Bruce Westerman

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a fundamental human right, a right declared to be an inalienable right by our Founders who proclaimed we are all created equal and have the God-given right to live--to live freely and to pursue happiness. Our Founding Fathers carefully articulated that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are the human rights that encompass the American way and are the logical foundation for freedom. Unfortunately, it seems that Planned Parenthood has a logic problem. The CEO of Planned Parenthood tweeted just last week that the organization's ``core mission is providing, protecting, and expanding access to abortion and reproductive healthcare.'' And she called the procedure of an abortion a ``fundamental human right.'' Mr. Speaker, abortion is not a human right. Abortion, to the contrary, is death. Abortion is the antithesis of life, the fundamental human right. For years, we have been fed the same argument that Planned Parenthood operates to ensure women's health and prenatal care, but straight from their CEO, we know this is not the truth. Planned Parenthood's mission is abortion. Planned Parenthood's mission is death, and their actions prove it. Planned Parenthood ended the fundamental right to life through 321,384 abortions in 2016. That is 881 abortive deaths per day. This means that every 98 seconds a life was extinguished by Planned Parenthood. The CEO said in the same tweet that the organization ``will never back down from that fight'' to not only expand access to abortion but to deem it a human right. Mr. Speaker, as freedom-loving Americans, we must stand on our core principles that all are created equal, and we cannot back down from the fight to preserve life and to protect those who can't protect themselves. I look forward to continuing work to ensure that our taxpayer dollars do not fund death and abortion, a procedure that denies the right to live and contradicts the core founding principles of our freedom and our Nation.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum). Parliamentary Inquiry

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

Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Chair, this bill, again, would help State and private forests. It would help to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. It is sound environmentally, and it is a good investment for the Federal Government. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding and for his hard work in putting together an appropriations product of the House, which is a far cry from what this bill is. It is not a product of the House. It is more like something you would get from the bill of the month club. It has none of the House priorities that have been debated here. Mr. Speaker, I would like to think about the number 85. Eighty-five people perished in the Camp fire last year in California. The blaze destroyed an entire community, burned 14,000 homes, and left hundreds of other Americans injured or homeless. Adding to that, the Camp fire was just one of thousands of blazes that burned 9 million acres across the country last year. Let's face the facts. More and more Americans are living closer to our Nation's forests. These forests are becoming sicker, drier, and overstocked with flammable materials. When the temperatures rise and the arid winds blow, we have seen firsthand how these unhealthy forests become objects of mass destruction. The U.S. Forest Service now estimates that there are at least 43 million homes in the wildland-urban interface. That is the part of our country where forests and communities intersect. This is a major increase from the 31 million homes that were located there less than 20 years ago. Meanwhile, millions of acres of public land are at a high or severe risk of wildfire. Like Paradise, California, some of these acres directly threaten the communities and the Americans who live nearby. Mr. Speaker, the notion that Congress would lower the level of hazardous fuels reduction in the wake of all this is outrageous. At a base level, the government must protect its citizens, and hazardous fuels reduction is designed to remove the tinder that fuels these deadly blazes. However, this version of the Interior appropriations bill drops $21 million out of the hazardous fuels reduction account. Mr. Speaker, we should be investing more on hazardous fuels reduction and sound forest management, not less. Forest management is the essential component in protecting Americans who live next to our Nation's forests, again, forests that are getting drier and deadlier with each passing year. Further hazardous fuels reduction leads to all sorts of environmental and economic benefits. In addition to protecting American lives, proper forest management leads to cleaner water, more rural jobs, and less carbon in the atmosphere. I am all for fiscal soundness, but, Mr. Speaker, cutting the hazardous fuels money is illogical. It is like saying we prefer a pound of cure over an ounce of prevention. While we may save money up front, the American people are going to have to pay more over the long term as taxpayers foot the bill to put out these blazes and property owners have their homes and assets incinerated. In closing, we should be investing in protecting lives and property and being good stewards of our environment. Lowering the hazardous reduction fuels account accomplishes the exact opposite, failing the thousands of Americans who live in and around our forests.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was blessed to be a walk-on football player for the University of Arkansas and participate on two 10-win conference championship teams. Coach Ken Hatfield's triple option offense averaged over 300 yards per game, but it came in small chunks that resulted in first downs, that resulted in touchdowns, and eventually led to victories. Mr. Speaker, farm incomes are down across the board. The West is consumed by wildfires. China and other nations are taking advantage of unfair trade laws. What rural America needs is a first down. Our farmers and ranchers need to see Congress move the ball forward and provide their families the protection and relief they need during these hard times. This conference report is not a Hail Mary. It does not contain everything that I would like to see in a farm bill, but it does move the ball forward. It is progress that our farmers need right now. I am disappointed that Senate Democrats blocked many needed forest management provisions as we continue to sift through the ashes of catastrophic wildfires. However, this conference report strengthens the farm safety net and provides certainty to our farmers. It does address some forest management issues. It provides millions of dollars in new funding to combat a range of issues facing rural America, from funding to eradicate feral hogs, to address the opioid crisis, and to expand rural broadband. This conference report moves farm policy in the right direction. I urge the adoption of the rule for this farm bill.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of Garland County Judge Rick Davis. Judge Davis is currently serving his fourth and final term in my home county in central Arkansas. Since becoming the county executive 8 years ago, Judge Davis has worked hard to improve county roads, stabilize the water supply, and improve the business environment of Garland County. He has excelled in his role, bringing more than 30 years of private industry experience to his job. Before taking the helm of the county judge's office, Rick was chief executive officer of Daveco Construction and, along with his wife, Denise, raised registered Angus cattle on his farm. In fact, the Davis family was named Garland County Farm Family of the Year in 2004. Rick and Denise are important members of our community who have dedicated their lives to service. I congratulate Rick on a successful tenure as county judge and his long-deserved retirement.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, as we consider this bill and we talk about the science behind it, again, we are basing this legislation on science, on letting the scientists do their jobs. This bipartisan bill is exactly, exactly the type of legislation that will save the Endangered Species Act. The ESA aspires to recover imperiled plant and animal species. The act was never meant to serve as a long-term management tool. What my colleagues across the aisle should be celebrating is this ESA success story. Not just once, but multiple times, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined the gray wolf recovered and attempted to delist the species. We know this wasn't a partisan decision because we saw these attempts span multiple administrations from both sides of the aisle. Our experts, our very own scientists, at Fish and Wildlife Service have expressed to us again and again that the gray wolf is recovered and ready to be delisted. Unfortunately, instead of allowing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to focus its resources on other endangered species, litigation activists continue to force the agency to defend this scientifically- driven decision and delay the delisting. We are nearly a decade past the agency's first attempt to delist the recovered gray wolf species. To continue to list a species our own experts have determined is recovered sends the message that the Endangered Species Act doesn't work. I appreciate the bipartisan support this bill enjoys, and I hope more of my colleagues across the aisle will join us in helping strengthen the Endangered Species Act in the long run by supporting this legislation. With that, I urge adoption of this commonsense bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about letting scientists make the decision, not letting others make the decision. But right now, courts are making the decision on the delisting of this wolf. We have heard testimony that, even though it is a bipartisan bill, even though it was people in the previous administration that first suggested delisting the wolf, we have heard testimony that if you support delisting the wolf, you must be an idiot. I don't think supporting this legislation means you are an idiot or you are trying to message something. I think it means that we want to see science implemented. I think it means that we want to let the scientists do their jobs. Mention has been made about Yellowstone National Park. I was actually in Yellowstone National Park this last summer and talked to scientists out there about the big fire in the 1980s. What many of us know about fire is that it is a natural occurring phenomena, and it mimicked a huge clear-cut in Yellowstone National Park. After the fire and all this vegetation started growing back, we saw a huge increase in elk and deer herds, and the wolf population increased right along with that. As a matter of fact, the scientists at the park told me that the greatest numbers of elk that they have had happened within about 10 years after the big fire out there. The greatest population of wolves that they had happened after that. Now that the forest is growing back, that ecosystem, that forest will burn again--it burns about every 100 years--but the science is being applied here. We just want to let States make the decisions on how to manage these wolves that the scientists have said are recovered and need to be delisted. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be managed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1142, I call up the bill (H.R. 6784) to provide for removal of the gray wolf in the contiguous 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife published under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include any extraneous material.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill would accomplish what multiple administrations have been attempting to do for over a decade by delisting a species the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has deemed recovered under the Endangered Species Act. It also empowers the States to take a larger role in managing the species population. The gray wolf has been protected in its original habitat in the western Great Lakes region under the Endangered Species Act since 1974. Beginning in 1994, the Federal Government began introducing species to the Western U.S. by relocating wolves from Canada and releasing them in Western States. The reintroduced wolf population in the West expanded more quickly than many had anticipated, and as a result, Western States began to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to better manage the species. This successful State and Federal cooperation led to the Fish and Wildlife Service's first attempt to delist the species under the Endangered Species Act in 2009. Litigation activists struck back, challenging the agency's delisting decision and halting further agency action at that time. In 2014, the Fish and Wildlife Service, after noting an even greater increase in species population, attempted to once again delist the gray wolf. Just as before, litigants immediately challenged the agency's decision. That same year, gray wolves in Wyoming and the western Great Lakes region were relisted by court order, citing inadequate State management plans. This 2014 order was appealed, and in March of last year, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the relisting decision for the gray wolf, but in Wyoming only. This underscores the extent to which the Fish and Wildlife Service has been hamstrung in implementing the objectives of the Endangered Species Act. Rather than spending its limited resources protecting vulnerable species, litigation activists have forced the agency to continuously defend every action. In this case, despite scientific evidence collected under multiple administrations from both sides of the aisle showing that the gray wolf populations have recovered and thrived, the agency remains bogged down in costly, never-ending litigation. We should be celebrating this ESA victory instead of moving on to the next challenge. This bill would prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from wasting further resources in responding to environmental lawfare by affirming its previous rules to delist the gray wolf and shielding these rules from further review. Finally, the bill seeks to empower the States to manage their individual gray wolf populations by directing the Secretary of the Interior to issue a rule to delist the gray wolf in each of the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia. To ensure that States are provided certainty when developing State management plans, this bill would also exempt the delisting system from judicial review. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the commonsense bill that we have here, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the sponsor of the bill, who actually lives in an area where the wolves live.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say that the Endangered Species Act delisting a species is based on science, and the science has proven that this species is recovered. Twice under the previous administration, Fish and Wildlife tried to delist the species based on the science. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), who is also a cosponsor of the bill and from wolf country.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman from Oregon is so passionate about wolves, and this bill would be fantastic for him and his State. It would allow their State natural resources folks to manage their wolves. They could release some in Portland. They could let those wolf populations get as large as they want to get. But the scientists at U.S. Fish and Wildlife have said that the species is recovered, and we are talking about letting other States have the opportunity to manage those wolf populations in their States. I wish we were doing a farm bill. I wish the Senate would do a farm bill, because we have already done one out of here. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. McMorris Rodgers).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. WESTERMAN

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

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that Congress included Section 131, subsection (1) in the final version of H.R. 302, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018. This provision amends section 47107(a)(17) of title 49, United States Code, to ensure that Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) is used for any contracts and subcontracts for program management, construction management, planning studies, feasibility studies, architectural services, preliminary engineering, design, engineering, surveying, mapping, and related services for projects that use Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding in any phase. Thus, FAA would be precluded from funding any parts of the project using AlP funds if the QBS process is or was not used in the selection of professional service providers for the above activities. This provision is intended to ensure that high-quality design, engineering, and architectural services are procured through a QBS process, including when an airport sponsor uses AlP for construction activities. QBS has long been used by the federal government and federal-aid grant programs to ensure the best-qualified companies are selected for pre-construction designs and activities that will result in high-quality, cost-saving construction projects. I was pleased to work with my colleague Congressman Dan Lipinski from Illinois on the important measure and we look forward to its implementation.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an educator from the Fourth Congressional District of Arkansas who has dedicated her life to teaching the next generation. Kay York, principal of Ashdown High School, was named the 2018 Arkansas Principal of the Year, and it is an honor that is well earned. Ms. York began her career as a kindergarten teacher and then librarian before going to Ashdown Elementary in 1989 as a school counselor. During a meeting this week, she explained how she has worked to introduce more career and technical education. Partnering with a local community college, students receive instruction in trade skills and concurrent college credit in order to be college- and career-ready when leaving the halls of high school. It is this innovation in the local school that is helping Ashdown students prepare for a growing economy. Mr. Speaker, Kay York is a leader in education, and I am grateful for the work she is doing in the Fourth Congressional District.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte) and the gentlewoman from Massachusetts for her support of the bill. Mr. Speaker, the Walnut Grove Land Exchange Act should not need to exist. It is a simple bill which swaps 4 acres of public property, which currently houses a community, cemetery, and church with 6 acres of private timberland. And as was mentioned, this church and cemetery was established decades before the Forest Service. To those who hear this and think, 10 acres? Why on Earth would it take an act of Congress to exchange a total of 10 acres? Rest assured that I had the same initial reaction. Not that this bill or the church itself are unimportant. On the contrary, the Walnut County Community Church is vital to the rural residents of Garland County. The church is not only a place of worship. It has held countless community meetings and more. Its cemetery is the final resting place for many of Garland County's servicemen and -women, and the church itself has served as a search-and-rescue command post in the past. However, under the current law, the church does not own the land on which it worships or buries its dead. As such, the Forest Service has the authority to raise the church's use fee each year and has done so over the past decade. Worse yet, any improvement or restoration to the church must be done with the explicit permission of the Federal Government. As a result, the Walnut Grove congregation has not been able to modify or upgrade their 80-year-old building, despite the need to expand to match the growing demands of the community. Members of the congregation have tried for decades to resolve this issue with the Forest Service. They have called, written, and petitioned both the local and regional offices to purchase or exchange the land. They have willingly taken on maintenance of the property and have graciously accepted higher and higher usage fees under the guise that an exchange was coming. An exchange never came. Mr. Speaker, it is time we stop this 20-year merry-go-round. This bill is vitally important to this congregation, and it is past time that we help them resolve their issue. My bill has wide bipartisan and bicameral support, having passed the committee unanimously and having a companion measure in the Senate. I urge swift passage of this bill.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the work of Chairman Lamar Smith of the Congressional Dyslexia Caucus. His work on this important issue has brought much-needed attention in Congress to a learning disability affecting as many as one in five Americans. He championed the READ Act, which mandated that the National Institutes of Health direct specific funds towards dyslexia research. This law is deepening our understanding of dyslexia and providing additional tools for us to help those with this learning disability. Last week, I began serving as co-chair of the Dyslexia Caucus, alongside Congresswoman Julia Brownley. It is my hope that we can work together to continue the impressive work of Chairman Smith and effect positive change for those living with dyslexia. Individuals can overcome dyslexia and achieve greatness in their education and careers when they have the right tools and instruction. We will work hard in Congress to give them what is necessary to succeed. Mr. Speaker, I again thank Chairman Smith for his leadership and lifetime of dedication.