Bruce Westerman

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the distinguished gentleman, the leader of the Democratic Party, for his remarks. I agree with many things that he said. I think all of us would agree with many of the things that he stated. I was with him right up there until the part about using D.C. statehood as a metaphor with Puerto Rican statehood. If the gentleman wanted to talk about the residents of D.C., we can talk about taking those residential neighborhoods and commercial neighborhoods in D.C. and putting them back with the State of Maryland if that is an issue. D.C. statehood is totally different from Puerto Rican statehood, and it shouldn't even be brought into this discussion. The gentleman talked about the inherent right to self-determination. He said it is something that shouldn't be dictated by the Congress of the U.S. to the people of Puerto Rico. He said the decision belongs to the people of Puerto Rico. Their destiny belongs to them. I think we would all agree with that in principle, but that is not what this bill says. Section 102 talking about the independence option. I am reading directly from the bill: ``The constitutional convention under section 101 shall formulate and draft a constitution for Puerto Rico that guarantees the protection of fundamental human rights . . . '' We all agree that should happen, but if they are an independent nation, what right do we have to tell them that? It says it shall include: ``Due process and equal protection under the law; freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion; the rights of the accused; any other economic, social, and cultural rights as the constitutional convention may deem appropriate and necessary; and provisions to ensure that no individual born in the nation of Puerto Rico shall be stateless at birth.'' I don't disagree with that, but if they vote for independence, what right do we have to dictate to them how they write their constitution and what is included in it? The other option of free association, section 202 of the bill: ``The constitutional convention under section 201 shall formulate and draft a constitution for Puerto Rico that guarantees the protection of fundamental human rights . . . '' Again, if they have the sovereignty under a free association, what right does Congress have to dictate what their constitution will say? The leader's words that their destiny shouldn't be dictated by the U.S. Congress. Their destiny belongs to them. Yet, this bill tells them what they shall do if they vote for either of those options. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to be as crystal clear as I can. I think this is not only my position, but I believe it is the position of everyone in the minority--the whole Republican Conference and I would hope it would be the position of all of the Democratic Caucus--that America is not a symbol of darkness. America is still a shining city on a hill. America offers more hope and more protections for freedom than anybody in the history of the world has offered and will continue to offer that. A country that is founded on the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness cannot be considered a country that is a symbol of darkness. I heard a lot of talk about colonialism. But passing a bill that tells a sovereign nation what its laws should be sounds a lot like colonialism to me. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, introduced in July 2022, H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act, would authorize a federally sponsored plebiscite to occur on November 5, 2023, and it would dictate to the voters of Puerto Rico three and only three choices: independence, sovereignty and free association, or statehood. If no one option receives a majority vote, there will be a runoff on March 3, 2024. I cannot support this measure because of process concerns and wide- ranging policy changes that involve the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee, along with several other House committees that haven't even seen this bill. The Committee on Natural Resources has not held a hearing on this bill, nor have the other committees with expertise on complex issues of U.S. citizenship, taxation and entitlement programs, foreign policy, and many other matters. None of them have been given an opportunity to openly consider, debate, and amend this bill. The question of Puerto Rico's political status is a life-altering decision for the people of Puerto Rico. Just as we would expect the people of Puerto Rico to deliberate its questions, understand its consequences, and accept responsibility for the choice, so should Congress. These issues are far too important for this body to act without proper deliberation. Because of the hasty and secretive process that was used to develop this bill, it contains many concerning and unresolved issues. The bill contradicts itself, offering Puerto Rico the promise of independence while prescribing actions that should be taken by the newly sovereign nation. How can you be independent yet have another nation dictate what your actions will be? It promises the trappings of U.S. citizenship without the responsibilities of being a part of the United States. It is unfortunate that we are here considering this legislation on the House floor after the majority has held backroom negotiations instead of open, transparent hearings and markups. A regular and open legislative process would have allowed Members of this body and the people of Puerto Rico--more than 3 million United States citizens--to fully assess what this bill proposes and what it means for this and future generations. In fact, the majority made changes to the bill that had even less consideration than the version ordered to be reported by the Committee on Natural Resources in July, cutting backroom deals as recently as this week. We learned this bill would be on the floor even before we had the text from the Rules Committee. We didn't even know what we would be debating when we learned this bill would be on the floor. Madam Speaker, there is a favorite Latin expression of mine. It is lux et veritas. It means light and truth. This body, this Congress, and this Federal Government could use a lot more light and truth. You see, without light, when you are in the darkness, you don't know what truth is. If you don't know what truth is, then you make bad policy decisions. Unfortunately, the lack of transparency seems to be par for the course in Congress anymore. This bill should have been debated. It should have had light shone on it. This is just bad policy. I don't see how anybody could read this bill and think that there are not problems with it, that there is not a lack of logic. There is incoherence in the text of the bill, and it is taking us to a position where we would make bad decisions. Here we are, just a week after this Chamber was left guessing what would be in the final NDAA and while we are currently guessing what will be in a last-minute omnibus spending bill that will, no doubt, be rolled out in the dark of night. This is another example of what is so broken about this process, what is so broken about the way this majority has led. If this majority were interested in helping Puerto Rico, we would be advancing legislation to address the reliability of the island's energy grid, ensure its fiscal solvency, repair its infrastructure, or meet any of the other tangible needs for the people of Puerto Rico. We should be treating these U.S. citizens with respect and letting a full and robust legislative process in the light of day take place to address the status question and the many implications for the people of Puerto Rico and for all Americans. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 8393, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the exemplary work and upcoming retirement of Joe Liles, a law enforcement officer with the Ouachita National Forest. Joe has faithfully served Arkansas for 30 years, going above and beyond in each mission to loyally serve the people of Arkansas. Throughout his successful career, Joe received many awards, including the ``Delivering Benefits to the Public'' award at the 2019 Regional Foresters Honor Awards for his heroic efforts in locating and recovering a lost hiker in the Caney Creek Wilderness. Joe's humble nature and hardworking spirit made him a vital part of the Ouachita National Forest. I speak for all Arkansans when I say thank you for your service and wish you the best in retirement.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the exemplary work of Mr. Troy Heithecker of the U.S. Forest Service and to thank him for his service to the great state of Arkansas. For 25 years, Troy has dedicated his life to protecting our beautiful national forests, and we were privileged to have him for the last three years as the Forest Supervisor for the Ouachita National Forest in Hot Springs, AR. As the only licensed forester in Congress, I can confidently say that Arkansas is blessed with one of the most beautiful, well-managed national forests in the country, and that would not be possible without leadership from individuals like Troy. Throughout the course of his career, Troy has achieved many major accomplishments through his work in national forests across the country. Notably, he worked with the State of Arkansas and other partners towards co-managing both forest and recreation resources on the Ouachita National Forest. He also led efforts to successfully restore the Red Cockaded Woodpecker habitat, established national hiring reform for the USDA Forest Service, and completed two collaborative landscape scale project decisions on the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. Troy was recently selected to serve as the Associate Deputy Chief for the National Forest System in the United States Department of Agriculture's Forest Service in Washington, D.C. Arkansas's loss is certainly Washington's gain. I am grateful for Troy's service to the Ouachita National Forest, and I look forward to working with him in the future. I thank Troy for his dedication to leaving our forests better than he found them, so that they may be enjoyed by all Americans for generations.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in celebration of William ``Chip'' R. Murray, for his retirement after a stunning 47-year career in service to two of our Nation's greatest resources: our forests and the millions of Americans who own and manage them. After beginning his career at the U.S. Department of the Interior, Chip found his way into forestry in 1989. Chip focused on forestry issues for more than 20 years at the American Forest & Paper Association, where he served as Deputy General Counsel and Executive Director of Forestry. In that role, he oversaw forestry programs that helped forest owners manage their land to meet the objectives of the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. Chip also spearheaded important improvements to various legislation impacting the forestry sector. In 2010, Chip joined the National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) as Vice President for Policy, and General Counsel. His work at NAFO over the last 12 years has focused on ensuring that policymakers understand and appreciate private forestry's deeply rooted culture of sustainability and the vast environmental benefits private working forests provide--from climate mitigation and clean air to clean water and wildlife habitat. Chip's work on wildlife conservation is perhaps his most enduring legacy. Chip led the development of the Wildlife Conservation Initiative, a pioneering partnership between private landowners and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) to conserve at-risk and declining species on private forestlands. Under Chip's leadership, NAFO's Wildlife Conservation Initiative has become the gold standard of collaborative species conservation. Today, NAFO members and the USFWS are partnering on voluntary conservation projects in every legacy USFWS region in the country. Throughout his career, Chip has led and participated in a wide variety of forestry sector organizations and coalitions. He is widely known for his encyclopedic knowledge of forestry, his rich institutional memory, and the passion he brings to any issue he touches. Chip is generous with his time, insights, and mentorship, to the great benefit of several generations of forestry professionals. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating the outstanding career of Chip Murray, spent in service to our nation's abundant privately owned forests. Today we honor Chip and the lasting impact he has had on the forestry community, both inside and outside of government. We wish him and Ellen well as they start the next chapter of their lives--enjoying many adventures that undoubtedly will include time well spent in the forest.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Robert Ficklin, forestry professor at the University of Arkansas at Monticello, for receiving the Society of American Foresters (SAF) Fellows Award. The SAF Fellows Award is the highest recognition in the forestry profession. It is a testament to Dr. Ficklin's lifetime of service to the industry and the Society of American Foresters in particular. Dr. Ficklin is only the third forestry professor in the history of UAM to receive this esteemed honor. Dr. Ficklin has made extraordinary contributions to the forestry industry at a local, state, and national level. His service and leadership over the last twenty years at UAM has left a lasting impact on his students. His former students now hold professional forestry and environmental management positions in state and federal agencies, as well as various academic positions. Dr. Ficklin was recognized for his impact in the UAM forestry program by being the first forestry faculty member to become a finalist in the Hornaday Outstanding Faculty Award. In addition to his impact on students, Dr. Ficklin has been instrumental in research and innovation. His research on forest soils in the Ozark uplands, the Western Gulf Coastal Plain, and the Lower Mississippi Alluvial Valley have been presented nationally. His research has resulted in numerous publications, papers, reports, abstracts, and presentations that will be used for many years. I am proud to recognize Dr. Ficklin today for his many accomplishments and to thank him for his commitment, dedication, and service to the forestry industry. Dr. Ficklin's contributions to the forestry sector will be felt for years to come. Arkansas is the gold standard when it comes to forestry, and that is in large part due to forestry leaders like Dr. Robert Ficklin.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill along with the other suspension bills that we have worked with Chairman Grijalva to get on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to recognize the dedicated service of one of my staff members, Terry Camp, who will be leaving us next month. Known affectionately as ``Turbo'' by his colleagues, he has certainly lived up to that nickname. Since starting on the House Committee on Natural Resources in 2015, Terry has had a hand in nearly 60 bills that have been signed into law. This total doesn't even account for the countless bills he has been a part of that have been enacted as part of various legislative packages. While this is an impressive total, it doesn't even come close to the number of now-famous Capitol tours he has given, which he offers in both English and Spanish. As our national parks staffer, he has visited numerous national park units throughout his tenure, frequently stopping by any nearby units on family vacations. That dedication has led to the creation of many new bills, including the Save the Liberty Theater Act which was signed into law earlier this year. Terry's passion for public service is perhaps surpassed only by his passion for the Utah State University Aggies. Terry exemplifies the guiding principles of my office by always abiding in love, competing to win, and succeeding through service. While we will miss him in the Halls of Congress, we wish him, his wife, Kayla, and their son, Elijah, all the best as they start the next chapter of their lives back in their home State of Utah.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, again, I support the amendment. It is going to be needed as these fires continue to rage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I support this amendment and appreciate the solution it presents for a pressing problem. Currently, the Small Business Administration only requires collateral for disaster loans if the loan amount is above $25,000. This authority is set to sunset in November, and the minimum amount will revert to $14,000. This amendment would permanently lock in the amount at $25,000. I thank the ranking member of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, Garret Graves, for his leadership on disaster issues. His home State of Louisiana has suffered through many disasters, and he has been an unwavering champion for his constituents. And it is a good thing he is leading on this issue. Affordable disaster loans could be in high demand because the underlying bill does nothing to protect the landscape, people, or property from devastating wildfires. I would like to emphasize, the underlying bill would only respond to wildfires, not work to prevent them. Throughout this debate, my colleagues have tried to claim that this is not the case and that their bill will actually support increased forest management practices like thinning and prescribed burning. But look no further than their own one-pager, which says derisively: ``We can't simply cut our way out of wildfire risk.'' This should tell you everything you need to know about how they feel about scientific forest management. The truth is that thinning is not only an essential tool to reduce wildfire risk, but there is a scientific consensus that we must increase thinning in our forests to turn the tide of this crisis. The fact that this bill mentions thinning zero times is no mistake. It is because Democrats refuse to agree with the scientific consensus that both thinning and prescribed burning are essential tools to reduce wildfire risk. Affordable disaster loans provided by this amendment will also be necessary because of the wildfires that will occur as a result of throwing out the Forest Service's current 10-year strategy. My colleagues have claimed that their bill would simply codify this current 10-year strategy. They have also said that the infrastructure bill made historic investments in that strategy and have funded its initial projects. This simply makes no sense. My colleagues think the infrastructure bill is so nice that they want to pass it twice, but that is not how any of this works. If we funded a project in the infrastructure bill, we don't need to authorize funding for it here because that money has already gone out the door. And if the administration released a strategy 6 months ago and started implementing it, they don't need this bill to codify it. Truth be told, the plain reading of the text shows that the current wildfire strategy is getting thrown out the window, and nothing in this text codifies it or even mentions the projects currently happening. Unfortunately, if this bill passes, a lot of small business owners will be able to make good use of affordable disaster loans provided by this amendment as they recover their businesses from the impacts of catastrophic wildfire. The least we can do is help them with disaster loans after these fires inevitably occur. Madam Chair, I support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I claim time in opposition to this amendment, even though I might not necessarily oppose it.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, more and more of or forests are going up in flames. More forests are being categorized as subject to catastrophic wildfire. We are losing this fight. We need a new game plan. We need work on this in a bipartisan manner. There are a lot of areas that need to be addressed, but this bill, and this amendment doesn't address those. I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to Schrier amendment No. 2 which would fund additional research for post-fire weather assessments. This amendment suffers from the same shortcomings as the underlying package because it is overly focused on wildfire response rather than even making an attempt at wildfire prevention. We know what is causing catastrophic wildfires, and it is not a lack of government agencies studying wildfires, tracking weather, and producing additional reports. Our forests are burning now, and we need to focus on real solutions; namely, accelerating, thinning, and prescribed burning. Adding more duplicative bureaucracy and unnecessary research will do nothing to stop our forests from going up in flames year after year. Madam Chair, the forests really don't care what we say in this body. They are out there doing what Teddy Roosevelt said they do. They are the lungs of the Earth. They breathe in the carbon dioxide and they breathe out oxygen. We produce a lot of carbon dioxide in this Chamber, but it is not doing anything to help our forests. Frankly, it is unserious that, out of the dozens of substantive wildfire amendments that were offered to the Rules Committee, this is the only one that was made in order. The Rules Committee even rejected bipartisan amendments such as the bipartisan Save Our Sequoias Act. We have lost 20 percent of the world's giant sequoias in the last 2 years, and perhaps the most famous giant sequoia grove, the Mariposa Grove in Yosemite National Park, was on fire earlier this month. What saved that grove? It wasn't weather assessments. It was proactive treatments from land managers that we need to use as a model across all 76 giant sequoia groves. Unfortunately, the underlying bill and amendment before us would do nothing to help protect our giant sequoias or move the needle on the wildfire crisis at all. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's kind words about the amendment. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Conway).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the amendment. Madam Chair, Leader McCarthy's amendment presents a commonsense solution. As he knows all too well from his efforts resolving water issues, communities in California and elsewhere in the West are running out of water for families, farms, communities, and many other needs thanks to natural and manmade drought. This has a dramatic impact not only to those areas, but it negatively impacts food production which affects every one of us. In the case of some California communities, wells that are used to provide drinking water have or will run dry. This amendment seeks to provide some relief to rural communities through the creation of a new grant program aimed at constructing new wells and waterlines designed to deliver drinking water to these communities. I thank Leader McCarthy for introducing this amendment and for his longstanding leadership on bringing balance back to western water policies. Madam Chair, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), I offer amendment No. 1.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, this is a commonsense, good amendment that the leader has offered. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. A poet named Joyce Kilmer wrote his most famous poem called ``Trees,'' and it begins with, ``I think that I shall never see a poem as lovely as a tree.'' Trees and forests are poetic. They tug at our heartstrings. They evoke emotion. And I sincerely appreciate the emotion that my colleagues across the aisle have. I really believe we want to get to the same place of having healthy trees and healthy forests. It was that that motivated me to go to forestry school and study forestry. Little did I know that I would have the honor and the huge responsibility of standing on the floor of this august body and speaking for the trees. We want to do the right thing. We know how to do the right thing. We know how to take care of these trees and take care of these forests. Unfortunately, what is in this bill doesn't do that. What is in this bill doesn't help the water situation. We should not pass this bill. Let's work together, come up with real solutions, pass them out of this House, and get them signed into law to help our forests, our firefighters, and our drought conditions. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I know the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Hoyer, has left the Chamber, but I did want to personally thank him for putting the Senate NEPA streamlining bill on the suspension calendar today. I hope we can work on more issues like that in the future. Madam Chair, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao).