Bruce Westerman

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I find this a bit amusing that the proponents of this bill are rolling out all the law enforcement agencies that are supportive of the bill. And why wouldn't they be? Why would they care which Federal agency deals with it? They just don't want to have to deal with the problem themselves. So, sure, they support this bill because it addresses a problem that they are having to deal with now. But I doubt they have looked past the point that it is creating a new Federal agency that doesn't affect their budgets, it is creating a new Federal agency that makes things duplicative, it doesn't affect their operations, and I am quite certain, had we put the amendment in to put this under APHIS, we would still have all those law enforcement agencies supporting this bill. So, Mr. Speaker, you have to take that for what it is worth. H.R. 263 is a template that is already being used to regulate other animals. This is the weaponization of the Lacey Act. USDA does have jurisdiction over privately owned cats. The USDA-licensed facilities are not government-owned. So every time the logic trail that you go down about why should this regulation be under U.S. Fish and Wildlife or under the Department of the Interior, it comes back to there is no logic. It is just that somebody had an agenda to put it under an agency that is not equipped right now and doesn't have the personnel right now to enforce it. So it is creating a new authorization that, I believe, is going to have happen to it what happens to many well-intended laws. They get weaponized to go after something that they originally weren't set up to go after. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend, the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, for making a point that we have made, and that is that there are bigger issues to talk about. Unfortunately, the issues that my friend mentioned are not under the jurisdiction of the House Natural Resources Committee. But energy production on Federal lands and Federal waters are big issues that are in the jurisdiction of our committee. So is mining all the critical resources, the elements and minerals, that are going to be needed to electrify the economy. Regarding the big CHIPS bill that was just passed on the floor here, a lot of the ingredients that go into those chips actually come from China. One hundred percent of them come from China. So there are bigger issues that we need to talk about. Really, this bill shouldn't be taking all of this time, and it wouldn't have taken all of this time if the majority had just worked with us a little bit. If they had done the commonsense thing and had put the jurisdiction of regulating these cats under APHIS where it belongs, as I said before, we would probably have this bill on the suspension calendar and we would all be talking about what a good piece of legislation it is and how it will benefit the country. But when we take a simple issue and create a new Federal bureaucracy and give authorities to an agency, that I don't even think wants these authorities much less needs these authorities, is something we have to make an issue of. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we were just wanting a hearing on addressing the energy crisis that is facing our country, and we have yet to have that. We have continued to see development of energy on Federal lands put to a halt by this administration, and we are still waiting for when we are going to have that first hearing to address that issue. While it is unfortunate that 18 big cats and 49 animals escaped and had to be put down by police officers in Zanesville, Ohio, that was in 2011. It is unclear how this bill would have prevented the situation, for the owner committed suicide after letting all of his animals out of their pens. Actually, if this bill was based on putting the authority under APHIS, where they already have law enforcement and the infrastructure and the structure in place to enforce the regulations, it probably would have had a better chance of stopping this than the language in the current bill does. No one wants to have people put in danger through escaped big cats, but enacting duplicative Federal authorities under the Lacey Act and a new agency is totally unnecessary. Any new authorities at the Federal level should rest with APHIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), who serves on the Agriculture Committee and can talk about why this bill should have been under APHIS.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 263. There are a lot of things the gentleman from Hawaii said that I think me, and a lot of other Republicans would agree on about what needs to happen as far as the outcomes of regulating big cats. But the devil is in the details, and that is what I hope to show today, that the details and the process and the procedures that the policy will create with this Democrat bill are not what is best for this policy. Today's consideration of H.R. 263, the Big Cat Public Safety Act, follows action last month by the Committee on Natural Resources, where this bill passed on a party-line vote after 2 days of lengthy markup. At a time when gas prices were setting record highs on a near daily basis, the Committee on Natural Resources considered big cat legislation, once again, failing to address the economic and energy crisis facing Americans. At that time, committee Republicans offered several amendments aimed at reminding our majority that we should be focused on reducing energy and food prices, not on exotic pet ownership. Rather than address the real crisis of the day, Democrats shut down debate on our amendments and forced a vote on final passage of this bill. So here we are, once again, considering this big cats bill in what looks to be a very crowded legislative week, a week that does not focus on energy prices and inflation, even when gas is still averaging an unbearable and unacceptable $4.50 per gallon. Versions of this bill have been around since the 112th Congress, begging the question of why, if it is such a good idea, has it not been enacted over the last decade. Two clear reasons are that it would create a new regulatory framework and strip away States' rights. The bill before us today is aimed at regulating the private ownership of so-called big cats by creating a new and duplicative regulatory authority at the Department of the Interior. The legislation is a considerable expansion of Federal regulation under the Lacey Act. In 2003, Congress amended the Lacey Act to make it illegal to import, export, buy, sell, transport, receive, or acquire certain live big cats across State lines or the U.S. border. Interstate trade. The bill proposed by my friends across the aisle regulates big cats from the Federal level or an intrastate level, an area where State laws are already in place to handle this. The Lacey Act historically deals with interstate and international commerce on endangered or injurious wildlife, and the 2003 provisions specifically state that nothing in the act will supersede State laws, but here we are today taking another step to supersede State laws. This bill would expand the Lacey Act by blatantly overriding State law and enforcing intrastate regulation of big cats. It would require big cats exhibited at USDA-licensed or USDA- registered facilities be at least 15 feet from the public or behind a permanent barrier, irrespective of State laws. It would end new private ownership of big cats, and it would mandate all big cats be registered with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within 180 days or risk having the Federal Government confiscate their animal and impose criminal fines and penalties. It would require big cat owners to certify that they will not breed, acquire, or sell any big cats, and would prohibit direct public contact. All these mandates would supersede State authority and duplicate existing Federal Government regulation. Not only would this bill expand the Fish and Wildlife Service authorities, but it would overlay the U.S. Department of Agriculture's responsibilities, which already regulates the treatment of big cats in research and exhibition pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act of 1966. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, at the USDA already has inspectors and law enforcement officers in place that are experts in animal welfare issues. But this bill ignores that existing regulatory framework and would create a new regulatory system that the Congressional Budget Office estimates would lead to $80 million in foregone revenue from current USDA licensed facilities. The result of this bill would be that USDA-licensed facilities will be regulated by both APHIS under USDA and the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Department of the Interior. My staff and I have spent considerable time on this issue. One of our first questions was: Why not just work with the House and Senate Agriculture Committees under the jurisdiction of the Animal Welfare Act? The response we received was an admission that the bill's outside proponents would rather work through the Committee on Natural Resources than the Committee on Agriculture. This is a classic case of venue shopping. Creating two regulatory frameworks and dual Federal agency management superseding existing State regulation will create confusion, waste taxpayer dollars, and risk failing to adequately regulate these facilities at all. There is a simple fix to the issues that exist. For that reason, I offered an amendment at our markup that will move the authorities proposed by H.R. 263 into the current USDA framework without superseding State authorities. That commonsense alternative was, unfortunately, rejected on a party-line vote, and unfortunately, it was not allowed to be considered today during the debate in the full House of Representatives. I would dare say that had we adopted that amendment, this bill would be on the suspension calendar. While I agree that we want to reduce dangerous encounters between the public and big cats, I cannot support this bill because it is an overreaching, duplicative, and precedent-setting proposal that has already served as a blueprint for pending legislation on other species. We need to work within existing authorities, not create new and duplicative ones. More importantly, we need to focus on the crises facing Americans, including staggering inflation and the high price of energy, not big cats. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 263, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, recently, we have talked a lot about the dire situation of some of California's most iconic trees, the sequoias. But we have yet to discuss the condition of California's oldest trees, the Great Basin bristlecone pine trees. Great Basin bristlecone pines signify resilience, longevity, and perseverance. To cope in difficult times, they almost completely die off, leaving but a few strips of bark that can continue to grow along the ground or skyward for thousands of years. To ward off pests, bristlecone pines trap pests in their thick resin. Due to severe drought, in mixed forests, bark beetles have been able to build up broods on other tree species and overwhelm many bristlecone pines, which succumb to bark beetles in a way they have never before. The good news is, in the past month, a Forest Service pathologist confirmed that Methuselah, the nearly 5,000-year-old bristlecone pine thought to be the oldest tree in the world, has yet to face bark beetle infestation. There is still time to act on the drought in a timely, commonsense manner to protect our Great Basin bristlecone pines. We must follow the bristlecone pine's example of resilience and perseverance, adapting our laws to the needs of the natural world to stave off catastrophic wildfire and severe drought. Devastating Year for Farmers and Ranchers Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the hardworking farmers and ranchers of Arkansas, who are being crushed by unprecedented drought and heat on top of out-of-control inflation that has created suffocating input costs for basic farming inputs such as fuel and fertilizer. Although this devastating farm year can't be salvaged, hopefully the Biden administration and Democrats in Congress will realize how detrimental their actions have been on raising energy and food prices on those who can least afford it: low-income and fixed-income Americans. There is still time to change directions on this dangerous path Democrats are leading our country down. I plead with my colleagues across the aisle to embolden common sense.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, 3,000 years; that is how long some giant sequoias have been alive. To put this into perspective, these trees started growing before the concept of democracy, the English language, and the birth of Christ. The Mariposa Grove, the largest grove of giant sequoias in Yosemite National Park has been a source of inspiration for generations. When the Washburn Fire recently hit the Mariposa Grove, the fire's intensity dramatically decreased, thanks to 50 years of thinning and prescribed burns. There is a stark contrast between areas that have a history of proper management and those that have been disregarded. While the fire subsided in the Mariposa Grove, surrounding areas that did not receive sufficient management were destroyed. As a licensed forester, I take it upon myself to seek science-based solutions for the conservation of our forests. The Mariposa Grove serves as a prime example of how mechanical thinning and prescribed burns are necessary tools for proper forest management. It is my hope that the grove continues its legacy of inspiration by encouraging a new generation of proactive forest management that will protect these iconic trees for the enjoyment of generations to come. It is past time for the Natural Resources Committee to mark up the bipartisan Save Our Sequoias Act, and for the House to pass it to protect these iconic national treasures. Great Basin Bristlecone Pine Trees

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, today, one in five Americans are affected by dyslexia, making it the most common learning disability. Yet, there are still children in U.S. school systems that go without being diagnosed. Instead, they are written off as having a lack of effort, or a plain lack of intelligence. Despite misconception, dyslexia is not connected to one's level of intelligence. In fact, where students have a difficult time reading, they often excel in creative thought and critical thinking. My bipartisan legislation, the 21st Century Dyslexia Act, will Federally define dyslexia and label proper treatments and diagnosis, enabling teachers, students, and parents to assist aspiring students to achieve successful academic careers, and to ensure that all children are granted equal opportunity in the classroom. Save Our Sequoias

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I was delayed by Speaker Pelosi's metal detectors. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 379.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to Neguse amendment No. 455. This amendment would permanently ban mineral and energy development on over 1.2 million acres of public lands in northern Arizona and Colorado. Not only will this amendment kill jobs in rural communities, but it will threaten our national security by making us more dependent on foreign adversaries like Russia. I can't believe we would consider adding this amendment when inflation is at 9.1 percent, a 40-year high; gas prices have been hovering over $5 per gallon; and one of our major adversaries invaded its free and sovereign neighbor. This NDAA is meant to enhance our national security at a critical time in our Nation's history, not weaken it by taking critical minerals permanently off-line. Instead, Democrats are adding this amendment in the dead of night, hoping that we wouldn't notice. The Arizona component of this amendment permanently withdraws over 1 million acres from uranium mining. Currently, the domestic uranium industry is supplying less than 1 percent of the uranium needed to power the U.S. nuclear reactor fleet. Let me say that again. Less than 1 percent of what we need to power our fleet. In 2019, roughly half of our uranium supply was sourced from countries that are hostile to the United States, including Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Chinese-owned mines in Namibia. Allies like Canada and Australia have slowly been accounting for less and less of this supply, dropping from 51 percent in 2017 to 39 percent in 2019. Passing this mineral withdrawal will play into Putin's hands and weaken our mineral independence and national security. Proponents of this amendment will tell you that it is necessary to protect the Grand Canyon from destructive mining. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nobody is mining in the Grand Canyon. Nobody wants to mine in the Grand Canyon. Nobody will mine in the Grand Canyon in the future-- never. There are already buffer zones in place, it is called the Grand Canyon National Park. Unfortunately, this continues the disturbing trend--just today, technically yesterday at this point--committee Democrats passed a bill to permanently withdraw over 200,000 acres in northern Minnesota that constitutes 95 percent of our Nation's nuclear reserves, 88 percent of our cobalt, and 75 percent of our platinum reserves. These are not the kind of policies we should be advancing, and I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, there is a place and a time to debate wilderness and wild and scenic rivers, but I don't think the NDAA is the place for that. In conclusion, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment which will harm our environment and do nothing to improve our national security. Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the DeGette amendment No. 456. This amendment would add the text of the so-called Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act which would actually damage our environment and kill jobs in rural America. By the way, I don't understand really what this bill has to do with defense and why it gets made in order for the NDAA. This amendment creates nearly 1.5 million acres of new wilderness and designates over 1,200 miles of wild, scenic, and recreational rivers. For perspective, the wilderness designated in this bill is the same size as President Biden's home State of Delaware. Just days ago we reached the ominous mark of over 5 million acres burned nationwide. This is double the 10-year average and nearly three times the amount of acres that were burned at this point last year. One fire that has largely contributed to this total is the Hermits Peak Fire which is still burning in New Mexico as we debate here tonight. This fire, which is the largest in New Mexico's State history, has burned over 340,000 acres and racked up $278 million in fire suppression costs. This fire started in the Pecos Wilderness area which has not been properly managed and has significant fuel loads. Instead of this being a wake-up call, congressional Democrats are trying to double down on the failed strategy of locking up lands and throwing away the key less than 100 miles from where the Hermits Peak fire is currently burning. Creating new wilderness doesn't just mean catastrophic wildfires will be more likely. It means that these fires will also be more severe and put our brave wildland firefighters into harm's way. Many of these areas are too dangerous and burn too intensely to send firefighters in to fight. In contrast, areas that have previously received treatments are often places identified by firefighters as areas they can enter to start attacking a fire safely. We have a problem in our national forests that is not going to be solved with handsaws and shovels. Now is not the time to rely on century-old management techniques stipulated by wilderness designations when over 80 million acres of Forest Service land is in desperate need of treatment. If that weren't enough, this bill also designates land as wilderness in the wildland-urban interface. This is a matter of life and death. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition.

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

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

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I will strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, which has no place in a bill that is supposed to bolster our national security, not harm it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, after visiting the Mariposa Grove of giant sequoias, Teddy Roosevelt famously declared: ``A grove of giant redwood or sequoias should be kept just as we keep a great and beautiful cathedral.'' Madam Speaker, today that cathedral is on fire. The very grove in which President Roosevelt stood is enveloped in flames as we speak, threatening to destroy these iconic trees forever. We are seeing the horrific consequences of decades of forest mismanagement play out in Yosemite, and it is time to act to save our sequoias. Wildfires burn so hot and so intensely that they quite literally explode giant sequoias and create ``fire-nados,'' sending branches and bark hurling so far into the air that they have narrowly missed taking out our firefighting planes. If giant sequoias can't withstand these raging infernos, no tree stands a chance. Time is not on our side, Madam Speaker. I urge immediate action on the Save Our Sequoias Act to give land managers in California the resources they so desperately need, preventing firefighters from having to resort to desperate measures to save these national treasures. This is the only way we can conserve America's most beautiful cathedral for generations to come.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 291. Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress Allred (Gomez) Boebert (Bishop (NC)) Bonamici (Manning) Bourdeaux (Correa) Bowman (Chu) Bush (Williams (GA)) Carter (LA) (Williams (GA)) Carter (TX) (Weber (TX)) Cherfilus-McCormick (Williams (GA)) Cohen (Beyer) Connolly (Beyer) Costa (Correa) Crist (Wasserman Schultz) Davis, Danny K. (Gomez) DeSaulnier (Beyer) Dingell (Stevens) Doyle, Michael F. (Pallone) Fletcher (Pallone) Frankel, Lois (Kuster) Garcia (IL) (Beyer) Gosar (Gohmert) Guest (Fleischmann) Hartzler (Bacon) Hayes (Neguse) Huffman (Gomez) Jacobs (NY) (Smucker) Jayapal (Gomez) Jeffries (Neguse) Johnson (GA) (Manning) Johnson (TX) (Stevens) Katko (Meijer) Keating (Neguse) Kirkpatrick (Pallone) Krishnamoorthi (Neguse) LaMalfa (Rouzer) Lawson (FL) (Wasserman Schultz) Moore (WI) (Beyer) Moulton (Stevens) Newman (Beyer) Palazzo (Fleischmann) Pascrell (Pallone) Payne (Pallone) Porter (Neguse) Rice (SC) (Meijer) Rogers (KY) (Reschenthaler) Rush (Neguse) Salazar (Diaz-Balart) Sires (Pallone) Stansbury (Stevens) Strickland (Neguse) Suozzi (Neguse) Swalwell (Correa) Takano (Chu) Tlaib (Gomez) Walorski (Baird) Watson Coleman (Pallone) Wilson (FL) (Williams (GA))

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, our current national debt is not only huge, it is astronomical. As of today, the national debt exceeds over $30 trillion. To put that in perspective, that amount in $100 bills laid side by side would circle the Earth over 1,167 times. If stacked, it would reach the International Space Station 80 times. The debt crisis is truly out of this world, and yet my colleagues across the aisle would rather spend even more money on unnecessary programs with unrealistic goals. Effects of the debt are already being felt in the form of record-high inflation and gas prices, but perhaps the greatest tragedy is that it will be our children and our children's children who will ultimately foot the bill.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. I rise today to speak against H.R. 2543. This bill does not address the underlying causes restricting access to credit or inflation that has eroded many Americans' borrowing power. It is just a mixed bag of extra mandates on the Federal Reserve and new regulatory burdens on small businesses. I don't hear my small businesses asking for more regulation, additional compliance burdens, or the imposition of a sweeping social agenda. Families are struggling to afford food and gas. Small businesses are struggling to hire employees, and my local banks and credit unions are feeling the pinch of inflation and rising interest rates every day. If the majority was serious about helping Americans, they would have made my amendments in order to examine the effects of inflation and bank consolidation on access to credit for those in low-income census tracts, rural counties, racial minorities, women, and veterans, the very communities that Democrat policies have hurt the most. My amendments would have been a step in the right direction, but the Democrat majority blocked them. Mr. Speaker, digging the hole deeper is no way to get out of the crisis the Democrat administration and Democrat majorities in Congress have created.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, this amendment would actually make the bill worse by authorizing nonprofit organizations to receive funding under title I. This amendment is in direct contravention to the original intent of this legislation, which is to empower States and Tribes in species conservation. The current bill directs funds provided under this program to State and Tribal fish and wildlife departments or to regional associations of fish and wildlife departments. The amendment would allow activist environmental groups, many of whom are serial litigants against the kinds of projects this bill aims to support, to receive funding under title I, decreasing money available for State fish and game departments. Radical special interest groups have weaponized the Endangered Species Act by continuously suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This sue-and-settle process overwhelms regulatory agencies, resulting in settlement agreements and consent decrees that require agencies to promulgate major regulations within an arbitrarily imposed timeline. These agreements are often negotiated behind closed doors with little or no transparency or public input, allowing radical special interest groups to promote their own Federal policy agendas, outside of the normal processes. To make matters worse, these groups are financially rewarded for suing the government, for suing the American taxpayer. According to the Government Accountability Office, from 2000 to 2010, ESA lawsuits cost taxpayers nearly $24 million in attorneys' fees and associated costs. Private citizens with a net worth of $2 million and for-profit businesses with a net worth of $7 million cannot receive attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. However, there is no such cap for nonprofit organizations, which allows these wealthy groups to rake in taxpayer money. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, from 2009 to 2017, there were 109 Endangered Species Act settlements. The majority of these settlements came from just three groups: the Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and the WildEarth Guardians. The Center for Biological Diversity was individually responsible for 41 of the 109 settlements. This is not surprising after the Center for Biological Diversity's director said, in 2009, that ``When we stop the same timber sale three or four times running, the timber planners want to tear their hair out. They feel like their careers are being mocked and destroyed--and they are. Psychological warfare is a very underappreciated aspect of environmental campaigning.'' We are paying them to do that. Today we can see the legacy of this mentality and these lawsuits out West where we have had two of our worst fire years back-to-back, and this year is not looking any better. I cannot in good conscience support allowing these radical groups to receive funding under this bill, especially since it will pull money away from State fish and wildlife agencies and Tribes, as the bill was intended to fund. Madam Speaker, I oppose this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.