Thomas Tiffany

Mr. TIFFANY

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Chairman, this is the appropriate forum to bring this before. It is to deny funding for something that is no longer temporary. This has become, we might as well rename it PPS, permanent protective status rather than TPS. This is the appropriate venue to deny the funding to allow the President to continue to use this just like every other means, whether it is parole and all other type things, to be able to allow people to illegally come into our country. By the way, what country around the world hasn't had a natural disaster? Are we going to let people come in from every country in the world when there is a hurricane, a typhoon, or an earthquake, whatever natural disaster happens? That is what we are being set up for here. When we hear gang violence being talked about, why is there so much gang violence in those countries? It is, in part, because we have open borders. I was in Panama 3 years ago. I went to the Darien Gap. I saw what was going on down there when hundreds of thousands of people were coming in through the Darien Gap. It is now tens of thousands of people who are going through the Darien Gap making their way up through Central America, including Honduras. That is, in part, what is destabilizing these countries. If we would pass H.R. 2 and we had a President who chose to secure the border, then we would see safer countries, and we would no longer need TPS in countries like Honduras. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIFFANY

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6651 to rename the United States Post Office located at 603 3rd Street in Necedah, Wisconsin, after a very distinguished veteran, Sergeant Kenneth E. Murphy. Sergeant Murphy was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his gallantry in Vietnam, as well as the Purple Heart. Sergeant Murphy was born and raised in Necedah and served in the United States Army during the Vietnam war. On November 9, 1966, while serving as a squad leader on a search and destroy mission in Tuy Hoa, he fearlessly ran through fire to help his fellow soldiers who were wounded. While he was wounded twice, once in the head, he continued to serve fearlessly and led his team to attack the enemy, break out of their trap, and finally overwhelm the insurgent force. Sergeant Murphy continues to reside in Necedah today. Wisconsin and our Nation are grateful for his service and bravery.

Mr. TIFFANY

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I will just close with this: In 1960, John F. Kennedy went to my district in Hurley, Wisconsin, to the Montreal Mine, thousands of feet down into that mine. He said to those miners: You did as much to win World War II as I did on PT-109. Are we going to have a 21st century that is an American century or a Chinese century?

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation today because we have a very simple question that lies before us: Is the 21st century going to be an American century or a Chinese century? We all know the history of the 20th century. As we left the 20th century, America stood ascendant, that shining city on the hill. Now, as we go into the 21st century, the question needs to be asked again: Whose century will this be, because the Chinese seek hegemony. One of the ways in which they do it is to control the minerals that are traded around the world. We stand here today, and this is one of the small decision points that we are going to make. It is no different than, right across from northern Minnesota, there is a natural gas plant that is being held up by the Biden administration and a few small, select group of local people to prevent a natural gas-fired plant from being built. Making one of those small decisions, are we going to be dependent on other countries because, if we are dependent, then we will not be that shining city on a hill. I think about the goals that this administration has stated. They have talked about American manufacturing, and I hear it from both sides. We must have American manufacturing. How are we going to have American manufacturing if we don't produce some of the minerals and the metals that come out of the ground? How are we going to have American manufacturing if we don't produce some of that in America? I hear that this administration wants to make sure that there is union labor. There is a project labor agreement that is in place to be able to build this mine. This is going to create union jobs, one of the goals of this administration. Certainly, my colleagues have talked about electrification. We want to electrify our vehicle fleet as well as getting rid of natural gas, natural gas-fired stoves. How are we going to get there if we don't have the minerals that produce those devices that are going to be able to provide that? Remember, in every Toyota Prius, there is 60 pounds of copper. How are we going to electrify the vehicle fleet without producing minerals right here in America? I think back to January 20, 2021, and the very first action that this administration took saying that they are going to shut down Keystone XL, and making it very clear we are going to be energy dependent once again. What immediately happened to the price of oil? It went from $60 a barrel. Within a couple of months, it was up to $100 a barrel, enriching the despot Vladimir Putin, who has used it to wage war in eastern Europe. That is what happens when we do not utilize our natural resources, whether it is our forest resources, our mineral resources, or our oil and natural gas resources. We end up being dependent on other countries. I hear consistently from the other side that the minority is all for mining, but then I pose the question to my colleagues: Where? Where do minority Members support new mines? It is easy to say: Well, a mine has been there for a hundred years and to be able to support it and the union jobs that oftentimes come with it, but where do Democratic Members support new mining in America? The opposing side's witness could not answer that question at our hearing, and I still haven't heard an answer from the minority yet. Where do my colleagues support mining in America if Democrats support mining? Twin Metals has gone through an exhaustive process, and they have been proving that they can do this. Let them finish the process here of the rigorous environmental permitting that we have, not just at the Federal level, but at the State level because, living in Minnesota's neighboring State, Wisconsin, I know how rigorous the State of Minnesota's mining regulations are. We have a choice before us today. Are we going to allow dirty mining around the world to be able to provide our natural resources in America, or are we going to respect the health of people, which we have the best health standards of anyone in the world? We have the best safety standards. Go to Congo and see the safety standards that are there with 8-year-olds mining in Congo. We have the highest and best environmental standards. If we want workers to be safe, if we want them to be healthy, if we want to have the highest environmental standards, then we will support American mining.

Mr. TIFFANY

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, what a success we are celebrating here today: The Endangered Species Act and how it worked with the wolf. It worked. It has recovered. We should be celebrating that here today. Don't take our word for it. Take these 26 scientists' names right behind me. We have heard repeatedly today about how we should be trusting science. Scientists are not saying that. I will put these scientists, these wildlife biologists, up against any scientist here in America who is in the upper Great Lakes States. They sent a letter to the Fish and Wildlife Service 10 years ago saying: Delist the wolf. It is recovered. You are going to endanger the Endangered Species Act if you don't delist a recovered species. The fine State of Wisconsin, which I represent the Seventh Congressional District, was impugned, in particular, the hunters of the State of Wisconsin. We have had three successful wolf hunts: 2011, 2012, 2013, and once again in 2021. Each time, the numbers rebounded right back to where they were before or grew even more. That is a sign of having a successful hunt, that you are managing the population in an appropriate manner. One of the most eminent predator biologists appeared before our committee last year and spoke about that, how up to 30 percent--29 percent being the exact number--but up to about 30 percent of take can happen of a particular species and it still will recover. That is peer- reviewed science, and that is why you see these 26 eminent wildlife biologists saying that the wolf should be delisted. I want to talk a little bit about dead animals and killing cattle. It is not the cattle that they kill that causes the harm to a rancher or a farmer. It is the reduction in production. It is the reduction in the amount of milk that a dairy cow produces when they are stirred up by wolves tracking them. It is the reduced rate of gain for a beef farmer. That is what puts farmers out of business in wolf country. It is not the actual killing of the animal. The gentleman can cite these arcane statistics like this. That does not get at the heart of the harm that it does to farmers. It is time to let the States manage the wolf population because there are other species, as was said in our hearing, that perhaps we should be dedicating time to. If you have a recovered species, and additional time and effort by the Fish and Wildlife Service is being put into a species that has already recovered like the wolf, we are not able to deal with other species. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. D'Esposito). The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. TIFFANY. It requires additional resources for species that may be headed in that direction. As these 26 wildlife biologists said in their letter that they sent 10 years ago, the ultimate danger in not delisting the wolf, a recovered species, is that you are going to endanger the Endangered Species Act and diminish its value.

Mr. TIFFANY

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of the warrant amendment. I will speak on the warrant amendment here for a couple minutes that were about to vote on today. I hold in my hands here a document that states all the reasons why the warrant amendment should not be adopted by this Congress, and I will cite one item, specifically. Number 5 cites the current FBI director. He goes on to say that Russia has launched the most violent ground war in Europe since the 1940s as a justification for not passing this amendment. Will Americans giving up their civil rights prevent that? China has rapidly proliferated its nuclear weapons capabilities. Will Americans giving up their civil rights prevent that proliferation? Will it prevent China in--clearly, they are a threat to the free world with their seeking global hegemony, but do Americans have to give up their civil rights? It goes on to talk about Afghanistan falling to the Taliban, ISIS revived, Houthi terrorists putting our troops under attack, Israeli men, women, and children slaughtered by Hamas. Will Americans giving up their civil rights prevent those things from happening? It won't. These words ring very hollow by the current FBI director when he is targeting Americans, when we have seen the leadership of our FBI target Americans. We have a powerful word in the English language, and I think it is one of the most beautiful words out there. It is liberty. And encapsulated in that liberty is freedom, and the Founders used liberty as often as they used the term ``freedom.'' Liberty encapsulates freedom, but it also says you have to be accountable for that freedom. There are those in our government who have chosen not to be accountable. This great system we have allows us to provide that accountability, and that is what we are here to do today is to provide that accountability for those intelligence agencies. The choice is simple before us today. We can protect the powerful with their Praetorian guard here in Washington, D.C., or do we protect the American people with the most powerful document created in the history of humankind, the Constitution? Today, Mr. Speaker, I will be choosing the people and the Constitution.

Mr. TIFFANY

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 524) to amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to create an exemption for certain shoreline borrow sites, as amended.

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer).

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 524, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 524, sponsored by my colleague Congressman Rouzer of North Carolina. This bill amends the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, or CBRA, to ensure coastal communities have access to the resources they need to renourish their beaches, protect public safety, and strengthen their local economies. This bill would amend CBRA to ensure communities that have been using sites located within the CBRA's system as a source of sand to renourish beaches in response to an emergency between December 31, 2008, and December 31, 2023, will be allowed to continue doing so. Without it, communities like Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, in Mr. Rouzer's district, which has been using the same site for the last 60 years to renourish its beach, would be left with few realistic and cost-effective options to carry out their necessary projects, which serve as a critical tool in protecting vulnerable communities. As we heard from the mayor of Wrightsville Beach at the hearing on this bill, enacting H.R. 524 would enable both the Federal Government and local governments to achieve the primary goals of CBRA at a lower cost to taxpayers by avoiding the necessity to complete beach nourishment using sand from offshore sites. For example, the most recent completed beach nourishment event took place in 2018 at a cost of $11.9 million. If Wrightsville Beach is forced to utilize an offshore borrow site, costs could exceed $25 million for the same project. This is a commonsense bill that protects coastal communities while accomplishing the goals of CBRA. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, America is blessed with pristine coastlines that are both vital ecosystems and vital economic engines. CBRA is an important safeguard that helps us as a Nation balance these two important factors. H.R. 524 furthers this ideal by ensuring that local communities who rely on beach renourishment projects to protect their citizens and their beaches can responsibly continue to do so. I thank Congressman Rouzer, once again, for his leadership on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TIFFANY

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings had during the recess be printed in the Record.

Mr. TIFFANY

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2560) to require the Secretary of Commerce to establish the Sea Turtle Rescue Assistance Grant Program, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 2560, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Representative Keating's bill would establish a Federal grant program for the recovery, care, and treatment of stranded sea turtles in the United States. All six turtle species found in U.S. waters are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. According to the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network, their partners cared for more than 2,000 sea turtles over the last 2 years. H.R. 2560 will build on the network of these organizations and further support sea turtles. At our full committee markup of this bill last October, an amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered by Representative Luna of Florida to incorporate feedback from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to include rehabilitation as an intent of the legislation. In addition, to ensure its compliance with floor protocols, the ANS ensured the program would be funded through NOAA's general authorities. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Keating and my colleagues across the aisle for working with us to amend this bill to address the concerns of some of our Members, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time and am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to briefly close. Sea turtles are an iconic species that capture the hearts and minds of many. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, due to the hard work of organizations such as the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network, the National Aquarium, and others, more than 2,000 sea turtles have been rescued and rehabilitated over the last 2 years. H.R. 2560 will complement the great work of these organizations. I again thank Mr. Keating, Mrs. Luna, and my colleagues on the committee for their collaborative work on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. TIFFANY

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

Mr. TIFFANY

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the Laken Riley Act. First, I want to express sincere condolences from everyone in the Seventh Congressional District to Laken Riley's family. Then-candidate Biden promised in 2020 that we would have open borders, and we have seen the devastating consequences, and it is happening all over the country. In January, a father of three daughters was killed by an illegal alien in my congressional district in northern Wisconsin. Once again, this illegal alien should have been deported by ICE agents when he was first convicted of drunk driving in 2023. Once again, the Biden administration chose not to deport him. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, this is hardly a surprise. In fact, in 2020, Joe Biden himself declared, I don't count drunk driving, when asked what crimes should merit the removal of illegal aliens. He is not alone. As we all know, just a few short weeks ago, 150 Democrats in this Chamber voted against legislation to deport criminal aliens convicted of drunk driving. Mr. Speaker, the sad truth is that both Laken Riley and Steven Nasholm's deaths were preventable.

Mr. TIFFANY

Mr. TIFFANY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the 12 young athletes from across the Seventh District of Wisconsin who brought home individual State wrestling championship titles for 2024. Liam Neitzel, Owen Wasley, Colton Hush, Gage Losiewicz, Wyatt Ingham, Ian Smith, Koy Hopke, Wyatt Unser, Dawson Johnson, Matthew Roach, Ava Gardner, and Madison Burns left it all on the mat to bring home State championship titles. A special shout-out to Dawson Johnson of Cumberland High School and Koy Hopke of Amery High School on becoming four-time State champions-- being only 2 of 29 ever to do this in Wisconsin. Again, I congratulate all of these athletes.

Mr. TIFFANY

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Chair, first of all, merry Christmas. My bipartisan amendment prevents the USDA from issuing any rule that bans any of the milk covered in this bill, including chocolate milk. This would ensure that all types and flavors of milk are available to schoolchildren and not subject to bureaucratic rulemaking. Some may ask why are we focusing on this issue. Unfortunately, it is because the USDA has set its sights on getting rid of chocolate milk in schools. It is now up to us to act. This summer, it was reported that the Department of Agriculture is considering a ban on chocolate milk in elementary and middle schools. USDA issued a proposed rule that would set a new nutrition standard for school meals. These new standards could limit the availability of flavored milk, like chocolate and strawberry, in high schools while children in elementary and middle schools would have no access at all. For those of you with young children or grandchildren, go and ask them what they think about USDA's new rule. I think I can speak for most folks when saying that when I was young, chocolate milk was usually the highlight of having lunch at school, but this new rule would mean that roughly 30 million students who participate in the USDA's school meal programs would no longer be able to have chocolate milk, or any flavored milk for that matter. According to the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, removing flavored milk from schools resulted in a 62 to 63 percent reduction in milk consumption by kids in kindergarten through fifth grade, including a 50 percent reduction in sixth through eighth grades. Milk is full of rich nutrients that support bone growth and development, and millions of children enjoy drinking it. We should not allow rules that would limit our children's access to delicious and nutritious products like milk and its varieties covered in this great bill. Mr. Chair, I say to the USDA, come and take it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Chairman, oh, those experts, those experts have done us so well in the United States of America. Why are we $33 trillion in debt? Why do we have childhood obesity that is off the charts at this point? Oh, those experts serve us so well, those experts that told us that butter is not good for us. Remember that a number of decades ago? Growing up on a dairy farm in western Wisconsin, I couldn't believe the experts were telling us that butter is not good for us. Well, all of a sudden, they are changing their tune on that. They told us that we shouldn't possibly drink whole milk. They are beginning to turn on that also and saying maybe that is good for our children. Yeah, the experts, they have done us so well. The reason I bring this before the House of Representatives is I did listen to experts, those people who run the school lunch programs. I will never forget a day about a decade ago when I stopped at a local gas station in northern Wisconsin, and a school lunch director came up to me--I didn't even know her--she said, at that time, Senator Tiffany, would you tell the Federal Government to get out of our school lunch program? We are throwing away so much food. Remember Michelle Obama's school lunch dictates that she put in place? The school lunch director said, Don't do that to us. I had multiple school lunch directors across northern Wisconsin, in my district, asking the Federal Government to stay out of their school lunch programs: We know what we are doing, we are trained in what we are doing, and we see what happens in our schools. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.