencies do not have the legal authority to adopt a similar rule for State banks. The FDIC confirmed this during public remarks in December 2020. Consequently, we are left with a scenario where national banks and Federal savings associations have a great deal of legal clarity about marketplace lending and State- chartered banks do not. Why does this matter? There are approximately 3,954 State-chartered banks in our country as of December. There are approximately 1,062 national banks and Federal savings associations that are depository institutions. That means that of the approximately 5,016 commercial banks in our dual banking system, about 79 percent are State banks and 21 percent are national banks and Federal savings institutions. The OCC true lender rule applies to only 21 percent of the banks in our country. Does a rule that applies to only 21 percent of the banks really promote parity between State and nationally chartered institutions? This chart shows plain as day that it does not. Moreover, State-chartered banks are the primary banks currently engaged in the kind of marketplace lending envisioned by the OCC true lender rule. Many State banks have innovative and thriving partnerships with nonbank lenders today. The OCC true lender rule will cause those partnerships to shift to national banks. Why would a nonbank lender choose to partner with a State bank that lacks the legal clarity of a national bank or savings association and the preemption that follows Federal law? I do not believe they will. There would be a great deal of legal uncertainty for them because of State consumer protection laws. Many of the State bank partnerships we see today in the marketplace lending arena may disappear as the nonbank lenders naturally gravitate towards the greater legal clarity of national banks. This rule, in effect, would make these innovative partnerships the domain of national banks, rendering State-chartered banks to be more like second-class institutions. That has not been the will of Congress in the past, and I don't believe it is today. A prominent law firm noted in January of this year that ``for institutions that participate in marketplace lending, most of which are state-chartered banks, the lack of an FDIC rule creates a significant exception to the federal support for the marketplace lending model and appears to largely leave the issue to the states.'' Many wonder why States cannot adopt their own true lender rules on a State-by-State basis or adopt some kind of uniform law. This likely will not work for a number of reasons. First, were a State like Wyoming to adopt its own true lender rule for its own banks, what would require another State to respect the Wyoming true lender rule and set aside its own consumer protection laws that conflict with the Wyoming law? It likely would not, and that State would likely require a Wyoming bank without a branch in that State to abide by its own consumer protection laws in doing business there. This is a basic tenet of States maintaining sovereignty within their own borders, limited only by the U.S. Constitution and Federal law. Secondly, a uniform law adopted at the State level would likely take 3 to 5 years, and by that time, marketplace lending would firmly be the province of nationally chartered institutions. There would then be no need for the law. So where does that leave our dual banking system? The OCC true lender rule clarifies a thorny legal question and restricts the application of State consumer protection laws, providing legal clarity in marketplace lending to 21 percent of the banks in this country, while essentially telling the other 79 percent that they should convert to a national charter or risk being left behind. That is the kind of choice Congress has rejected in the past. Many question the value of using the Congressional Review Act against the true lender rule since it will prevent the OCC from adopting a similar rule in the future. However, again, both the FDIC and the Federal Reserve likely do not have the requisite statutory authority to adopt their own true lender rule anyway. As a result, there is no rule or Agency-based solution that fixes this problem in a satisfactory way. For the true lender rule to apply equally to all State and national banks, Congress must act. Leaving the OCC true lender rule in place would reduce the likelihood of Congress fixing the issue. Disapproving this rule will ensure that this issue remains top-of-mind for many and can be fixed in a lasting way that ensures a level playing field. This is a classic example of an issue crying out for a uniform national standard enacted by Congress, which applies to all banks. The United States is the leader of the global financial system for many reasons, but one of those is surely the innovation, competition, and diversity of thought brought about by our dual banking system. This is a privilege, not a right, however, and one must work hard to maintain that for future generations. I am proud to be a vocal advocate of financial innovation in this Chamber, and I will continue to work hard towards modernizing our financial system in a responsible manner. However, for innovation to be truly lasting, it has to be built on a solid foundation and not pick winners and losers between national banks and State banks. Only Congress can truly fix this issue. I look forward to working with my colleagues to accomplish this. In the coming days, I will be introducing legislation to do just that. Until this is fixed, the current ``valid when made'' rule will continue to provide legal clarity to Federal and State banks. I urge my colleagues to thoughtfully consider the potential impact of the OCC true lender rule on State-chartered banks. In order to preserve our dual banking system and Congress's past actions to ensure parity between State and nationally chartered banks, I do not have any other option but to support S.J. Res. 15 I yield the floor.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021. I want to thank Environment and Public Works Ranking Member Capito, full committee Chairman Carper, Chairman Duckworth, and their staffs for their hard work and cooperation on this bill. While many issues divide this Senate, clean water is not one of them. As ranking member of the Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife Subcommittee under which drinking water and wastewater jurisdiction lies, I am proud to see the work our committee has done to bring this bill to the floor today, and I especially want to thank Senator Duckworth for all of her efforts to serve our communities by shepherding this bill through the Senate. On May 17th, our committee and subcommittee held a hearing to examine the challenges facing drinking water and wastewater infrastructure throughout the Nation. We heard from witnesses that many obstacles remain in America's water quality. High among those obstacles is the lagging funding related to an aging infrastructure. The primary mechanism for financing water infrastructure is from State and local sources, including the collection of user fees, but funding has not kept pace with the growing need to address an aging system. Only 20 percent of very large utilities and 10 percent of small utilities report that they will be able to provide full-cost service in 5 years. I am proud to be a part of the team that has come together to find a solution to these problems. While working on this issue, I learned something that might surprise a lot of Americans: The majority of our Nation's drinking water and wastewater utilities are small. Over 90 percent of the country's roughly 50,000 community water systems serve populations fewer than 10,000 people. Roughly 80 percent of America's 17,000 wastewater utilities serve populations fewer than 10,000 people. Rural and small communities like many found in my State of Wyoming have greater difficulty affording public wastewater service due to low population density and lack of economies of scale. Rural communities also have lower median household incomes and often have higher rates of poverty, only compounding the challenge. The mandates and requirements given under the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act can be burdensome on these small and rural communities. This bill reauthorizes a number of programs that will provide technical assistance, funding, research, and expertise for these small communities. The Circuit Rider Program, for example, has long been among our Nation's most successful public- private partnerships. The Wyoming Association of Rural Water Systems and organizations like it across the country are doing yeomen's work in delivering for our rural communities. The Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act unanimously passed our committee by a vote of 21 to 0. Similar legislation worked on by then-Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper likewise passed without any opposition last Congress. Mr. President, I have the unique privilege of being the only Senator to sit on all three committees of jurisdiction over transportation and infrastructure. All three committees are hard at work considering the recent infrastructure plan put forward by President Biden. Let me give a brief history of the bipartisan nature of this topic. In 2019, the EPW Committee under my fellow Senator from Wyoming John Barrasso, passed a 5-year highway funding bill unanimously out of committee. In 2018, President Trump signed the bipartisan America's Water Infrastructure Act into law. In 2016, President Obama signed the bipartisan Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act into law. In 2015 we had two bipartisan transportation bills pass into law, and in 2014 we had another bipartisan water resources bill become law. President Biden mentioned last night that infrastructure is historically a bipartisan issue. He applauded my Republican colleagues for putting forward a good infrastructure plan of our own just last week. Our Republican bill is based on ideas that have garnered bipartisan support in the past, which makes it a perfect foundation upon which to build an infrastructure plan that could pass into law. I urge President Biden and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to remember this as we move to an infrastructure bill. I am proud of the work that my colleagues and I did on today's Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act. I would like to thank my colleagues on the EPW Committee for their work, and I urge all Senators to support it

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Madam President, I rise to echo and augment the remarks of the gentleman from Missouri and to call on President Biden and the Democrats in Congress to work with the Republicans on a bipartisan infrastructure bill. As the only Senator in the unique position of sitting on all three committees with jurisdiction over transportation, I have a particular interest in making sure we are adequately funding our roads and bridges. I have had many conversations with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle since I have joined the Senate, and everyone agrees that we have real infrastructure and transportation needs that must be addressed. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave our roads a D- minus rating, noting our $786 billion backlog on roads' and bridges' capital needs. They gave our bridges a C-minus rating and a repair tag of $125 billion. We also need to take another look at how we fund our highway system. Right now, we have a highway trust fund that we can't actually trust. Since 2008, we have been relying on general fund transfers to pay for our roads and bridges instead of fixing our user fee model to keep the trust fund solvent. User fees give users the benefit of seeing where their money is going, and they allow those people deriving the most benefit from the system to give the most in support. This is a very fair, American way of doing things, and the certainty we get from a functioning user fee model is important for rural States, like my home State of Wyoming. While much divides Congress these days, infrastructure, as that term is understood by most Americans, is a bipartisan issue. As such, one would assume that President Biden would want to find some common ground in order to build relationships in Congress and address the needs of every citizen. So it is perplexing that President Biden, who campaigned on bringing our Nation together, is now pushing a blatantly partisan infrastructure bill. Let me show you why partisanship is unnecessary in the infrastructure space. I recently helped my Democratic colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee pass a bipartisan water and wastewater infrastructure bill out of committee with unanimous support. This is clear evidence that Democrats and Republicans can come together on infrastructure issues and find common ground. In 2019, the EPW Committee, under the leadership of my fellow Senator from Wyoming, John Barrasso, unanimously passed a bipartisan 5-year highway funding bill. This would be a great place to start for any infrastructure bill in Congress. But this barely scratches the surface of bipartisan infrastructure legislation. Honestly, I am hard-pressed to remember a time when infrastructure was not bipartisan. The American Water Infrastructure Act of 2018? Bipartisan. The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016? Bipartisan. The Highway Transportation Funding Act of 2015? Bipartisan. The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act of 2015? Bipartisan. The Water Resources Development Act of 2014? Bipartisan. This isn't even a full decade of congressional action, and all of these things happened in partisan environments, when Americans were divided on a host of issues. But despite our divisions, we have always come together to address American infrastructure. In 2021, this should be no different. If President Biden wants to truly unite the Nation, he can start by working with Republicans on the most basic bipartisan issues, and he might be surprised which Members of Congress are there to join him. I will use myself as an example. I have opposed many of President Biden's actions to date, but I support his decision to bring our troops home from Afghanistan, and I am doing so publicly. I have also supported several of President Biden's nominees, including Secretary Buttigieg. I can promise President Biden that if he comes in good faith to work with Republicans and Democrats on a bipartisan infrastructure bill, I will be there to work with him every step of the way. I know my colleagues feel the same. All we are asking is for the ``unity'' President to come to the table. I yield the floor.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Madam President, I rise to honor the true heroism of Officer Jacob Carlson of the Casper, WY, police department. On May 6, 2018, Officer Carlson risked his life to save his fellow officer and the lives of several young children when a routine traffic stop turned deadly. Every day, police officers must remain vigilant because, as we have seen, even routine enforcement actions can go sideways at a moment's notice. That happened to Officer Carlson, and his actions speak to his character. He put his life on the line to protect his fellow officer and his community. His courage is inspiring, and I am proud to call him a son of Wyoming. For this action, Officer Carlson has been awarded the Congressional Badge of Bravery, and it is a badge he earned. His years of service and dedication to the Casper Police Department were cut short by what happened, but Officer Carlson's career of service as a police officer and former service in the U.S. Army is a legacy for which he can be proud. Officer Carlson is a remarkable example of the highest caliber of law enforcement professionals. He is the hero we describe when we teach our children and grandchildren about the police officers who protect our communities. Officers such as Officer Carlson who protect our great State reinforce my belief that Wyoming truly is the best State in the Nation. When Americans want to see an example of how police officers should comport themselves, they can look upon Wyoming as the shining example. Officer Carlson's actions on May 6, 2018, exemplify why. The State of Wyoming is blessed to have not only one brave officer deserving of this honor. The second officer is one of the people Officer Carlson protected in the face of adversity, Officer Randi Garrett, whose courage and heroism was also on display that day, is equally deserving and will be honored with a Congressional Badge of Bravery. My sincere thanks to Officer Carlson for making Casper and the State of Wyoming one of the greatest, safest places to live.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Madam President, I rise to honor Officer Randi Garrett, whose experience and skill and whose strong character helped save lives on May 6, 2018. Not only did Officer Garrett act with poise under intense pressure when a routine traffic stop turned violent, but while in immediate and real danger, she kept her focus on her mission, and helped to save the lives of two innocent children and the life of a fellow officer because of it. I shudder at the thought of what might have happened had Officer Garrett not acted with speed and purpose. Officer Garrett has been awarded the Congressional Badge of Bravery for her actions, and I am so proud of her for it. Officer Garrett is a shining example of what steadfast commitment, leadership and decisionmaking under pressure looks like. It is because of officers like Randi that the people of Casper can feel safe and secure in their community. As we approach the third anniversary of Officer Randi Garrett's heroism, I know that her acts that day won't be forgotten by the Casper community and by those whose lives she helped to save. For without them, it is unknown the tragedies that may have occurred. Instead, she serves as an example today to every young woman and girl interested in serving their community as an officer. I can think of no better example for young women across the State of Wyoming to aspire to. Now, as she receives the Congressional Badge of Bravery, I hope it serves as a reminder of a day when her courage was called upon and she answered. This prestigious award is also being given to her counterpart who was there with her that day, Officer Jacob Carlson. Just as they faced danger together, this badge acts as yet another bond that the two of them will continue to share. My sincere thanks to Officer Garrett for her continued service and dedication to the city of Casper and our great State.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. President, I thank Senator Daines for his leadership on this issue. The only thing the previous speaker and I have in common is agreeing that it is high time that we had a Native American woman to lead the Department of the Interior. On behalf of the people of Wyoming, I am opposing President Biden's nomination of Congresswoman Haaland to serve as Secretary of the Interior. As Secretary, she will continue the job-killing, anti-energy attack on Wyoming's livelihood that President Biden started during his first week in office. Let's recap just how bad President Biden's Executive actions are for my State. A University of Wyoming analysis found that Wyoming stands to lose nearly $13 billion in tax revenue if we don't lift the Biden ban on new oil and gas leasing and drilling on Federal lands. To put this in context, $13 billion in tax revenue would educate 60,000 Wyoming students from kindergarten through high school graduation. It would fund the University of Wyoming for the next 59 years. It would fund our public safety and corrections budget for the next 68 years. And it would fund the Wyoming Department of Health for the next 26 years. These are real numbers, and the Biden ban is having real consequences. In Wyoming, we put the tax revenue from Federal land leases to use educating our kids, caring for the sick, and funding public infrastructure. Maybe this sounds like my complaint is just with President Biden. That is how Congresswoman Haaland would have you see it. Congresswoman Haaland says that she will simply be following the administration's orders and implementing its agenda at the Interior Department. This isn't exactly encouraging for a number of reasons. The White House's very first action in implementing their climate change agenda is on track to cost my home State a whopping $13 billion in revenue. I shudder to think what their next action will cost us, especially with Department heads committed to blindly enacting the Biden agenda without consideration for the extraordinary impacts it will continue to have on energy States like Wyoming. Second, Secretaries have an incredible amount of power to make decisions on how an administration's agenda gets implemented. Based on her own public statements and actions, Congresswoman Haaland is more radical in her positions than President Biden. None of these facts are particularly encouraging to folks in Wyoming and the West who will be devastated by the policies that Congresswoman Haaland plans to champion. What we need is a Secretary who understands the issues that westerners face. We need someone who knows the ways that States like Wyoming are contributing to America's energy independence and doing so in increasingly environmentally friendly ways. Banning permitting on Federal lands in Wyoming means banning access to 68 percent of Wyoming's minerals. For our State and our country to remain energy independent, we need someone at the Department of the Interior who recognizes that if we shut down producers at home, we are only increasing the power of polluters like Russia and China abroad. Conservatives are regularly attacked as anti-science and anti- environment. This couldn't be further from the truth. I can tell you there are no greater stewards of our land than the people who actually work it, be it farmers, ranchers, or energy producers. We care more about the land and natural resources than just about anyone. It is our livelihood. But it is more than that. It is our way of life. We know that responsible care for the land means that we have to have a healthy give-and-take with the land. In Wyoming, we support both energy protection and conservation, fossil fuels and clean energy technologies. Wyoming leads the Nation as the biggest net energy supplier at the same time that we are driving the future of carbon capture and utilization technology. Representative Haaland and the Biden administration claim their ban on leases supports the environment, but this ban actually hurts environmental conservation efforts. Energy development on public lands helps to fund conservation, including the Land and Water Conservation Fund to the tune of billions of dollars. Additionally, since 2000, the United States has had the largest absolute decline in emissions of any country. We did this while at the same time rising to become the world's top energy producer. The truth of the matter is, you can be both environmentally friendly and energy friendly. In Wyoming, we are doing both. Under the Biden and Haaland administration, we will do neither. I want to add one more thing. I recognize the longstanding connection of Native Americans to the land. Representative Haaland has that connection, and I honor her heritage and appreciate how significant the nomination of a Native American to lead the Department of the Interior is to the Tribes and to indigenous people. But there is no connection between her heritage and her support of the Green New Deal and attacking oil and natural gas production as a means to address climate change. If our goal is to reduce emissions, then our focus should be on clean air, not attacking energy production. We can achieve our environmental goals through things like carbon capture while remaining energy independent. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose Representative Haaland's nomination to serve as Secretary of the Interior. I yield the floor.

Ms. LUMMIS

Ms. LUMMIS. Madam President, today I am pleased to recognize Senator Henry ``Hank'' Coe, who has retired from the Wyoming State Senate after 31 years of dedicated service and over 40 years of public service to Wyoming. A Cody, WY native, Senator Coe has shown his dedication and love for the State of Wyoming and willingness to serve its citizens. Hank was first elected to the Wyoming Senate in 1989 and served with distinction for over three decades. During his tenure in the Wyoming Senate, Senator Coe served as vice president of the senate from 1997 to 1998; senate majority floor leader from 1999 to 2000; and as president of the senate from 2001 to 2002. Senator Coe was chairman of the Travel, Recreation and Wildlife Committee from 1992 to 1998, where he worked to grow the tourism industry into one of Wyoming's largest industries. He also served on the Education Committee from 2003 to 2019, working to ensure that Wyoming's children had the tools they need to succeed. These are just a few of the many roles to which Senator Coe brought his passion and expertise, and represent a cornerstone of Wyoming public policy. Prior to joining the Wyoming Senate, Senator Coe served 8 years as a Park County commissioner, and in honor of his service, the commissioners have declared April 29 ``Hank Coe Day'' in Park County, WY. Senator Coe's service to our great State goes beyond his work as an elected official. He was a respected member of his community. He was a member of the Volunteer Fire Department, a trustee for the Buffalo Bill Center of the West, a member of the Wyoming Business Alliance, an advisor for the Regional Airport board, and much more. I had the honor of serving with Senator Coe during my time in the Wyoming Legislature. Our desks were right across the aisle from one another on the Senate floor, and we enjoyed playing subtle pranks on each other. I will also cherish many evenings at the home of his extraordinary mother, Peg Coe, retiring to the den of her sprawling home for drinks and unforgettable conversation. The Coes are a one of a kind but quintessential Wyoming family of the highest order. Senator Coe passed away today, but I have no doubt he will be an example for generations to come of a dedicated public servant, a model of humility, and a true beacon for the values Wyoming holds dear. Thank you, Senator Coe for your years of tireless service to Wyoming and for your friendship. I send your family my condolences. God bless.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. President, it is the privilege of a lifetime to represent the people of Wyoming in this great deliberative body. I genuinely look forward to joining each of you to make a difference for the American people and to uphold my solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution. Let me be clear. An attack on our Capitol is an attack on our Constitution and democracy itself. I strongly condemn the violence that occurred today, which did more to thwart the democratic process than to protect it. Today, many Members of the Senate were trying to peacefully use our democratic process to ensure each and every American's vote counts. In the best tradition of the U.S. Senate, we will fulfill our constitutional duty and complete the electoral count tonight. In 1833, Senator Daniel Webster said that ``duty binds . . . the conscience of the individual member'' in counting the votes for President and Vice President. Each of us has a solemn duty to ensure that the slate of Presidential electors we certify is beyond reproach, respecting the people's voice and upholding the Constitution. Congress will not overturn the people's voice. A president will be inaugurated on January 20. Congress cannot and shall not dictate the results of a Presidential election to our States. That would be the death of our Republic. In the coming months, Congress must take a fresh look at troubling concerns from the election that simply don't add up. After the 2000 Presidential election, millions of voters in Florida felt disenfranchised, and now 74 million Americans deserve the assurance and the dignity that their votes count the same as every other American. We owe our first duty to the American people, following procedures--like the Electoral Count Act-- used for nearly 150 years. It is my fervent hope that our State legislatures will consider meaningful election reform to ensure that our election laws are applied uniformly, to ensure the technology we use is accurate and secure, and, most importantly, to ensure that all Americans treasure our precious right to vote and feel their voices are heard. States are at the very center of elections in our country and will remain so. Many ask why Congress should be involved in election matters that have been considered by the courts. Some argue that Congress' role in certifying our Presidential elections is merely ministerial. Under our constitutional separation of powers, it is too often forgotten that Congress has the right and duty to interpret the Constitution, especially on matters which by the Constitution have been delegated to Congress, like the electoral count. Congress interpreted the Twelfth Amendment in passing the Electoral Count Act in 1887 and continues to breathe new life into these provisions by its actions today. Our Founders understood Congress would play a key role in debating constitutional issues as a co-equal branch of government. Thomas Jefferson commented in an 1819 letter that ``each of the three departments [of government] has equally the right to decide for itself what is its duty under the Constitution.'' I remain deeply concerned that the electoral votes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania were not ``regularly given'' under Pennsylvania law, as required by the Electoral Count Act. Serious concerns have been raised about the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's vote-by-mail statute. Also, Pennsylvania election law may have been applied unevenly by State officials, including signature verification and voter identification requirements. In 2005, Senator Barbara Boxer and the late Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones objected to the slate of electors from Ohio. They rightfully drew attention to the fact that many African-Americans and other communities suffered disproportionate wait times at the polls, broken voting machines, and high ballot rejection rates. Raising this objection led to some of these issues being remedied and more Americans having the precious opportunity to vote. That is a legacy our Senate and every American should value today. Thank you.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer). I also want to thank my former committee chairman on the House Agriculture Committee, now the ranking member, Mr. Peterson, for his support of this bill, as well as Chairman Conaway of the House Agriculture Committee. Mr. Speaker, in the national forests, especially in areas where there have been bark beetle damage, the trees are starting to fall across the trails. I have talked to outfitters who are taking pack trips into the national forests. They are only in there for 2 or 3 days, and when they try to get out they have to chop their way out because so many trees have fallen across the trails, even while they are in the forest. So this maintenance backlog is getting bigger. Mr. Speaker, it makes such sense, practically speaking, when we have a huge budget deficit, to maximize the use of volunteers in the national forests to help maintain these trails. Now, they will be able to avail themselves of workers comp, and that is part of the reason that it has taken this bill such a long time to get to the floor. But it came out of the Agriculture Committee unanimously. It is one of the most bipartisan bills in this entire Congress. It has 86 cosponsors in the House and 23 in the Senate. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz), who is a cosponsor of this bill, for his work. I am hoping he will tell the tale that he encountered this summer when he was hiking in the West. More than 50 diverse recreation conservation groups wanted a way to increase volunteer efforts in our national forests, including the National Association of Counties. Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of additional provisions I want to highlight in this bill. It directs a study be done on utilizing fire crews for maintenance work during off seasons for wildfire, which is a great way for them to maximize, and for us to maximize, their skills in the forests. And it also requires the Secretary of Agriculture to identify 9 to 15 priority areas throughout the country to incorporate volunteers and to increase trail maintenance. This bill has broad support. It will produce opportunities for young people to volunteer in our forests. It will allow outfitters and guides to offset some of their permit fees through work on trail maintenance performed by the permit holders to construct, improve, or maintain National Forest System trails, trailheads, or developed sites under supervision of our National Park Service. This is kind of a motherhood and apple pie bill, Mr. Speaker, and it has been my pleasure to work with Mr. Walz and the other proponents of this bill to bring it to the floor this afternoon.

Mrs. LUMMIS. I thank Mr. Rouzer for allowing me to do something I should have done, but Mr. Walz did it for me. That is to thank my staff, especially Jimmy Ward, for all of his hard work on this bill. He made sure that we continued to be moving this bill forward in his helping us to identify cosponsors and working with the scoring process, which is what brings us here today; so I want to say a particular thank you to my staff.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, it is a tough week for Wyoming. Wyoming is the land of high altitudes, low multitudes, and great attitudes. We have the smallest population in the Nation, and yet, geographically, we are one of the largest States in the Nation; so everyone matters. This week, we lost two of our favorite sons--two of our most impressive people. Brian Scott Gamroth was killed in a motorcycle accident when coming back to Wyoming from a Shriners Convention on Sunday. Brian was the voice of Wyoming. He gave his time, talents, and energy to raise hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of dollars for Wyoming's charities. His heart was as big as his gigantic frame and as his deep, baritone voice on the radio in Casper, Wyoming. He was a dear friend and a beloved Wyoming person, and I will miss him with my whole heart. On the same day, we lost our beloved Flip McConnaughey, who died after serving our senior U.S. Senator, Mike Enzi, as his chief of staff here in Washington for over 20 years. Flip McConnaughey came out of municipal government in Wyoming, as did our senior Senator, Mike Enzi. They love the communities of Wyoming. They have worked so hard all of these years in the U.S. Senate for Wyoming. I thank them, and we will miss them with all of our hearts.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. Texas is a State that has very little Federal land. And the fact that he took the reins as subcommittee chairman for the Committee on Natural Resources Subcommittee on Oversight and has taken such an active interest in this issue is something for which those of us from the public lands States in the West are very grateful. Thank you very much, Mr. Gohmert. Now, what does this mean on the ground? What we have told you tonight is roughly 640 million acres of this country, or about 30 percent--1 in 3 acres in this country--are owned by the Federal Government. So we have gotten that far. We have also told you that there are a variety of Federal agencies that own this land. The biggest one is the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, which is under the umbrella of the Department of the Interior. The BLM manages about 250 million acres, and 99.9 percent of that BLM land is in the 11 Western States and Alaska. So this is an agency that really doesn't deal with 38 of the States. It only deals with 12. But those States are so dramatically affected by this agency, if you combine those 250 million acres, roughly, that BLM manages, that is like the States of Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, and Iowa combined. It is a huge geographic area. It is not taxed. It is off the property tax rolls. So that is why our schools and other public services in our 11 Western States and Alaska are so impacted by the presence of BLM land. We are given payments in lieu of taxes, but they are not the equivalent of getting taxes, and they are certainly not something that we can count on every year. Some years Congress gives PILT money and some years it does not, so it is not a reliable source of revenue for these States. Yet they are tremendously impacted by these lands. The science has changed so much, but our statutory scheme in managing these lands has not caught up to the better science that we have today. For example, let's look at this picture. I hope you can see it from where you are sitting. Some of the brownish areas are land that has not been logged. The trees are clogged close together. They have small diameters. They are competing for moisture, for root space, for the nutrients in the soil. Because they are so crowded together, they become less healthy. Bark beetles and other forest killers are killing them out. So what you are seeing here in the crammed areas is unhealthy forests that have not been logged. Now, what you are seeing in these green, beautiful areas has been logged. So what has happened there? There has been selective logging. It has been done with the natural contours of the landscape. It has been done in the high ground, so you can keep some high mountain meadows that help keep snow and a source of grass growing below the tree canopy for wildlife, hopefully keeping them in the high country longer in the year. Furthermore, those trees can breathe; they are better resistant to disease; they are healthier and better resistant to fires. One of the big consequences of having overcrowded, unhealthy, unlogged forests is these massive wildfires that we have been having these last few years. That is bad public policy that was probably generated by people who were well intentioned, who thought that we were overlogging, so their viewpoint was to quit logging, when, in fact, that made matters worse. Instead of quitting logging, we should have been more selective and more careful using silviculture techniques and horticulture techniques that have been proven in the 21st century. Let's look at grazing, which is a more common use of BLM land. What we have found--and I strongly encourage you to go listen to this TED Talk. If you have ever listened to a TED Talk, this is one of the best ones I have ever heard by a man named Allan Savory. So get on TED Talks, go to Allan Savory, and you will finally understand what I have been saying here for 8 years about 21st century grazing practices. As it happens, Allan Savory, who is probably the preeminent global expert on grazing, has his ranch in Zimbabwe, and the areas that he was working in Zimbabwe were horribly, horribly eroded. They attributed it to overgrazing. They were worried that there were too many elephants, so they did a massive killing off of thousands of elephants, only to find out that was not the cause. When they changed their grazing practices and put four times as many split-hoofed animals, meaning cattle or sheep or goats, on that land and herded them, it actually made the grass healthier. Grass grew back in stronger stands of grass. They sequester more carbon, so it is good for carbon capture and sequestration, and the grass stands were healthier. Eroded draws healed up; the grasses came back. These practices were brought to the United States. Interestingly, my family purchased some land on the ranch next door to us that had a Savory grazing system on it. It had 2,600 acres that were divided into 16 smaller pastures, with the water source in the middle, and we would move our cattle among these 16 small cells; and you would put all of them in one cell for a very short period of time, maybe 10 days, and they would graze that grass down to the nubs. They would eat the grass that was more palatable, but they would also eat the noxious weeds, and then you move them. So you continue to move them among these 16 cells on 2,600 acres. As we grazed that way, we found out that healthy stands of grass, palatable grass, good buffalo grass, short grass, prairie grasses were thriving. The noxious weeds were declining. The eroded draws were healing. There was more opportunity to sequester carbon. When you concentrate cattle into those small areas, their manure becomes a tremendously valuable source of fertilizer. The grass stand is healthier. This process was proven in Africa in grazing, and it is being done successfully all over the United States. Please go to the Allan Savory TED Talk. You will understand what I am saying. What he shows on that TED Talk, I have experienced on my own land. We should be doing that on BLM land. We have BLM land that is overgrazed, and some people come here to Congress and say, well, if you would just take cattle and sheep off the public lands, it is just being overgrazed, then we can have as many wild horses as we want. The problem with that is, wild horses have a solid hoof, so when they pound the ground with their solid hoof, they are compacting the soil. When it rains, it runs off instead of seeping into the soil. If you put cattle, goats, sheep, elk, deer, moose that have split hooves on that ground, they actually knead the soil with their hoof action, and it develops an opportunity for more of that rain to seep into the ground. It is a better grazing ungulate. We have learned all this recently. This is not 21st century science. This is late 20th century and now 21st century science. The problem is our statutes were passed in the 1970s when the thought was we should concentrate power and authority and public input into Washington, and we should make these grazing policies and forestry policies out of Washington because the people in the States can't be trusted. They will overlog, and they will overgraze to line their pockets. You know, it is just not true anymore, but our statutes are stuck in a 1970s command-and-control scheme. So we need to update our statutes to reflect our greater understanding of logging and grazing and how mankind can actually benefit and sustain these resources and improve these resources well into the 21st century. We owe it to our children and grandchildren. I thank Mr. Gohmert so much.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chair, on behalf of the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) was called away. I am standing in for him and want to join the previous amendment offerer in thanking the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, as well as the staff of that committee, for their hard work on this piece of legislation. This amendment would affect the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. As a result of the habitat designations, the U.S. Forest Service has begun to construct electric fences around the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse's habitat, which is located around floodplains and streambeds in New Mexico. The problem is a number of these critical habitat designations coincide with ranching allotments in New Mexico where ranchers hold what we call territorial water rights. Those are water rights that existed and belonged to these ranchers before New Mexico was even a State. These longstanding water rights provide access that is essential to these ranches. This amendment is needed because the Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service are not effectively working with ranchers to maintain their operations. There is also an issue about the science surrounding this mouse. The mouse has never been seen in a number of the critical habitat areas, and the few mouse sightings on record were made nearly a decade ago. The agencies themselves have admitted that the science used to list the species and designate the critical habitat is seriously limited. Despite that science gap, farmers and ranchers are being denied their private property rights--their territorial water rights-- and are being driven from their allotments all for a mouse that may not even exist in these areas. Voting for this amendment will send a clear message to the Fish and Wildlife Service that species listings that are not backed by sound science will not stand. We cannot allow unsubstantiated science to destroy the lives of American citizens and the history and heritage of the ranching community and the culture of the ranching community that even predates New Mexico's admission into the Union. For this reason, I ask that my colleagues support the Pearce amendment to delist this species until legitimate and up-to-date science is available. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, this is a water rights issue in addition to an Endangered Species Act issue. This is an instance in which private water rights are being abrogated for the sake of a mouse that we don't even know exists in this area and the science about which makes it so you can't tell one subspecies from the other of this meadow jumping mouse unless you actually kill the mouse and look at its skull. Now, when it is that extreme in figuring out whether a mouse is endangered or not--whether it is a Preble's meadow jumping mouse or a New Mexico meadow jumping mouse or some other subspecies--we have got a problem with the science. To block people from territorial water rights--using electric fences in a way that is based on science that is this obscure--doesn't sound, to me, like an effective means by which to work with the ranchers, the culture, and the livelihoods of the people involved. Therefore, once again, I urge support of the Pearce amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. You are darn right there are success stories with the ESA. That is because the agency that was designed to implement the laws decided the species were recovered. They delisted them, and they are doing fine. That is why there are so many eagles in this country. That is not what happened with the gray wolf. The scientists at the agency decided that they had recovered. They delisted them, by rule. The courts got involved in D.C.--not in the State where the wolves are, but in D.C.--and said, ``No, we disagree with all the sound science,'' the sound science of the agency, and they took it over. That is why we are here. Congress makes the laws. The executive branch implements the laws. The courts interpret the laws. The agency implemented the law. Using sound science, they found that those wolves should be delisted. And they delisted them by rule. And then D.C. environmental groups went to a D.C. court and said: We don't like the decision. And now, all of a sudden, they are back. Mr. Chairman, this is the way to respond, by law.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), I offer amendment No. 15.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment transfers approximately $10 million to the EPA's Office of Inspector General from the $2.5 billion EPA environmental programs and management appropriations account. The amendment is necessary to support the EPA OIG's work related to preventing waste, fraud, and abuse, and identifying inefficiencies and potential cost savings at the EPA. The EPA Office of Inspector General has faced significant funding challenges in recent years. Its full-time employees dropped from 349 to 289, a decrease of almost one-fifth of the office's workforce. Despite significant resource challenges, the Office of Inspector General at EPA continued to conduct important investigations and audits that saved money for taxpayers and revealed misconduct and abuses at the agency. During FY14, EPA OIG reported $380 million in savings, which is a $7.35 return on investment for every dollar in the OIG budget. The EPA's Office of Inspector General identified $4.1 million in savings during the most recent semiannual reporting period. The EPA OIG has also investigated gross misconduct and abuses at EPA that yielded savings for taxpayers. For instance, in 2013, the office conducted a criminal investigation into former EPA employee John Beale, who was found to have stolen government money and engaged in travel voucher fraud and time and attendance fraud. Beale committed these frauds by masquerading as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. Beale agreed to pay restitution of $890,000 to EPA and $500,000 to the Department of Justice. Beale was also sentenced to 32 months in prison. The EPA Office of Inspector General also investigated allegations of gross mismanagement at the Chemical Safety Board in 2012 and found hostility toward whistleblowers and a toxic, ineffective work environment undermined by the board's chemical accident investigations. The EPA OIG's investigation and pressure from Congress caused the President to remove the CSB chairman. I want you to know that as the subcommittee chairman on our committee, that we have looked at the EPA and we have taken the Inspector General's reports and we have used them to make considerable changes that have increased morale, especially at the Chemical Safety Board; and that we have also saved taxpayer dollars because we have utilized the Office of Inspector General reports. They have shed light on a litany of other employee misconduct. This is a good investment of taxpayer dollars. This amendment ensures that EPA OIG will have the resources it needs to continue to conduct these essential investigations. So the amendment increases funding for the EPA OIG by $10,038,000. It decreases EPA environmental programs and management appropriations by $14 million. That is actually awash when you look at the out years. I strongly encourage adoption of the Chaffetz amendment to this legislation. Mr. Chairman, with gratitude for your time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LUMMIS

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

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to observe that I am the third of three daughters, and my father used to always say nothing good ever happens after midnight, which is why he gave us a midnight curfew. I am hoping he was talking about mountain daylight time instead of eastern daylight time, especially with regard to my amendment. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is intended to prohibit funding to complete EPA's proposed rule for environmental protection standards for uranium and thorium mill tailings. The rule is intended to protect groundwater from potential future contamination due to in situ uranium production. The intent is not bad, but EPA officials acknowledge there is no evidence in situ uranium recovery, a process that has been used for more than four decades, has ever caused an adverse impact to adjacent, nonexempt aquifers. Also, the EPA lacks jurisdiction to impose these standards. The EPA has general standard setting authority; but Congress has designated the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and its agreement states, as the lead when it comes to implementation and enforcement, a concern raised by the NRC's general counsel. Now, the uranium industry has offered to work with the EPA to review existing data and conduct additional sampling, if warranted. The industry made this offer in May 2015, and the EPA never responded, which is a problem, which has been acknowledged earlier this evening with regard to an amendment about inquiries by stakeholders and Congress regarding the EPA. They are so busy making rules that they forget to respond to stakeholders and Members of Congress. American uranium production already faces intense competition from overseas production and Federal uranium sales, where our stockpile is being sold onto the market, depressing domestic prices and causing additional importation of uranium into the U.S. The U.S. imports upwards of 90 percent of the uranium we need for our power plants. The proposed rule's 30-year postproduction monitoring requirements will present a significant burden on already struggling producers in Texas, Wyoming, and the West, and it could lead to more mining bankruptcies. Employment in the industry has already dropped by 21 percent. Why are we putting miners out of work and employing them in other countries where we import the same product? The EPA recently said the agency planned to finalize this rule before the end of the Obama administration is on track. This amendment may be Congress' last chance to stop the rule and save the domestic uranium industry. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I offer and support amendment No. 70 to H.R. 5538 and ask for its adoption. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, with great respect for the gentlewoman from Minnesota with whom I have had the privilege to serve for these past 8 years and whom I admire for her diligence and thoughtful representation of her constituents and our country, I would assert that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and its agreement states, are the lead when it comes to implementation and enforcement, and even the NRC's general counsel has raised this issue. The States and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are in control of this issue. It is adequately regulated. It is appropriately regulated in a manner that protects groundwater. The injection wells and the recovery wells are from nonpotable water sources, and there are no instances where a nonpotable aquifer has contaminated a potable water aquifer. For those reasons, I believe that this amendment is appropriate, and I encourage its adoption. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3079) to take certain Federal land located in Tuolumne County, California, into trust for the benefit of the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mrs. LUMMIS

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2273) to amend the Colorado River Storage Project Act to authorize the use of the active capacity of the Fontenelle Reservoir, as amended.

Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.