Congressional Record, Volume 168 Issue 101 (Tuesday, June 14, 2022)

[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 14, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H5507-H5525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

RECOVERING AMERICA'S WILDLIFE ACT OF 2021

Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1170, I call
up the bill (H.R. 2773) to amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act to make supplemental funds available for management of
fish and wildlife species of greatest conservation need as determined
by State fish and wildlife agencies, and for other purposes, and ask
for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, in lieu
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Natural Resources, printed in the bill, an amendment in
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee
Print 117-47, modified by the amendment printed in part C of House
Report 117-366, is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered
read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 2773

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Recovering America's
Wildlife Act of 2022''.

SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to extend financial and
technical assistance to States, territories, the District of
Columbia, and Indian Tribes, including under the Pittman-
Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.),
for the purpose of avoiding the need to list species, or
recovering species currently listed as a threatened species
or an endangered species, under the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or under State law.

TITLE I--WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION

SEC. 101. WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION SUBACCOUNT.

(a) In General.--Section 3 of the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669b) is amended in
subsection (c)--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs
(9) and (10); and
(2) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Establishment of subaccount.--
``(A) In general.--There is established in the fund a
subaccount to be known as the `Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Subaccount' (referred to in this section as the
`Subaccount').
``(B) Availability.--Amounts in the Subaccount shall be
available without further appropriation, for each fiscal
year, for apportionment in accordance with this Act.
``(C) Deposits into subaccount.--The Secretary of the
Treasury shall transfer from the general fund of the Treasury
to the Subaccount--
``(i) for fiscal year 2023, $850,000,000;
``(ii) for fiscal year 2024, $1,100,000,000;
``(iii) for fiscal year 2025, $1,200,000,000; and
``(iv) for fiscal year 2026 and each fiscal year
thereafter, $1,300,000,000.
``(2) Supplement not supplant.--Amounts transferred to the
Subaccount shall supplement, but not replace, existing funds
available to the States from--
``(A) the funds distributed pursuant to the Dingell-Johnson
Sport Fish Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 777 et seq.); and
``(B) the fund.
``(3) Innovation grants.--
``(A) In general.--The Secretary shall distribute 10
percent of funds apportioned from the Subaccount through a
competitive grant program to State fish and wildlife
departments, the District of Columbia fish and wildlife
department, fish and wildlife departments of territories, or
to regional associations of fish and wildlife departments (or
any group composed of more than 1 such entity).
``(B) Purpose.--Such grants shall be provided for the
purpose of catalyzing innovation of techniques, tools,
strategies, or collaborative partnerships that accelerate,
expand, or replicate effective and measurable recovery
efforts for species of greatest conservation need and species
listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) and the habitats of such species.
``(C) Review committee.--The Secretary shall appoint a
review committee comprised of--
``(i) a State Director from each regional association of
State fish and wildlife departments;
``(ii) the head of a department responsible for fish and
wildlife management in a territory;
``(iii) one delegate from the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, for the purpose of providing technical
assistance; and
``(iv) beginning in fiscal year 2023, four individuals
representing four different nonprofit organizations each of
which is actively participating in carrying out wildlife
conservation restoration activities using funds apportioned
from the Subaccount.
``(D) Support from united states fish and wildlife
service.--Using not more than 3 percent of the amounts
apportioned under subparagraph (A) to carry out a competitive
grant program, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
shall provide any personnel or administrative support
services necessary for such committee to carry out its
responsibilities under this Act.
``(E) Evaluation.--Such committee shall evaluate each
proposal submitted under this paragraph and recommend
projects for funding, giving preference to solutions that
accelerate the recovery of species identified as priorities
through regional scientific assessments of species of
greatest conservation need.

[[Page H5508]]

``(4) Use of funds.--Funds apportioned from the Subaccount
shall be used for purposes consistent with section 2 of the
Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2022 and--
``(A) shall be used to implement the Wildlife Conservation
Strategy of a State, territory, or the District of Columbia,
as required under section 4(e), by carrying out, revising, or
enhancing existing wildlife and habitat conservation and
restoration programs and developing and implementing new
wildlife conservation and restoration programs to recover and
manage species of greatest conservation need and the key
habitats and plant community types essential to the
conservation of those species, as determined by the
appropriate State fish and wildlife department;
``(B) shall be used to develop, revise, and enhance the
Wildlife Conservation Strategy of a State, territory, or the
District of Columbia, as may be required by this Act;
``(C) shall be used to assist in the recovery of species
found in the State, territory, or the District of Columbia
that are listed as endangered species, threatened species,
candidate species or species proposed for listing, or species
petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or under State law;
``(D) may be used for wildlife conservation education and
wildlife-associated recreation projects, especially in
historically underserved communities;
``(E) may be used to manage a species of greatest
conservation need whose range is shared with another State,
territory, Indian Tribe, or foreign government and for the
conservation of the habitat of such species;
``(F) may be used to manage, control, and prevent invasive
species, disease, and other risks to species of greatest
conservation need; and
``(G) may be used for law enforcement activities that are
directly related to the protection and conservation of a
species of greatest conservation need and the habitat of such
species.
``(5) Minimum required spending for endangered species
recovery.--Not less than an average of 15 percent over a 5-
year period of amounts apportioned to a State, territory, or
the District of Columbia from the Subaccount shall be used
for purposes described in paragraph (4)(C). The Secretary may
reduce the minimum requirement of a State, territory, or the
District of Columbia on an annual basis if the Secretary
determines that the State, territory, or the District of
Columbia is meeting the conservation and recovery needs of
all species described in paragraph (4)(C).
``(6) Public access to private lands not required.--Funds
apportioned from the Subaccount shall not be conditioned upon
the provision of public access to private lands, waters, or
holdings.
``(7) Requirements for matching funds.--
``(A) For the purposes of the non-Federal fund matching
requirement for a wildlife conservation or restoration
program or project funded by the Subaccount, a State,
territory, or the District of Columbia may use as matching
non-Federal funds--
``(i) funds from Federal agencies other than the Department
of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture;
``(ii) donated private lands and waters, including
privately owned easements;
``(iii) in circumstances described in subparagraph (B),
revenue generated through the sale of State hunting and
fishing licenses; and
``(iv) other sources consistent with part 80 of title 50,
Code of Federal Regulations, in effect on the date of
enactment of the Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2022.
``(B) Revenue described in subparagraph (A)(iii) may only
be used to fulfill the requirements of such non-Federal fund
matching requirement if--
``(i) no Federal funds apportioned to the State fish and
wildlife department of such State from the Wildlife
Restoration Program or the Sport Fish Restoration Program
have been reverted because of a failure to fulfill such non-
Federal fund matching requirement by such State during the
previous 2 years; and
``(ii) the project or program being funded benefits the
habitat of a hunted or fished species and a species of
greatest conservation need.
``(8) Definitions.--In this subsection, the following
definitions apply:
``(A) Partnerships.--The term `partnerships' may include
collaborative efforts with Federal agencies, State agencies,
local agencies, Indian Tribes, nonprofit organizations,
academic institutions, industry groups, and private
individuals to implement a State's Wildlife Conservation
Strategy.
``(B) Species of greatest conservation need.--The term
`species of greatest conservation need' may be fauna or
flora, and may include terrestrial, aquatic, marine, and
invertebrate species that are of low population, declining,
rare, or facing threats and in need of conservation
attention, as determined by each State fish and wildlife
department, with respect to funds apportioned to such State.
``(C) Territory and territories.--The terms `territory' and
`territories' mean the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,
American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and the United States Virgin Islands.
``(D) Wildlife.--The term `wildlife' means any species of
wild, freeranging fauna, including fish, and also fauna in
captive breeding programs the object of which is to
reintroduce individuals of a depleted indigenous species into
previously occupied range.''.
(b) Section 3 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration
Act (16 U.S.C. 669b) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(e) Authorization of Appropriations to Inspector
General.--There is authorized to be appropriated to the
Office of the Inspector General of the Department of the
Interior \1/2\ of 1 percent of the amounts made available
under subsection (c) for the purposes of providing oversight
and accountability with respect to expenditure of funds
authorized under such subsection, to remain available until
September 30, 2029.''.
(c) Allocation and Apportionment of Available Amounts.--
Section 4 of the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act
(16 U.S.C. 669c) is amended--
(1) in subsection (d)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``to the District of
Columbia and to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, each'' and
inserting ``To the District of Columbia'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B)--

(I) by striking ``to Guam'' and inserting ``To Guam''; and
(II) by striking ``not more than one-fourth of one
percent'' and inserting ``not less than one-third of one
percent''; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) To the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a sum equal to
not less than 1 percent thereof.'';
(B) in paragraph (2)(A)--
(i) by amending clause (i) to read as follows:
``(i) one-half of which is based on the ratio to which the
land and water area of such State bears to the total land and
water area of all such States;'';
(ii) in clause (ii)--

(I) by striking ``two-thirds'' and inserting ``one-
quarter''; and
(II) by striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and

(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) one-quarter of which is based upon the ratio to
which the number of species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) in such State bears to the total number
of such species listed in all such States.'';
(C) by amending paragraph (2)(B) to read as follows:
``(B) The amounts apportioned under this paragraph shall be
adjusted equitably so that no such State, unless otherwise
designated, shall be apportioned a sum which is less than 1
percent or more than 5 percent of the amount available for
apportionment under--
``(i) subparagraph (A)(i);
``(ii) subparagraph (A)(ii); and
``(iii) the overall amount available for subparagraph
(A).''; and
(D) in paragraph (3), by striking ``3 percent'' and
inserting ``1.85 percent'';
(2) in subsection (e)(4)--
(A) by amending subparagraph (B) to read as follows:
``(B) Not more than an average of 15 percent over a 5-year
period of amounts apportioned to each State, territory, or
the District of Columbia under this section for a wildlife
conservation and restoration program may be used for wildlife
conservation education and wildlife-associated recreation.'';
and
(B) by inserting after subparagraph (B), as so amended, the
following:
``(C) 5 percent of amounts apportioned to each State, each
territory, or the District of Columbia under this section for
a wildlife conservation and restoration program shall be
reserved for States and territories that include plants among
their species of greatest conservation need and in the
conservation planning and habitat prioritization efforts of
their Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Each eligible State,
territory, or the District of Columbia shall receive an
additional 5 percent of their apportioned amount. Any
unallocated resources shall be allocated proportionally among
all States and territories under the formulas of this
section.''; and
(3) by adding at the end following:
``(f) Minimization of Planning and Reporting.--Nothing in
this Act shall be interpreted to require a State to create a
comprehensive strategy related to conservation education or
outdoor recreation.
``(g) Accountability.--
``(1) In general.--Not more than one year after the date of
enactment of the Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2022
and every 3 years thereafter, each State fish and wildlife
department shall submit a 3-year work plan and budget for
implementing its Wildlife Conservation Strategy and a report
describing the results derived from activities accomplished
under subsection (e) during the previous 3 years to the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service for review, which
shall summarize such findings and submit a report to--
``(A) the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the
Senate; and
``(B) the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of
Representatives.
``(2) Requirements.--The format of the 3-year work plans,
budgets, and reports required under paragraph (1) shall be
established by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
in consultation with the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies.
``(3) GAO study.--Not later than 7 years after the date of
enactment of the Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2022,
the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a
study to examine the progress of States, territories, the
District of Columbia, and Indian Tribes towards achieving the
purpose described in section 2 of that Act.''.

SEC. 102. TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS.

(a) Definitions.--Section 2 of the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669a) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking ``including fish,''; and
(2) in paragraph (9), by inserting ``Indian Tribes,
academic institutions,'' before ``wildlife conservation
organizations''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife
Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669 et seq.) is amended--

[[Page H5509]]

(1) in section 3--
(A) in subsection (a)--
(i) by striking ``(1) An amount equal to'' and inserting
``An amount equal to''; and
(ii) by striking paragraph (2);
(B) in subsection (c)--
(i) in paragraph (9), as redesignated by section 101(a)(1),
by striking ``or an Indian tribe''; and
(ii) in paragraph (10), as redesignated by section
101(a)(1), by striking ``Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Account'' and inserting ``Subaccount''; and
(C) in subsection (d), by striking ``Wildlife Conservation
and Restoration Account'' and inserting ``Subaccount'';
(2) in section 4 (16 U.S.C. 669c)--
(A) in subsection (d)--
(i) in the heading, by striking ``Account'' and inserting
``Subaccount''; and
(ii) by striking ``Account'' each place it appears and
inserting ``Subaccount''; and
(B) in subsection (e)(1), by striking ``Account'' and
inserting ``Subaccount''; and
(3) in section 8 (16 U.S.C. 669g), in subsection (a), by
striking ``Account'' and inserting ``Subaccount''.

SEC. 103. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

The Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C.
669 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 14 as section 16; and
(2) by inserting after section 13 the following:

``SEC. 14. SAVINGS CLAUSE.

``Nothing in this Act shall be construed to enlarge or
diminish the authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility of a
State to manage, control, or regulate fish and wildlife under
the law and regulations of the State on lands and waters
within the State, including on Federal lands and waters.

``SEC. 15. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION WITH RESPECT TO ALASKA.

``If any conflict arises between any provision of this Act
and any provision of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) or the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), then
the provision in the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act or the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
shall prevail.''.

TITLE II--TRIBAL WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION

SEC. 201. INDIAN TRIBES.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Account.--The term ``Account'' means the Tribal
Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account established by
subsection (b)(1).
(2) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian Tribe'' has the
meaning given such term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304).
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) Tribal species of greatest conservation need.--The term
``Tribal species of greatest conservation need'' means any
species identified by an Indian Tribe as requiring
conservation management because of declining population,
habitat loss, or other threats, or because of their
biological or cultural importance to such Tribe.
(5) Wildlife.--The term ``wildlife'' means--
(A) any species of wild flora or fauna including fish and
marine mammals;
(B) flora or fauna in a captive breeding, rehabilitation,
and holding or quarantine program, the object of which is to
reintroduce individuals of a depleted indigenous species into
previously occupied range or to maintain a species for
conservation purposes; and
(C) does not include game farm animals.
(b) Tribal Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account.--
(1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury an
account to be known as the ``Tribal Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Account''.
(2) Availability.--Amounts in the Account shall be
available for each fiscal year without further appropriation
for apportionment in accordance with this title.
(3) Deposits into account.--
Beginning in fiscal year 2023, and for each fiscal year
thereafter, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer
$97,500,000 from the general fund of the Treasury to the
Account.
(c) Distribution of Funds to Indian Tribes.--Each fiscal
year, the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit funds into
the Account and distribute such funds through a
noncompetitive application process according to guidelines
and criteria, and reporting requirements determined by the
Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, in consultation with Indian Tribes.
Such funds shall remain available until expended.
(d) Wildlife Management Responsibilities.--The distribution
guidelines and criteria described in subsection (c) shall be
based, in part, upon an Indian Tribe's wildlife management
responsibilities. Any funding allocated to an Indian Tribe in
Alaska may only be used in a manner consistent with the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.),
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16
U.S.C. 3101 et seq.), and Public Law 85-508 (commonly known
as the ``Alaska Statehood Act'') (48 U.S.C. note prec. 21).
Alaska Native Corporations or Tribes may enter into
cooperative agreements with the State of Alaska on
conservation projects of mutual concern.
(e) Use of Funds.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
Secretary may distribute funds from the Account to an Indian
Tribe for any of the following purposes:
(A) To develop, carry out, revise, or enhance wildlife
conservation and restoration programs to manage Tribal
species of greatest conservation need and the habitats of
such species, as determined by the Indian Tribe.
(B) To assist in the recovery of species listed as an
endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
(C) For wildlife conservation education and wildlife-
associated recreation projects.
(D) To manage a Tribal species of greatest conservation
need and the habitat of such species, the range of which may
be shared with a foreign country, State, or other Indian
Tribe.
(E) To manage, control, and prevent invasive species as
well as diseases and other risks to wildlife.
(F) For law enforcement activities that are directly
related to the protection and conservation of wildlife.
(G) To develop, revise, and implement comprehensive
wildlife conservation strategies and plans for such Tribe.
(H) For the hiring and training of wildlife conservation
and restoration program staff.
(2) Conditions on the use of funds.--
(A) Required use of funds.--In order to be eligible to
receive funds under subsection (c), a Tribe's application
must include a proposal to use funds for at least one of the
purposes described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph
(1).
(B) Imperiled species recovery.--In distributing funds
under this section, the Secretary shall distribute not less
than 15 percent of the total funds distributed to proposals
to fund the recovery of a species, subspecies, or distinct
population segment listed as a threatened species, endangered
species, or candidate species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) or Tribal law.
(C) Limitation.--In distributing funds under this section,
the Secretary shall distribute not more than 15 percent of
all funds distributed under this section for the purpose
described in paragraph (1)(C).
(f) No Matching Funds Required.--No Indian Tribe shall be
required to provide matching funds to be eligible to receive
funds under this Act.
(g) Public Access Not Required.--Funds apportioned from the
Tribal Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Account shall
not be conditioned upon the provision of public or non-Tribal
access to Tribal or private lands, waters, or holdings.
(h) Administrative Costs.--Of the funds deposited under
subsection (b)(3) for each fiscal year, not more than 3
percent shall be used by the Secretary for administrative
costs.
(i) Authorization of Appropriations to Inspector General.--
There is authorized to be appropriated to the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of the Interior \1/2\ of
1 percent of the amounts made available this section for the
purposes of providing oversight and accountability with
respect to expenditure of funds authorized under this
section, to remain available until September 30, 2029.
(j) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this Act shall be construed
as modifying or abrogating a treaty with any Indian Tribe, or
as enlarging or diminishing the authority, jurisdiction, or
responsibility of an Indian Tribe to manage, control, or
regulate wildlife.
(k) Statutory Construction With Respect to Alaska.--If any
conflict arises between any provision of this Act and any
provision of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (16 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) or the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), then the provision
in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act or the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act shall prevail.

TITLE III--ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY AND HABITAT CONSERVATION LEGACY
FUND

SEC. 301. ENDANGERED SPECIES RECOVERY AND HABITAT
CONSERVATION LEGACY FUND.

(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Treasury of
the United States a fund, to be known as the ``Endangered
Species Recovery and Habitat Conservation Legacy Fund''
(referred to in this section as the ``Fund'').
(b) Funding.--For each of fiscal years 2023 through 2026,
the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer from the general
fund of the Treasury to the Fund $187,500,000.
(c) Availability of Funds.--Amounts in the Fund shall be
available to the Secretary of the Interior, acting through
the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(referred to in this section as the ``Secretary''), as
provided in subsection (e), without further appropriation or
fiscal year limitation.
(d) Investment of Amounts.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may request the Secretary of
the Treasury to invest any portion of the Fund that is not,
as determined by the Secretary, required to meet the current
needs of the Fund.
(2) Requirement.--An investment requested under paragraph
(1) shall be made by the Secretary of the Treasury in a
public debt security--
(A) with a maturity suitable to the needs of the Fund, as
determined by the Secretary; and
(B) bearing interest at a rate determined by the Secretary
of the Treasury, taking into consideration current market
yields on outstanding marketable obligations of the United
States of comparable maturity.
(3) Credits to fund.--The income on investments of the Fund
under this subsection shall be credited to, and form a part
of, the Fund.
(e) Use of Funds.--Amounts in the Fund shall be used for
recovering the species managed under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), in addition to amounts
otherwise available for such purposes, as follows:
(1) Endangered species recovery grant program.--$75,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2026, to remain
available until expended, shall be used to establish and
implement

[[Page H5510]]

a grant and technical assistance program, to be known as the
``Endangered Species Recovery Grant Program'', to provide
competitive matching grants for the purpose of recovering
species listed as a threatened species or an endangered
species under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1533) by addressing the backlog in the development
of recovery plans, and implementing the backlog of activities
identified in existing recovery plans, under subsection (f)
of that section (16 U.S.C. 1533(f)). The Secretary shall
enter into an agreement with the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation to establish and cooperatively manage the
Endangered Species Recovery Grant Program in accordance with
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Establishment
Act (16 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.).
(2) Interagency consultation responsibilities.--$75,000,000
for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2026, to remain
available until expended, shall be used for the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service to address interagency consultation
responsibilities under section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536).
(3) Conservation activities.--$28,125,000 for each of
fiscal years 2023 through 2026, to remain available until
expended, shall be used for the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service to work with non-Federal entities, including
through, but not limited to, the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife Program, the Coastal Program, and the North American
Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.)--
(A) to conserve at risk species, species that are
candidates or proposed for listing, and species that are
listed as threatened or endangered species under section 4 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533),
including through rescue and rehabilitation efforts; and
(B) to conserve wildlife habitat.
(4) Voluntary conservation agreements.--$9,375,000 for each
of fiscal years 2023 through 2026, to remain available until
expended, shall be used for the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service to address the development and permitting of
voluntary conservation agreements under section 10 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1539).
(f) Supplement, Not Supplant.--Amounts made available under
this section shall supplement and not supplant any other
Federal amounts made available to carry out activities
described in this section in an annual appropriations Act of
Congress.
(g) Submission of Species Lists to Congress.--
(1) Priority list of species.--Not later than 90 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, shall
submit to the Committees on Environment and Public Works and
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committees on Natural
Resources and Appropriations of the House of Representatives
a list of threatened species and endangered species for which
recovery plans described in subsection (e)(1) will be
developed or implemented for fiscal year 2023.
(2) Annual list of species.--Until the date on which all of
the amounts in the Fund are expended, the President shall
annually submit to Congress, together with the annual budget
of the United States, a list of threatened species and
endangered species for which recovery plans described in
subsection (e)(1) will be developed or implemented with
amounts from the Fund.
(h) Public Donations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary may accept public cash
donations that advance efforts--
(A) to address the backlog in the development and
implementation of recovery plans; and
(B) to encourage relevant public-private partnerships.
(2) Credits to fund.--Any cash donations accepted under
paragraph (1) shall be credited to, and form a part of, the
Fund.
(3) Rejection of donations.--The Secretary may reject a
donation under this section when the rejection is in the
interest of the Federal Government, as determined by the
Secretary.
(i) Allocation Authority.--
(1) Submission of cost estimates.--The President shall
submit to Congress detailed allocations by program element of
the amount recommended for allocation in a fiscal year from
amounts made available under subsection (c), consistent with
the use of funds under subsection (e), as follows:
(A) For fiscal year 2023, not later than 90 days after the
date of enactment of this Act.
(B) For each fiscal year thereafter, until the date on
which all of the amounts in the Fund are allocated, as part
of the annual budget submission of the President under
section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code.
(2) Alternate allocation.--
(A) In general.--The Committees on Appropriations of the
Senate and House of Representatives may provide for alternate
allocation of amounts recommended for allocation in a given
fiscal year from amounts made available under subsection (c),
consistent with the use of funds under subsection (e),
including allocations by program element.
(B) Allocation by president.--
(i) No alternate allocations.--If Congress has not enacted
legislation establishing alternate allocations, including by
program, by the date on which the Act making full-year
appropriations for the Department of the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies for the applicable fiscal
year is enacted into law, only then shall amounts recommended
for allocation for that fiscal year from amounts made
available under subsection (c), consistent with the use of
funds under subsection (e), be allocated by the President or
apportioned or allotted by program pursuant to title 31,
United States Code.
(ii) Insufficient alternate allocation.--If Congress enacts
legislation establishing alternate allocations, including by
program, for amounts recommended for allocation in a given
fiscal year from amounts made available under subsection (c),
consistent with the use of funds under subsection (e), that
are less than the full amount recommended for allocation for
that fiscal year, the difference between the amount
recommended for allocation and the alternate allocation shall
be allocated by the President and apportioned and allotted by
program pursuant to title 31, United States Code.
(j) Prohibitions.--No amounts from the Fund shall be used--
(1) to make any listing determination relating to the
endangered or threatened status of any species pursuant to
section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1533(a));
(2) on any experimental population (as defined in paragraph
(1) of section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(16 U.S.C. 1539(j))) of a threatened or endangered species
that is determined to be nonessential under that section;
(3) outside of the United States (as defined in section 3
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1532)); and
(4) to acquire any Federal land.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, is debatable for 1
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their respective
designees.
The gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell) and the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

General Leave

Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.R. 2773.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2773, the
Recovering America's Wildlife Act. This legislation has been years in
the making, and this moment is the culmination of the collected works
of a bipartisan group of Members, a strong, diverse coalition of
advocates, and grassroots support from across the country.
This work began in 2015 when the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies--which represents State fish and wildlife agencies across the
country--established a blue ribbon panel on sustaining America's
diverse fish and wildlife resources.
After working closely with hunting and fishing organizations, as well
as partners in the sportsmen's community, businesses, and other
advocates, it was decided that we needed a 21st century model of
funding conservation to address the current shortfalls in wildlife
conservation.
Right now, the United States is facing an unprecedented biodiversity
crisis. One-third of all bird species are in need of urgent
conservation action. In fact, the number of birds in the United States
and Canada have fallen by 29 percent since 1970; a decline of almost 3
billion fewer birds.
We have seen similar declines across the board. For example, 40
percent of freshwater fish species are also at risk. One-third of all
U.S. wildlife species are currently imperiled or vulnerable.
These developments threaten our common environmental heritage, reduce
opportunities for outdoor recreation, and will require costly and
aggressive interventions if not addressed soon.
This legislation is particularly critical for the sportsmen's
community. As one of the co-chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen's
Caucus, I have always said that sportsmen and women are some of our
best conservation advocates, as they understand the on-the-ground
reality of the decline in wildlife and the importance of cost-effective
conservation.
Their input has been critical to the historic and innovative
legislation before us today. Without a change in the way we finance
fish and wildlife conservation, the list of Federally threatened and
endangered species will balloon from nearly 1,600 species today to
thousands more in the future.

{time} 1500

The cost of inaction is immense. The longer we wait to address this
issue, the more resources we will ultimately need to safeguard our
Nation's wildlife and environment. And we cannot keep waiting. We must
take the bold, urgent action that addresses the scale of the threat. We
need strong, proactive conservation measures to address these

[[Page H5511]]

unmet needs, and that is why the Recovering America's Wildlife Act is
necessary.
The legislation provides approximately $1.4 billion in dedicated,
annual funding to the States, territories, and Native American Tribes
for proactive conservation efforts for the approximately 12,000 species
of wildlife and plants identified under State wildlife action plans.
This bold investment in our Nation's wildlife will pay significant
dividends. It will allow States to take proactive action that will
prevent at-risk species from becoming endangered. This is critical not
only to preserving our common environmental heritage, but for
supporting hunters, anglers, and the almost $900 billion outdoor
recreation economy.
As I have said previously, as one of the co-chairs of the
Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I understand the importance of these
measures to support fishermen and hunters across the country.
I thank my three fellow co-chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen's
Caucus who have sponsored the Recovering America's Wildlife Act as
well. It shows the strong, bipartisan support for this bill.
The broad group of stakeholders supporting the Recovering America's
Wildlife Act underscores the need for action and the support for this
approach. Hundreds of leading sportsmen's groups, hunting and fishing
advocates across the country, conservation organizations, environmental
organizations, and businesses, all support the legislation for good
reason: it utilizes proven funding mechanisms, boldly addresses
pressing conservation needs, and prevents the need for more costly
interventions in the future.
The Recovering America's Wildlife Act is the product of years and
years of work and consultation with these stakeholders and has broad
bipartisan support. This legislation has received bipartisan support in
both the House and Senate, and the thoughtful input of my colleagues
has resulted in strong consensus legislation that will benefit every
single congressional district in the country.
We have a conservation, economic, and moral rationale to act in order
to protect and recover America's wildlife for future generations. This
is an opportunity to take historic action to address a pressing
conservation need, and I ask my colleagues that they support the
Recovering America's Wildlife Act.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant opposition to H.R. 2773, as
drafted. The goal of this bill is commendable. Republicans and
Democrats alike want to see America's wildlife thrive. Unfortunately,
the legislation as written contains partisan provisions that I simply
cannot support.
State and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies have long been recognized
as the primary and most well-equipped managers of local species and
habitat in the United States. After all, those on the ground are more
attuned to what is happening in their backyards than the Federal
Government. That is why State and Tribal wildlife agencies, as well as
prominent sportsmen's groups support this bill.
While the bill would provide financial resources to States and Tribes
to help meet wildlife recovery goals, the spending is mandatory and
lacks any offset. This spending is not pocket change. The Congressional
Budget Office estimated the Rules Committee Print would lead to more
than $12 billion--that is $12 billion--in direct spending in the first
decade of the program alone. And I say the first decade, because that
is only what is in the so-called scoring window. In reality, this
program and its mandatory spending would last forever since there is no
sunset in titles I and II of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the modern-day funding models suggested by
the blue ribbon commission. This is an important issue, and we should
make the responsible, tough decisions on how to fund it.
This funding model has no offset ever, and it has an average
expenditure of $1.4 billion per year. It is the most irresponsible,
lazy way to fund the program, especially with the record government
spending that is contributing to record inflation. At a time of rampant
inflation, it would be wildly irresponsible to drive inflation even
higher and saddle future generations with the consequences. The debt
created by this bill will only add to our Nation's current $30 trillion
debt.
This bill also lacks a sunset provision. Without a sunset, there is
no mechanism to ensure oversight or proper review of the program to fix
flaws that may arise. Mandating a permanent new program is poor
governance, and it ignores precedent. Congress routinely passes
legislation like the Farm Bill or the Water Resources Development Act
which have proper sunsets. Those sunsets require us to come back and do
our jobs by assessing what is working, what is not working, and making
tweaks and changes to the law.
The bill does not allow Congress the opportunity to perform the
needed oversight. Instead, it requires spending $1.4 billion per year
in perpetuity. I, and my fellow Republican committee members, tried to
resolve these fiscal issues with amendments at the committee markup. We
were told by the Democrat majority that, although they opposed these
amendments at the time, they would work with us on finding a funding
offset before this bill would be considered on the floor.
We stayed at the negotiating table, as did the bill's sponsor, Mrs.
Dingell, whom I have a lot of respect for and commend her for her
efforts on this bill. But larger forces decided to ram this bill
forward without fixing anything. In fact, the majority made the bill
worse than it was when it left our committee.
They decided to airdrop provisions into a new title III that would
siphon money away from States and Tribes and give it to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. That is in direct contrast to the spirit of this
bill to give money to the State and Tribal agencies so that they could
do the management.

We never even had the chance to debate this terrible title in the
committee. The whole point of this bill was to empower States and
Tribes who are the ones, again, who are closest to our lands and
waters, not to increase the Washington, D.C., Federal bureaucracy,
which is now what this bill will do.
A number of Republican amendments proposed to the Rules Committee
tried to fix these problems and several other issues but they were
similarly ignored, depriving us of ways to improve the bill and debate
these issues today. As a result of all of this, we have a regrettably
flawed bill. The situation we are now in was avoidable. The bill before
us represents a lost opportunity to forge significant bipartisan
compromise. It didn't have to be this way, and I hope that this is not
a partisan sign of the future of conservation.
I will remain at the table and hope that my Democratic colleagues
come back and work together with us on a lasting solution. Until then,
I am opposed to H.R. 2773, and I reluctantly encourage my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's perspective on permanent
funding, and I have a great deal of respect for him. We have and will
always continue to work together on conservation issues. But the fact
is we know that stable and predictable funding is critical to effective
conservation efforts, and that is what the blue ribbon panel on
sustaining America's diverse fish and wildlife resources--which
included 26 members from the hunting and fishing business and outdoor
recreation communities--found in their 2016 report whose
recommendations formed the basis of this legislation. We have seen that
this funding structure has been fundamental to the success of Pittman-
Robertson and Dingell-Johnson conservation programs upon which this is
built.
I appreciate my colleague's views on oversight. This legislation
contains robust guardrails to ensure that there is appropriate use of
public funds, including reporting requirements and other oversight
provisions.
So the Recovering America's Wildlife Act does meet the moment because
of its funding structure and because of the strong oversight language
which is

[[Page H5512]]

supported by the coalitions of hundreds of organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Huffman).
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Dingell for the time
and for her great work on this landmark bipartisan legislation, the
Recovering America's Wildlife Act, or RAWA, as we call it.
This is a bright spot amidst so many problems facing our Nation. As
our constituents are well aware, the climate crisis and other human
impacts have dramatically harmed our Nation's wildlife, and, in fact,
State agencies have identified 12,000 wildlife species that are in need
of conservation assistance. In the United States alone, there are
currently 1,300 species that are either threatened or endangered. If we
fail to act, these profound and irreversible losses will continue to
have devastating ecosystem impacts.
States, territories, and Tribes are doing great work to address
threats to wildlife, but their conservation efforts have been
chronically underfunded for decades. This stream of dedicated funding
from RAWA is a lifeline for local wildlife agencies.
This bill also provides local governments the resources to address
key elements impacting biodiversity loss such as wildfire and drought
which are worsening as the climate crisis accelerates. RAWA lays the
groundwork for wildfire threat mitigation on a number of fronts,
including managing vegetation and creating wildlife-friendly fire
management plans on the front end, performing emergency rescues during
the fires, and restoring critical habitat after fires.
RAWA funding will also allow local communities to restore habitats
that have been harmed by drought and protect vulnerable ecosystems from
further damage because we know these drought conditions are going to
continue.
We cannot lose sight of the cultural implications of this
legislation. The funding in this bill for Tribal nations to recover
fish and wildlife is critical to protecting the species that have been
integral to their cultures since time immemorial. Biodiversity is
declining at a rate not seen since the last mass extinction. Tackling
this crisis simply cannot wait.
As chairman of the Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee of the
House Natural Resources Committee, I am incredibly glad to see this
bill on the floor today with strong bipartisan support--42 Republican
cosponsors, and 152 Democrats.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will point out that even though there
is a reporting requirement in the legislation, once you approve
mandatory, permanent spending, then Congress loses our leverage.
Creating a permanent program doesn't bode well for oversight from
Congress. Programs that were mentioned like Pittman-Robinson, think
about the land and water conservation fund, all of those had dedicated
funding streams. This funding is coming straight out of the Treasury.
It is coming out of our kids' and our grandkids' piggy banks.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Bentz).
Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from
Claremont Review of Books, spring, 2022, titled ``In the Red,'' by
Jeffrey H. Anderson.

In the Red

Our glidepath to insolvency.

When Ross Perot won an impressive 19 percent of the popular
vote as an independent candidate for president in 1992, his
main issue was the national debt. In one of his unusual,
half-hour-long campaign ads, Perot declared, ``Just this
year, we ran up $341 billion in new debt . . . . That's our
legislators and our president trying to buy our vote, this
year, with what used to be our money.''
Three decades later, our national debt--which reached $4
trillion the year that Perot ran--has hit $30 trillion. If
our debt were to keep rising at that rate over the next 60
years, it would increase more than 50-fold and surpass $1.5
quadrillion (a quadrillion, which sounds like a made-up
number, is a thousand trillions).
The portion of the national debt that really matters is the
almost 80 percent that's held by entities--whether foreign or
stateside--other than the federal government. Such ``debt
held by the public,'' which is fueled by deficit spending,
has to be paid back to outside entities, whereas debt not
held by the public merely involves intragovernmental
transfers. Foreign holdings compose about a third of all debt
held by the public. Japan and China hold by far the most
(over $1 trillion each), some of which belongs to private
investors and some to government entities. Put another way,
China--an increasingly hostile world superpower--has more
than $1 trillion of leverage over us.
It's getting worse, fast. Our recent deficit spending has
been truly historic. In 2020, based on official federal
tallies (the basis for all figures in this essay), the
federal government brought in $3.4 trillion in tax revenues
and dished our $6.6 trillion in spending--so, for every $10
that came in, $19 went out. This lavish expenditure smashed
the deficit record like New York's Bob Beamon smashed the
long-jump record in the 1968 Olympics. Beamon soared past the
previous record--27 feet, 4\3/4\ inches--to make an
astounding 29-foot, 2\1/2\-inch jump. In similar fashion,
with the deficit record sitting at $1.4 trillion, the federal
government in 2020 spent a spectacular $3.1 trillion that it
didn't have. In 2020 alone, the government racked up more
deficit spending than it had during the first 36 fiscal years
of the postwar era (1947 through 1982), and that's after
adjusting for inflation.
Even before our blowout spending during COVID, our deficits
had already reached breathtaking levels. In constant 2012
dollars (to adjust for inflation), the average annual deficit
during the four years from 2016 through 2019--a stretch of
relative peace and prosperity--was $700 billion. In
comparison, during the four years from 1942 through 1945--
during which we funded and fought a two-front war against
Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan--the average annual deficit
was $505 billion in constant 2012 dollars. After the war
(using the Office of Management and Budget's composite
deflator), we owed $3 trillion of debt held by the public in
constant 2012 dollars (four times what we owed when the war
began). Subsequent statesmen succeeded in cutting that tally
in half by 1974 (to $1.5 trillion), but it rose back to end-
of-World-War-II levels by 1986 (to $3 trillion), doubled end-
of-World-War-II levels by 2008 ($6 trillion), tripled them by
2010 ($9 trillion), quadrupled them by 2014 ($12 trillion),
quintupled them by 2019 ($15 trillion), and sextupled them by
2020 ($18 trillion).
In other words, we added as much debt held by the public in
2020 alone as we did from the end of World War II to the end
of 2008, and we racked up more debt in the 12 months of 2020
than we did during the four years of the Second World War.
That's after adjusting for inflation.

No Big Deal

And yet, incredibly, many politicians and commentators
claim that our staggering indebtedness is nothing much to
worry about. Unwilling to face the challenge of reining in
the budget, we seem to have thrown up our hands in recent
years and chosen to treat our ballooning deficits as funny
money.
Debt apologists like to measure taxes, spending, and debt
in relation to the gross domestic product (GDP), rather than
in relation to inflation or population growth. That way, if
Americans' tax bills double, but the economy doubles in size
over that same span, it can be said that Americans aren't
paying any more in taxes (as a percentage of GDP). The same
thing is true with the debt, which only rises by this measure
if it increases faster than economic output.
This way of talking partially masks the magnitude of our
debt problem by assuming that our government should grow
every bit as fast as our economy. Even so, by the percent-of-
GDP measure, debt held by the public is now at approximately
end-of-World War II levels. But whereas it fell dramatically
after World War II, there is no reason to think it will do so
now. It more than tripled from 2001 (32 percent of GDP) to
2020 (100 percent of GDP), putting us on course to surpass
300 percent of GDP if it grows at the same rate from 2020 to
2039.
For all of the myriad cultural, technological, and moral
problems we face, few things would guarantee the undoing of
the founders' experiment in self-government more surely than
continuing to pile on the burden, to ourselves and our
posterity, of runaway debt. Thomas Jefferson described fiscal
profligacy as a precursor to inevitable misery and suffering,
the first in a stampede of apocalyptic horsemen. ``[T]he fore
horse of this frightful team is public debt,'' he wrote.
``Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and
oppression.'' This wretchedness will only be more keenly felt
as interest rates rise. Too much debt puts power in the hands
of our enemies and renders the average American poorer every
year.

Mandatory Bankruptcy

The first step in avoiding a truly calamitous, debt-ridden
future is to understand bow we got ourselves into this
predicament to begin with. It is not national defense or even
the New Deal but rather the Great Society that is bankrupting
us.
A fundamental preliminary question is whether our
government taxes too little or spends too much. The answer is
easy to determine. In 2021, the federal government collected
more than three-and-a-half times as much money, in real
dollars per capita--that is, above and beyond inflation and
population growth--as it did at the start of the postwar
period. But it spent nearly seven times as much. From 1947
(the first postwar fiscal year, as FY 1946 began in July of
1945) through 2021, the population of the United States rose
2.3-fold, while prices rose nearly 13-fold. Combining these
two factors, the federal government could have collected and

[[Page H5513]]

spent 29 times as much in nominal dollars in 2021 as it did
in 1947 without collecting or spending any more in real
(inflation-adjusted) dollars per capita. Instead, the federal
government taxed more than 100 times as much in 2021 as in
1947 and spent almost 200 times as much. By any reasonable
standard, our government isn't afflicted by a shortage of tax
revenues but by an almost endless appetite for spending.
What are we spending all of that money on? Contra the
Left's repeated claims, it isn't defense--and our debt
problem wasn't created by Ronald Reagan. We actually spend
less per capita on defense now, after adjusting for
inflation, than we did during the Kennedy Administration.
Real per-capita defense spending fell from $2,283 in 1962 to
$1,953 in 2020, a drop of 14 percent. Even at the height of
the Reagan defense buildup, we exceeded the 1962 level by
only 2 percent. Meanwhile, real per-capita spending on
everything but defense increased more than eight-fold (from
$1,930 in 1962 to $15,646 in 2020). If overall federal
spending had followed the same trajectory as defense
spending, we would have had a surplus in 2020 of $2.1
trillion instead of a deficit of $3.1 trillion.
The problem isn't defense: it's health care. More
specifically, it was Lyndon Johnson and his (mostly)
Democratic congressional allies who put us on a glidepath
toward insolvency with the passage of their Great Society
programs. The New Deal put strain on the federal budget, to
be sure, but not enough to break it. By 1964, over three
decades after Franklin Roosevelt had taken office, federal
debt held by the public had fallen more than 40 percent from
the end of World War II, in real (inflation-adjusted)
dollars. The real deficit was 1/68th as large as it would be
in 2020. As the first Ford Mustangs rolled off the assembly
line, the country's debt was manageable and dropping, its
deficits were minimal, and seven of the postwar years had
actually produced surpluses. The next year, Johnson signed
legislation creating Medicare and Medicaid.
Broadly speaking, there are two ways to fund federal
programs. Congress either decides how much funding a program
will get (``discretionary'' spending), or just puts a program
on autopilot and finds out later how much it turned out to
cost (``mandatory'' spending). With discretionary spending,
Congress decides each year how much money to appropriate (for
something like national defense), taking into account such
quaint notions as what we need and what we can afford. With
``mandatory'' spending, Congress creates a program and
pledges to fund it at the same time, even though no one knows
what its price tag will be.
Within ``mandatory'' spending, there are programs that have
a dedicated and generally sufficient revenue stream (such as
Social Security), and there are those that do not have a
dedicated revenue stream that comes anywhere near covering
their costs--such as Medicare and Medicaid (and Obamacare,
part of which expanded Medicaid). Payroll taxes cover only
about a third of Medicare's costs and none of Medicaid's. In
other words, no one who launched these programs had any idea
how to pay for them.
This has had extraordinary consequences. The first year
that Medicare spending visibly hit the books was 1967. From
that point through 2020, Medicare and Medicaid cost a
combined $17.8 trillion, while our combined federal deficits
over that same span were $17.9 trillion. In essence, our
deficit problem is a Medicare and Medicaid problem.

The Father of Our Debt

By 1975, a decade after they were created, Medicare and
Medicaid were entrenched. From that point through 2019--the
most recent ``normal'' (pre-COVID) spending year--real per-
capita Medicare and Medicaid spending rose nine-fold (more
than triple the rise in Social Security costs over that
period). In 1975, we spent more than five times as much on
defense as on Medicare and Medicaid combined. By 2019, we
spent 56 percent more on Medicare and Medicaid than on
defense.
In 2019, the federal government collected about $10,500 in
revenues per capita and spent about $13,500. Here's how
Americans' contributions to the federal treasury were
allocated. The first $1,000 essentially just went into the
trash--it was used to pay interest on the debt, not to buy
anything. About $2,000 was spent on defense and another
$2,000 on non-defense discretionary spending. Roughly $3,000
was spent on Social Security, $3,000 on Medicare and Medicaid
(with about a 60 percent-40 percent split between them), and
$2,500 on other ``mandatory'' spending, to include much of
Obamacare, unemployment, welfare, etc. So, in all, about
$4,000 (or roughly 30 percent) was discretionary spending,
actually voted upon by Congress, and about $9,500 (roughly 70
percent) was either ``mandatory'' spending or payments on the
national debt.
If we had a Mount Rushmore of deficit spending, then,
Lyndon Johnson would merit George Washington's place of honor
as the father of our debt. Beside him would be the three most
recent presidents. For we have run up more debt under Barack
Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden--even after adjusting
for inflation--than we did under the previous 42
presidents combined. After a brief period of fiscal
responsibility under Bill Clinton, the average annual
deficit soared to $455 billion under George W. Bush ($41
billion more than under his father), $857 billion under
Obama, and $1.462 trillion under Trump (who was averaging
$805 billion even before COVID hit).
Again--amazingly--these figures are adjusted for inflation.
They are based on each president's having been responsible
for the deficit the year after he took office--for example,
Obama, who took office when fiscal year 2009 was already
underway, was responsible for fiscal years 2010 through 2017.
But note the following exceptions: the $179 billion in Obama-
signed ``stimulus'' funds spent in 2009, and the $1.115
trillion in Biden-signed COVID ``stimulus'' funds spent in
2021 are treated as part of Obama's and Biden's deficit
tallies, respectively; and the $147 billion in TARP loans
repaid in 2010 ($110 billion) and 2011 ($37 billion) are
counted as reductions in George W. Bush's deficit tallies, as
they paid back money that was counted as deficit spending
when it was loaned out on Bush's watch.
Clinton is the obvious outlier, having managed an average
annual surplus of $3 billion during his eight years in
office, six of them with a Republican Congress. After Perot
sounded the alarm and Republicans won the House for the first
time in four decades, Speaker Newt Gingrich and his
Republican colleagues--working with Clinton--made good on the
Contract with America's pledge to balance the budget. They
cut defense spending, passed welfare reform, benefitted from
a strong economy that increased revenues, and were able to
lower federal interest payments as the debt fell. Most
surprisingly, however, they managed to cut Medicare spending,
via reforms passed through the Balanced Budget Act of 1997
(BBA). After Medicare's costs had quadrupled from 1982 to
1997, they actually dropped from 1998 to 1999--not just in
comparison to inflation, but in terms of the actual number of
dollars that went out the door.
It was around this time that the ``experts'' decided the
work was done and the free-spending days could return once
again. In 2002, after the George W. Bush tax cues had been
enacted, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that
the federal government would run a surplus in nine out of the
ten years from 2003 through 2012 and a decade-long surplus of
$2.3 trillion. It turned out that the federal government ran
a deficit in all ten of those years and a decade-long deficit
of $7.l trillion. The CBO also projected that debt held by
the public at the end of 2012 would be $1.3 trillion. It
turned out to be $11.3 trillion, so the CBO was off by $10
trillion and a factor of nearly nine.
Despite this subsequent debt explosion, the Clinton-
Gingrich era was a successful one in terms of fiscal
responsibility. Indeed, over the past 40 years, deficits have
been lowest when a Democrat has been in the White House and
Republicans have controlled both houses of Congress. The
second-best scenario has been a Republican president with
either party controlling both houses of Congress. Next-best
has been a Democratic president paired with a mixed Congress
(with each party controlling one house), followed by a
Republican president paired with a mixed Congress. The worst
scenario has been Democratic control of the whole government.
Over the past four decades, Democratic control (average
deficit of $1.1 trillion in constant 2012 dollars) has been
more than twice as costly as Republican control ($490
billion).
No matter who is in power, however, about 70 percent of our
spending--consuming about 90 percent of our tax revenues--is
on autopilot. To balance the budget by focusing solely on
cutting those portions of the budget that Congress actively
controls through the appropriations process, we would have to
cut discretionary spending--which includes defense--by about
75 percent. Any realistic effort to balance the budget,
therefore, must focus on ``mandatory'' spending.

Fixing Our Mess

Medicare absolutely must be reformed. Its autopilot has
malfunctioned and is flying not only the plane but also the
country into the ground. We came tantalizingly close to
fixing things back in 1999, when the National Bipartisan
Commission on the Future of Medicare grew out of the BBA and
drafted an appealing blueprint for reform. The Commission,
chaired by Democratic Senator John Breaux and Republican
Congressman Bill Thomas, floated a variety of proposals, most
notably ``premium support,'' which would utilize private
competition to keep public costs down. But events intervened:
Politico healthcare editor Adriel Bettelheim writes that
``with the Monica Lewinsky scandal festering and the threat .
. . of impeachment growing, [Clinton] took a very public turn
to appease his left flank'' and turned against the commission
just as it was wrapping up its 11 months of work.
Nevertheless, the commission was a serious effort at
exploring promising ideas, many of which Congressman Paul
Ryan picked up during his Obamacare-fighting era. Ryan's
advocacy of premium support did not keep him from being
tapped as Mitt Romney's 2012 running mate, nor did it hurt
the Romney-Ryan ticket (Romney did that all on his own). This
suggests that Medicare reform can be politically viable when
advanced with determination and skill.
Medicaid also cannot go on in its present form. Its funding
system, whereby every $1 of state funding is matched by
between $1 and $9 of federal funding, invites waste and
inefficiency. The more a state spends on Medicaid, the more
federal money it gets. If it manages to reform its Medicaid
program, it gets at most half of the savings--usually far
less. Also, states often hire consultants who concoct
elaborate shell games to exaggerate states' Medicaid funding,
thereby

[[Page H5514]]

bringing in even more federal money, much of which funds non-
Medicaid ventures. If Medicaid were reformed so that each
stare simply received a given amount of federal funding,
independent of the state's level of funding, that would
presumably remove most of these perverse incentives and
reduce Medicaid's costs.
Social Security has always been self-funded, but it too is
projected to dip into the red about a dozen years from now.
It poses nowhere near the threat to our fiscal solvency that
Medicare and Medicaid do, bur its costs have still risen
faster than overall federal spending, and it does need to be
sensibly revised. The percentage of the U.S. population that
is over age 75 is roughly the same as the percentage that was
over age 65 when Social Security was created, yet the
eligibility age for receiving full retirement benefits has
been raised just two years (from 65 to 67) over the past
eight decades. Gradually (but not too gradually) raising that
age to reflect current biological and fiscal realities is an
obvious and necessary fix.
In addition to changing individual programs, there are
measures we can take to promote fiscal responsibility more
generally. Simply demanding a balanced budget, either as a
matter of policy or through a constitutional amendment, will
not do: the state could still spend as much as it accrued,
which might encourage ever-greater levels of taxation to fund
an ever-larger government, as in many European countries.
Instead, we ought to focus on measures that can keep spending
itself low.
For instance, the American citizenry would be more apt to
view the debt as a shared concern if nearly everyone paid at
least some income tax, as Florida Senator Rick Scott has
proposed. At the least, no one's income tax bill should go
negative, as it does when tax credits are made
``refundable''--available not as a tax cut but as a payment
to those who don't pay income tax. A few years ago, I
released ``The Main Street Tax Plan'' (Hudson Institute,
2016), which the Tax Foundation said would reduce deficits.
It declared, ``Nearly everyone should be paying something in
income tax, however small, and Americans shouldn't regard
April 15 as a payday.''
Some, such as Senator Mitch McConnell, oppose Scott's
proposal because--in McConnell's words--it ``raises taxes''
(for people who don't pay income taxes). Those who share this
concern should consider pairing refund reform with an end to
the Medicare payroll tax. Unlike the Social Security payroll
tax, which is viral and funds Social Security as a (more or
less) pay-in-for-yourself program, the Medicare payroll tax
funds only about a third of Medicare and helps perpetuate the
false notion that Medicare too is mostly pay-in-for-yourself.
Eliminating the Medicare payroll tax would soften the
perception of Medicare as an entitlement, simplify the tax
code, and ease the tax burden of the working poor. Combining
this with Scott's plan would encourage more people to care
about the size and scope of the federal government.
In 2010, back when the Tea Party was ascendant and the
national debt was $13 trillion rather than $30 trillion, I
proposed (in National Affairs) a Limited Government Amendment
to the Constitution. Such an amendment would limit annual
increases in federal spending to inflation plus two
percentage points, except during a formally declared war, or
if two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of state
legislatures authorized additional spending for other
reasons. An amendment in this spirit could greatly facilitate
fiscal restraint.
It has become fashionable to think of constitutional
amendments as relics from the past. But then, so are fiscal
responsibility and--increasingly--representative government.
The founders made the Constitution amendable for a reason,
and we should take our cues from them. In the late 1990s, we
showed--briefly--that it's possible to take action to reverse
our course and help save our country from the tragic fate
that Jefferson described. But the first step is to recognize
that the $30 trillion elephant in the room isn't going away.
It's just growing bigger.

Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, sadly, to H.R. 2773.
Although protecting our endangered species is truly a worthy cause, our
country is not fiscally sound, and to commit $1.4 billion a year in
perpetuity is exactly the kind of spending that has landed us in the
mess we are now in.
Let me be clear: we do not have the money. In the 30 years since
1992, the national debt has increased from $4 trillion to $30 trillion.
Mr. Anderson notes in his article that:

At that rate over the next 60 years, our debt would
increase by more than 50-fold to surpass $1.5 quadrillion. In
case one is wondering, a quadrillion is 1,000 trillions.

Mr. Speaker, some might say: Just raise taxes. But, Mr. Speaker, the
author of the article points out that, in fact, the Federal Government
last year taxed over 100 times what it did in the first postwar year
and spent nearly 200 times as much. So taxes are not the problem.
Spending is the problem.
The $1.4 billion per year is perpetual. Now, under anyone's measure,
perpetuity is a long time. Since this money will never be paid back,
some might say like those deep in credit card debt: We will just pay
the interest.
The interest on $1.5 billion for 30 years at current rates of 3.4
percent is $51 million a year. But, Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the
current total interest bill. It is estimated to be almost $400 billion
a year or about 8.7 percent of everything we spend.
Why would we add to this enormous obligation?
There is a quote by Ernest Hemingway: How did you go bankrupt?
The answer is: Gradually, then suddenly.
Mr. Speaker, this is exactly how bankruptcy works. You can keep
spending recklessly and rack up debts for a while--even a long while--
but at some point, it comes to an end abruptly. We have ignored our
Nation's spending problems for far too long. We have been going
bankrupt gradually, and I fear the day will come when we will go
bankrupt immediately.
We must correct this course. For this reason, I cannot support,
sadly, this bill.

{time} 1515

Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that hunting and
angling collectively support over $200 billion in economic activity
annually, including over 1.5 million jobs as well as almost $15 billion
in Federal tax revenue.
My home State of Michigan, the Great Lakes State, is home to almost
650,000 licensed hunters and over 1.1 million licensed fishermen and -
women as of last year. However, with over 40 percent of freshwater fish
at risk, and significant declines in game and nongame species that
support local ecosystems, we need RAWA's investments in on-the-ground
conservation to support hunting and fishing for future generations,
which is why the major sportsmen's groups, like the Congressional
Sportsmen's Foundation and Ducks Unlimited, have endorsed this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Panetta).
Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Recovering America's
Wildlife Act.
This is a proactive piece of bipartisan legislation that would help
our State and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies with the recovery and
conservation of close to 12,000 species of fish, wildlife, and plants.
Now, I support this bill not only as the United States Representative
for the central coast of California, a district that values and
cherishes our wildlife, but also as the vice chair of the Congressional
Sportsmen's Caucus.
As some of the most passionate wildlife conservationists across our
country, many sportsmen and -women, including those in the
Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, no matter what their political
persuasion, support this critical piece of legislation.
In addition to enhancing the Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson
Acts, sportsmen and -women want to ensure that our species are
protected and perpetuated. From bighorn sheep to the Sierra Nevada red
fox, from the California condors to the coho salmon, and from moose to
monarch butterflies, the intent of this legislation is to protect those
and thousands of other iconic animals well before they need to be
listed as endangered or threatened.
This way, rather than impose burdensome and costly regulations on
fish and wildlife managers, sportsmen and -women, and private
businesses, those species can be recovered and renewed well before any
measures are mandated.
Look, it is estimated that it costs the Federal Government more than
$19 million, on average, to recover a single species once it is listed,
including $1 million to just list the species and $18 million for the
science and habitat work. Let's simply take 2,000 of the 12,000 species
this bill would help conserve, and it would cost the Federal Government
at least $38 billion. This bill is a preventative measure to ensure
that does not happen.
Through this legislation, we would not only save billions of dollars
by not having to list species, but we would save thousands of plants
and animals by ensuring that they are protected.
By providing millions of dollars in funding for the on-the-ground
efforts,

[[Page H5515]]

we could recover, reintroduce, and restore wildlife, fish, flora, and
fauna throughout our Nation.
As many species face the growing threat of becoming extinct at
accelerated rates, due to changing global weather events and our
climate crisis, this legislation and its proposed funding would protect
those species well before they become endangered.
That is why sportsmen, community members, and my country members
support this bill, and that is why I urge my colleagues to do the same
by voting for and passing the Recovering America's Wildlife Act.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I know that we all like the idea of dynamic scoring, and I spend a
lot of money on hunting and fishing myself, as do a lot of other
Members of Congress. But CBO, unfortunately, does not take that into
account.
I know we all think that this bill could help not have listings of
endangered species. But case studies clearly show that Federal money
alone will not keep species off the endangered species list.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the record the CBO score from the Senate
version of the language that is in this bill.
U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, May 26, 2022.
Hon. Thomas Carper,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2372, the
Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2022.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Madeleine
Fox.
Sincerely,
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director.
Enclosure.

S. 2372, RECOVERING AMERICA'S WILDLIFE ACT OF 2022--AS REPORTED BY THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS ON APRIL 27, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of
dollars--
-----------------------------------
2022 2022-2027 2022-2032
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Spending (Outlays)........... 0 7,049 14,082
Revenues............................ 0 0 0
Increase or Decrease (-) in the 0 7,049 14,082
Deficit............................
Spending Subject to Appropriation 0 1 not
(Outlays).......................... estimated
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory pay-as-you-go procedures apply? Yes.
Increases on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive
10-year periods beginning in 2033? $5 billion.
Mandate Effects:
Contains intergovernmental mandate? No.
Contains private-sector mandate? No.
The bill would:
Make funds available to the Department of the Interior for
grants and other support for wildlife conservation by states,
territories, and Indian tribes.
Allow the department to spend interest accrued on certain
unspent balances for wildlife conservation.
Estimated budgetary effects would mainly stem from:
Spending without further appropriation on authorized
activities.
Spending of interest credited from amounts invested in
Treasury securities.
Bill summary: S. 2372 would amend the Pittman-Robertson
Wildlife Restoration Act and appropriate funds for the
Department of the Interior to support efforts by state,
local, and tribal governments to conserve endangered and
threatened species. The bill also would allow interest
accrued on unspent balances in one account to be available
without further appropriation for those activities.
The bill would require the President to provide the
Congress each year with a list of threatened or endangered
species and to estimate the amount of funding allocated for
their conservation. S. 2372 also would direct the Government
Accountability Office to study the progress of states,
territories, the District of Columbia, and Indian tribes in
protecting endangered and threatened species and to report
its findings seven years after enactment.
Estimated Federal cost: The estimated budgetary effect of
S. 2372 is shown in Table 1. The costs of the legislation
fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and
environment).
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S.
2372 will be enacted near the end of fiscal year 2022. On
that basis, CBO expects that outlays from funds provided in
2022 would occur in 2023. Using information from the affected
agencies and historical spending patterns for similar
activities, CBO estimates that enacting S. 2372 would
increase direct spending by $14.1 billion over the 2022-2032
period.

TABLE 1.--ESTIMATED BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF S. 2372
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2022-2027 2022-2032
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increases in Direct Spending

Title I, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service:
Budget Authority........... 850 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 7,050 13,550
Estimated Outlays.......... 0 645 1,218 1,336 1,359 1,293 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 5,851 12,351
Title II, Bureau of Indian
Affairs:
Budget Authority........... 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 585 1,073
Estimated Outlays.......... 0 98 78 94 107 99 98 98 98 98 98 476 963
Title III, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service:
Estimated Budget Authority..... 188 191 192 193 3 1 * 0 0 0 0 767 768
Estimated Outlays.............. 0 191 154 185 120 73 38 8 0 0 0 722 768
Total Changes in Direct
Spending:
Estimated Budget 1,135 1,388 1,489 1,590 1,401 1,399 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 1,398 8,402 15,390
Authority.............
Estimated Outlays...... 0 933 1,450 1,615 1,586 1,465 1,435 1,405 1,398 1,398 1,398 7,049 14,082
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Components may not sum to totals because of rounding; * = between zero and $500,000.
S. 2372 would require annual reports whose cost would total $1 million over the 2022-2027 period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds.

Direct spending: S. 2372 would establish new accounts in
the Treasury, specify the amounts to be deposited into those
accounts each year, and make the funds in those accounts
available to the Secretary of the Interior to spend without
further appropriation. In 2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) spent $713 million for similar activities.
Title I would make $850 million available in 2022 for USFWS
to make grants to state, local, and tribal governments for
wildlife conservation. The amounts made available would
increase in 2023 and 2024. In 2025 and every year thereafter,
title I would make $1.3 billion available for those purposes.
CBO estimates that enacting this title would increase direct
spending by $12.4 billion over the 2022-2032 period.
Title II would make $97.5 million available in 2022 and
every year thereafter for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to
help Indian tribes conserve species on tribal land that
have the greatest need for conservation. CBO estimates
that enacting this title would increase direct spending by
$963 million over the 2022-2032 period.
Title III would make $187.5 million available each year
from 2022 through 2025 for USFWS to make grants to states and
Indian tribes for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species and to carry out other authorities under
the Endangered Species Act. A portion of those amounts--$75
million each year--would be made available to the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation to recover threatened or
endangered species. CBO estimates that enacting this
provision in title III would increase direct spending by $750
million over the 2022-2032 period.
In addition, title III would direct the Department of the
Treasury to credit interest on unspent balances made
available under that title to USFWS. That interest would be
available to spend without further appropriation for recovery
efforts under the Endangered Species Act. (Crediting interest
to an account in the Treasury is an intragovemmental transfer
and thus would have no budgetary effect but allowing the
agency to spend the accrued amounts would increase direct
spending.) Using the interest rates underlying the May 2022
baseline projections, CBO estimates that under this
provision, $18 million would be accrued and spent over the
2022-2032 period.

[[Page H5516]]

The bill would permit USFWS to accept and spend donations.
CBO estimates that the effect on net direct spending from
donations would be negligible over the 2022-2032 period.
The bill would authorize the transfer of some penalties
collected under current law to the accounts established under
title I and title II, but S. 2372 would not authorize any new
penalty collections.
Spending subject to appropriation: S. 2372 would require
the President to submit to the Congress lists of threatened
or endangered species for which recovery efforts would be
funded under the bill and to report annually on the amounts
allocated for endangered species recovery, interagency
consultation, and conservation activities. Using information
about similar activities, CBO estimates that producing the
annual reports would cost $1 million over the 2022-2027
period; any spending would be subject to the availability of
appropriated funds.
Under the bill, the Government Accountability Office would
report in 2029 or 2030 on conservation efforts authorized in
the bill. Based on the cost of similar reports, CBO estimates
that the cost of that report would be insignificant.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. The net changes in outlays that are subject to
those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in Table 2.

TABLE 2.--CBO'S ESTIMATE OF THE STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS OF S. 2372, THE RECOVERING AMERICA'S WILDLIFE ACT, AS REPORTED BY THE SENATE COMMITTEE
ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS ON APRIL 27, 2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2022-2027 22022-2032
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net Increase in the Deficit

Pay-As-You-Go Effect.......... 0 933 1,450 1,615 1,586 1,465 1,435 1,405 1,398 1,398 1,398 7,049 14,082
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Increase in long-term deficits: CBO estimates that enacting
S. 2372 would increase on-budget deficits by more than $5
billion in all of the four consecutive 10-year periods
beginning in 2033.
Mandates: None.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Madeleine Fox,
Mandates: Lilia Ledezma.
Estimate reviewed by: Susan Willie, Chief, Natural and
Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit; H. Samuel Papenfuss,
Deputy Director of Budget Analysis; Theresa Gullo, Director
of Budget Analysis.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this report does show that it will cost
over $12 billion in the first 10 years and $1.4 billion thereafter.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Stauber).
Mr. STAUBER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today opposed to the underlying
bill.
Americans are living in paralyzing fear, watching all of their
household income get eaten up by the price of gas and household needs
and watching their retirement security disappear in our new bear
market.
The Biden and House Democrat approach has been to spend their way out
of every problem, and look where it has gotten us.
The Recovering America's Wildlife Act is well intended. Of course, we
conservationists support investments in our species. But there is still
no pay-for. This is $1.4 billion in perpetuity, with no pay-for or
offset.
During committee markup, Republicans on the Natural Resources
Committee simply asked to offset the spending that continues to punish
Americans. But Democrats declined to negotiate in good faith and are
choosing to aggravate inflation instead.
However, I offer legislation that will actually help fix the problem.
The Endangered Species Act Flexibility Act will give the Interior
Secretary options to help endangered species without crippling our
economy.
Too often, the ESA is abused. Science is ignored, and the law is used
as a weapon to stop much-needed development. Take, for example, the
northern long-eared bat. The bat's massive range runs from Maine to
Texas to Montana, with everything in between. You can see it on the map
right here.
Northern long-eared bats are, sadly, afflicted with white-nose
syndrome, a disease caused by a fungus that interrupts hibernation,
leading to their death. The science is clear: This disease has nothing
to do with human activity.
But because of declining population, the Fish and Wildlife Service is
deciding whether to uplist the species, which would severely restrict
logging, mining, and infrastructure building, like roads, bridges,
ports, and more.
Would you like to spend that infrastructure money on upgrading
projects anywhere on this map? Good luck if the northern long-eared bat
is listed as endangered.
My ESA Flexibility Act will give the Interior Department the latitude
to make species-specific habitat plans for endangered species, so we
don't punish Americans who need a transmission line to get reliable
power or need a bridge upgrade to drive to work.
I don't think a single Member of Congress here, across both aisles,
would disagree that the Endangered Species Act is an imperfect law in
desperate need of tweaks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. STAUBER. Therefore, I regret that my ESA Flexibility Act was not
accepted as an amendment, but I look forward to the eventual passage of
the ESA Flexibility Act into law.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before recognizing my colleague, I would like to talk about these
costs and address the fact that dollars invested properly do save
dollars.
I note that the droughts in the American West cost $8.6 billion just
last year, according to NOAA, and that the impact of wildfire cost over
$10 billion last year alone.
Restoration efforts, which this bill would help do, that make
habitats and communities more resilient to climate change have an
exceptionally high return on investment, such as reducing drought and
wildfire risks, increasing job opportunities, and growing local
economies.
Conservation and restoration of key habitats help reduce the threats
of wildfires and help States conserve water and improve water quality,
making their water systems more resilient to the drought.
Finally, full implementation of State and Tribal wildlife plans will
help species recover and be removed and even stay off the endangered
species list, which is what we want, saving the U.S. taxpayers millions
of dollars each year.
The large economic and social benefits of this legislation would
boost our economy and help us deliver on our climate commitments for
years to come as well.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy,
and I appreciate her leadership on this. And she is right.
Looking at these issues in a comprehensive fashion, we see
opportunities to not just save species, but to save money, and to deal
with serious consequences that we are seeing.
I am from the Pacific Northwest. We are in the middle of a climate
crisis. Last year, we had all-time records 3 days in a row for
temperatures. And that same week, in British Columbia, they set an all-
time record for Canada. And in the city that they set it, it burned
down the next day.
Climate change, loss of habitat, severe weather, including wildfires,
and the spread of invasive species, are taking their toll on animals,
from fish and amphibians to birds and mammals.
As co-chair of the Animal Protection Caucus, I am particularly aware
of the importance of saving our at-risk wildlife species.
More than 1,600 are already listed as threatened or endangered under
the Endangered Species Act because of our failure to act.
Oregon alone is home to more than 50 of these threatened and
endangered species.

[[Page H5517]]

In States like Oregon, in partnership with Tribes, we have identified
thousands more species that are at-risk and need conservation
assistance.
With States and conservation partners working diligently to pass and
develop conservation plans, we can make a significant difference. But
we lack dedicated annual comprehensive funding to implement the plans
which would be cost-effective.
With this bill, the Federal Government is stepping up in full
partnership with the Tribes, with the conservation communities, and
wildlife advocates.
The Recovering America's Wildlife Act will provide more than a
billion dollars in dedicated annual funding for proactive, cost-
effective model efforts, collaborative efforts by the States and Tribes
to recover and protect at-risk species.
I fear it is a false economy to sometimes engage in shortchanging
these efforts. The long-term cost to the environment, to our
communities, is immense. And I am pleased to support this legislation
because I think we can change this dynamic. I strongly urge people to
support its passage.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I encourage the majority to put their
estimates to the test. Let's make this a bill with a 7-year sunset like
the amendment that I proposed. Let's come back, look at it, and see if
it really did save money. If it really did save species, maybe we
should fund it at more than $1.4 billion a year. Maybe we can find that
funding with an offset.
But the simple truth is it is all speculation right now, and we are
getting ready to put a permanent mandatory spending program in place
with no way to come back and have checks and balances on it without
repealing the law. And how many times does that happen when Congress
passes a law?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Tiffany).

{time} 1530

Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Regrettably, I will not be able to support this bill either. It is
another $1.4 billion of mandatory spending--no offsets, no sunset. This
is another case of the runaway Biden inflation train gaining speed. The
only question at this point to the American people is how spectacular
the crack-up is going to be, and the American people know that.
When I go out and talk to them, I hear about two things: energy
prices and inflation.
Well, here we have got another $1.4 billion that are going to be
poured into the tinderbox of the train to send it careening down the
rails even faster. The only question is how spectacular the crack-up is
going to be. Unfortunately, the American people are going to suffer the
consequences.
The author of this bill just said that she would like to take some
species off the endangered species list. There is one that can come off
right now--right now--that has recovered.
Representative Boebert and I proposed an amendment to de-list the
gray wolf. It has recovered. The gray wolf is in the ESA ``Hotel
California.'' They can enter, but they never leave.
Twenty-five wildlife scientists from the upper Midwest a decade ago
said, you need to de-list the wolf. We put together an amendment for
this bill, and it was not considered.
Terribly unfortunate, because it is time for the Endangered Species
Act to either be used properly and de-list a species like the gray wolf
that is fully recovered, according to wildlife scientists, or else the
ESA itself has to be reformed.
Those scientists, when you read their document that they wrote,
specifically said, the Endangered Species Act is endangered because it
is not being used properly.
Also, there is no language in this bill that prohibits funds from
going to acquiring new Federal lands. Think about it this way: If you
have a neighbor that doesn't repair their roof, it is leaking into
their house, and they say we are going to go buy that lot next door.
That, in effect, is what this bill will allow the Federal Government to
do.
We are seeing across America, including in my district, that the
Federal Government is not taking care of their lands appropriately. The
Federal Government is becoming America's slumlord.
This bill has grant programs that even the most extreme environmental
groups can apply for. Every time some taxpayer-funded, so-called
corporate green group runs an ad, and you are going to see a lot of
them here in 2022, claiming the sky is falling, just remember: You may
have paid for it, and you may pay twice because you will get hit with
inflation as a result of spending that the American people cannot
afford.
I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to be able to testify on
this bill. Unfortunately, I will not be able to support it, and I hope
in the future that we can do better.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Kilmer).
Mr. KILMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for
her leadership on this issue.
I rise in support of the Recovering America's Wildlife Act,
bipartisan legislation I am proud to cosponsor, that aims to make the
most significant investment in wildlife and habitat conservation in a
generation.
Across Washington State, across our whole country, we are facing
widespread species decline that doesn't just threaten the health of our
ecosystems. It threatens the recreation and tourism and fishing
industries that our communities rely on.
That is why Democrats and Republicans support taking bold action to
implement conservation efforts to conserve and restore habitat, to
reintroduce native species, and to mitigate wildlife risk.
This bill is critical to helping our State and our Tribal wildlife
managers put conservation measures in place to protect species before
they become threatened or endangered.
On top of that, this bill will help us combat threats to ecosystems,
including the European green crab, an invasive species that is
destroying essential marine habitat for Dungeness crab and Pacific
salmon and threatening our shellfish industry that so many of the
families that I represent depend on.
Get this: Last year, more than 102,000 European green crabs were
caught in Puget Sound and along Washington's coast. That was an
astronomical 5,500 percent increase from 2019.
In response to that explosion in the green crab population, a series
of disaster declarations were made by the Lummi Nation and the Makah
Tribe concerning the green crabs' impact on Tribal culture and on their
economies, and another a disaster was declared by the State of
Washington to mobilize more resources.
While our Tribes and States and local partners and small businesses
are working diligently to protect our region against the explosion of
these invasive species, they need more resources to improve detection,
increase control efforts, and pursue eradication of this invasive
species.
This burden shouldn't fall entirely on the backs of our Tribes or on
local taxpayers' backs. The Federal Government can and should step up
and be a better partner in this effort, and this bill will do that.
That is why I encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan
legislation.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).
Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding the time.
As I speak, the West is literally burning. Major infernos are
devastating States like California, Arizona, and Alaska.
In New Mexico, the Hermit's Peak fire became the largest in State
history nearly 1 month ago and is still not fully contained. This
catastrophic fire has burned over 320,000 acres and cost taxpayers a
whopping $224 million in fire suppression costs.

In total, over 2.6 million acres have burned this year already,
putting us on a pace to surpass every wildfire season in the past
decade.
Homes have burned to the ground. Thousands of brave wildland
firefighters have put their lives on the line. Hundreds of millions of
dollars have been spent trying to tame fires so intense, they create
their own weather systems known as firenados. Why?
The answer is simple. The lack of active forest management and
decades of fire suppression and mismanagement have left our Nation's
forests as dry as

[[Page H5518]]

powder kegs and ready to ignite from a single spark.
In the last decade, mismanagement caused over 70 million acres to
burn, and we have no signs of it slowing down. According to the U.S.
Forest Service, over one billion--that is billion with a b--acres
across the country are at risk of experiencing severe wildfires.
That is why I am offering this amendment. My amendment seeks to add
forest management activities such as mechanical thinning and prescribed
burning that enhance or create wildlife habitat--that is, enhance or
create wildlife habitat--or reduce the risk of destruction to wildlife
habitat due to wildfires as acceptable projects under the Recovering
America's Wildlife Act.
Catastrophic fires remain one of the single greatest threats to
wildlife in Western States, such as my home State of Idaho.
In California, the Los Angeles Times reported in 2020 that the Bobcat
fire turned one of the most abundant wildlife habitats with lush
canyons and a mixture of rare and endangered species into an
``apocalypse'' that looked like ground zero after a nuclear explosion.
Experts believe this fire would reverse decades of conservation
efforts.
In Oregon, the 2020 wildfires have burned over 360,000 acres of
critical spotted owl habitat, pushing the species into what researchers
call an extinction vortex.
Catastrophic wildfires recently forced the State of Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife to recommend moving the greater sage-
grouse from threatened to endangered status in their State. This is the
very action that RAWA seeks to prevent.
These wildfires also killed nearly half of the State's endangered
pigmy rabbit population. A Seattle Times report stated that rabbits had
asphyxiated as the fire, in its fury, devoured oxygen from the
atmosphere. There was nothing but ash and dust. No movement. No
footprints. There was no chance anything survived.
Is this what recovering America's wildlife looks like, choking
animals in suffocating smoke, burning them alive?
These catastrophic wildland fires are polluting our air, degrading
our water, releasing massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, and
turning rich and diverse wildlife habitat into barren moonscapes.
Incentivizing better, more active forest management through my
amendment will create healthier ecosystems and abundant habitat for
diverse wildlife. That is exactly what this bill is intended to do. If
we truly care about recovering America's wildlife, then you will
support my amendment.
If we adopt this, we will instruct the Committee on Natural Resources
to add my amendment to include the forest management activities that
modify, improve, enhance, or create wildlife habitat or protect
wildlife habitat from wildfires as acceptable uses of funding under
this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Idaho?
There was no objection.
Mrs. DINGELL. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Idaho for
making a point that it is really the underlying reason that we should
be--or the underlying question we should be talking about is, Why do we
need to recover America's wildlife?
It is because we have messed up badly. We have mismanaged our Federal
lands. Catastrophic wildfires run rampant. That does nothing to help
wildlife habitat, and it is sad that we are actually here looking for
funding and ways to fix something that we should have already fixed,
something that we shouldn't have broken in the first place.
I think there is a way to recover wildlife, if we would just simply
manage the habitat that the wildlife lives in. That is the purpose of
this bill, but it is going to take some worldview changes, and the so-
called environmental groups that are pushing to stop the management
activity are going to have to allow this activity to take place.
It doesn't matter how much funding we put out from the Federal
Government; we are going to continue to see wildlife habitat destroyed,
and we are going to continue to see the loss of wildlife.
So it is not a problem that simply throwing money at will fix, and it
is, again, a problem where we should put a program in place, come back
and evaluate it, and decide whether we want to continue the program
based on the merits of the successes of it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I say to my colleague, I deeply agree that these fires are horrific
in what they are doing to our natural resources and our habitat, but
that is why this bill is so important.
It is not Washington telling the States or the Native lands or
territories in the Native lands what to do. It is the State wildlife
plans that are being drafted at the local level where they know what
needs to be done that we will be funding and trying to prevent fires
like that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the very
distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), the chairman of
the Committee on Natural Resources, who leads all of us on so many of
these issues.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2773, Recovering
America's Wildlife Act. I thank Representative Dingell and her
colleagues that have worked diligently on this legislation for a
considerable amount of time.
In the midst of the species extinction crisis that we have,
accelerated climate change, the loss of biodiversity, droughts, the
wildfires that we just heard about, it is important to note that this
legislation was built from the ground up; 1,800 organizations, as
diverse as Duke Energy on one side of the political spectrum and the
Environmental Defense Fund on the other side, both agreeing that the
approach of this legislation is the right approach; 180-plus cosponsors
represented in a bipartisan fashion.
This bill before us today will transform the state of wildlife
conservation in our country.
As we know, America's wildlife faces numerous threats, including
habitat loss, pollution, climate change, wildfire, drought, invasive
species, and emerging diseases.
It provides a historic $1.3 billion of dedicated funding for States
and territories and $97 million for Tribes to assist in their efforts
to conserve, restore, and protect wildlife and habitat each year.
With that protection comes the resiliency for habitat and the overall
resiliency for communities and our environment.
In the long run, this investment will save taxpayers money. It
creates jobs, promotes tourism, and provides safety and resilience to
those communities across our country.
Through habitat conservation and restoration, this bill makes
habitats and communities much more resilient to the ongoing and
accelerated issue of climate change. This is an important piece of
legislation for each and every State, territory, and Tribe in our
country, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

{time} 1545

My friends on the other side of the aisle, my Republican colleagues
are fiscal conservatives when they are not in the majority. When they
are in the majority, that is not the pattern of behavior.
At the present time, nothing should be done is what is being
preached:
Nothing should be done about the climate crisis.
Nothing should be done about wildlife extinction.
Nothing should be done about January 6 and our democracy. That was
merely a mirage, a walk in the park that we should all forget.
Nothing should be done about our children and the danger that they
are exposed to in our very schools.
Nothing should be done about the rising healthcare costs and
prescription drug costs.
We can't do anything because of inflation and the rising gas prices,
so the best thing to do is to do nothing.
Well, my colleagues, I support H.R. 2773 because it does something.
It does something in a bipartisan, comprehensive way. If my colleagues
want to talk

[[Page H5519]]

about climate change, if they want to talk about droughts, if they want
to talk about wildfire, if they want to talk about fiscally prudent
things to do, let's talk about this bill today. Support it with
dedicated funding. Make the investment that will guarantee the
dividends for ourselves and future generations.
I applaud Representative Dingell and all the work of her colleagues
and this piece of legislation, and I urge its support and urge a
``yes'' vote.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about this bill being
bipartisan. The original House version of the text did have 42
Republican cosponsors on it, which is a sizable number. That is a
bipartisan bill.
There will still be Republicans who vote for this version, but as
long as we are in the business of estimating today, I am going to
estimate that it won't be the 42 cosponsors of the original text,
which, again, was supplanted by the Senate version that didn't send all
the money to the State and Tribal governments. It sent the money to
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, part of the funding to U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
I have talked to some of the Republican Members who have cosponsored
the bill, and their understanding was that the pay-for was going to be
worked out. If we would just sponsor the bill, we would get the pay-
fors worked out. We were told the bill will go to the floor, and we
will work out the pay-fors. Well, here is the bill on the floor and
there is still no pay-fors. It is still permanent mandatory spending,
$1.4 billion a year.
If this bill passes out of the House, and if for some reason it
doesn't make it through the Senate and become law, then I hope to come
back and work on a bill that has the same objectives but is fiscally
responsible, a bill that has pay-fors, a bill that is not borrowing
from our children, and a bill that is not permanent, one that actually
gives Congress the authority to have oversight and to come back and
analyze the language, to analyze the success of it, and make changes as
needed as we go on.
We do this with the farm bill, we do it with other bills. I am not
sure why we can't do it with Recovering America's Wildlife Act because
it is a very important subject.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I say to my colleague, we have worked in good faith. We will continue
to work in good faith.
The Senate, which doesn't work together as closely at times the way
we do, has negotiated a legacy fund that is a bipartisan negotiated
provision by the chairman and the ranking member of the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Actually, more Republicans
voted for that than Democrats did.
This bill has been supported by a broad cross-section of Senate
Republicans and Senate Democrats. Quite frankly, there are some of your
Senate Republican colleagues who will only support it the way it is
now. I have talked to many Republicans who want to see this bill go
through. I don't know how the final vote will be today. I know people
want to support it.
By the way, it addresses a shared goal, what the Senate did, that
third provision helping to move species off of the ESA listings more
quickly. It contains guardrails on the use of funds that I know were
important to my Republican colleagues. These include prohibitions on
the use of funds to make any listing or critical habitat determination
relating to the endangered or threatened status of any species or to
acquire any Federal land, which I know is really important on your
side.
The broad coalition supporting the bill, including the State wildlife
agencies and sportsmen's groups, have also backed all these provisions.
We are not done. If the bill passes the House, we will go to conference
with the Senate. We will all be at that table. But the time is now. We
need to get this done. We have lost almost 3 billion birds since 1970.
We are losing 40 percent of our fish. You and I both fish. I am not as
great a hunter as you guys are, but I was married to one. But they know
what is happening. The time for action is now.
Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of
my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. In closing, I just want to go back through the facts as we
know them.
We know that we need to do better habitat management, whether it is
forest, rangelands, oceans, rivers, or lakes. We know there are areas
where we need to manage better. The intent of this bill is to let those
management activities be done by the people who do it best, State and
Tribal agencies.
I think there is a huge agreement in the House, both Republicans and
Democrats alike, but that is a good thing. The problem we have with the
bill, though, is the way that we are going to implement it in the
financial times that we are in now, and looking back at history and
seeing how we got in the condition that we are in. The spending problem
in this country is not discretionary spending. It is not the
appropriation bills that we should be debating and approving every
year.

It is the mandatory spending. It is the cruise control programs that
previous Congresses have put in place that are driving the deficit.
Over 70 percent of our debt is due to mandatory spending. And here we
are with record debt, record inflation, and we are talking about
putting more on the mandatory side of the equation.
There is a path where we could get huge support. We could probably do
this, maybe even do it on a unanimous consent bill, and that would be
if the majority would accept the amendment that I offered in the Rules
Committee.
As the ranking member on the committee, I offered an amendment that
would bring a lot of our Members on board, and it simply put a 7-year
sunset in, make it an authorization and let the Appropriations
Committee do their work.
We are not even going to vote on that. We are not even going to put
it on the floor to see where the Members of the body are at. The Rules
Committee took that off of the table. So we have no choice. No choice
but to recommend that we vote ``no'' on this bill, that we come back to
the table, that we look at something that everybody can agree on. Not
just on the authorization, but on how we fund the bill. I think we can
get there.
I hate to take it out of the House's hands and put it into the
Senate's hands when we didn't give it a full effort on how to not only
craft the legislation on what needs to be done on the ground, but how
to pay for it, how to be fiscally responsible going forward.
So, again, I support the idea. I don't support the way we are paying
for it. I have to recommend a ``no'' vote. I encourage my colleagues to
vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to close.
I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the constructive
debate and input that we have had to date on Recovering America's
Wildlife Act. This legislation is historic, and our shared efforts
today will help move us one step closer to a bold solution to the
biodiversity crisis and will establish conservation measures that will
endure for generations, which I know we both care about.
The Recovering America's Wildlife Act has strong bipartisan support,
the backing of hundreds of meetings of sportsmen's groups, hunting and
fishing advocates, conservation organizations, environmental advocates,
businesses, and countless others.
It will fund proactive conservation measures that will benefit every
State and territory and contains a strong Tribal title to support
Tribal organizations' efforts to protect wildlife on tens of millions
of acres of land.
I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Recovering
America's Wildlife Act. It will make a difference in every
congressional district in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CASE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2773,
the Recovering America's Wildlife Act. I thank the gentlewoman from
Michigan, Congresswoman Dingell, and Chairman Grijalva for their
leadership in moving this critical legislation through our Natural
Resources Committee and to the Floor.

[[Page H5520]]

The world is in the middle of an extinction crisis and,
unfortunately, my state is at its center. As a result of climate
change, invasive species and other environmental stressors, our islands
have earned the unfortunate distinction of becoming the endangered
species capitol of the world. Of the 1,225 endangered species listed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, nearly 500 are found in Hawaii.
Just last year, nine more of Hawaii's endemic species were officially
reclassified as extinct.
The Recovering America's Wildlife Act will provide $1.3 billion in
support to states, territories and tribes to address wildlife
conservation. The estimated $60 million in annual funding to Hawaii
will be essential to my state's ability to save our imperiled
biodiversity and will increase the chance that species like the `l`iwi
(a Hawaiian Honeycreeper), `Ope`ape`a (the Hawaiian Hoary Bat) and
Kahuli (Hawaiian tree snail) survive.
I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this legislation. Mahalo.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Each further amendment printed in part D of House Report 117-366 not
earlier considered as part of the amendments en bloc pursuant to
section 7 of House Resolution 1170 shall be considered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated
in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time
before the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
It shall be in order at any time for the chair of the Committee on
Natural Resources or his designee to offer amendments en bloc
consisting of further amendments in part D of House Report 117-366 not
earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources
or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Dingell of Michigan

Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1170, I offer
amendments en bloc.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en
bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 1, 3, 6, and 7,
printed in part D of House Report 117-366, offered by Mrs. Dingell of
Michigan:

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick of Florida

Page 7, line 15, strike ``and''.
Page 7, line 20, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 7, after line 20, inert the following:
(H) may be used to expand the use of innovative
technologies, tools, strategies, or collaborative
partnerships that accelerate, expand, or replicate effective
and measurable recovery efforts for species of greatest
conservation need and species listed as threatened or
endangered under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973 and the habitats of such species.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

TITLE IV--REPORT

SEC. 401. REPORT.

The Secretary of the Interior shall, not later than 1 year
after the date of enactment of this section, and annually
thereafter, submit a report to the Committee on Environment
and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Natural
Resources of the House of Representatives providing detailed
information on the dollar amount of grants and contracts
(including subcontracts), and the percentage of total awards
and grants, that were awarded or allocated under this Act to
Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-
serving educational institutions, Tribally-controlled
colleges and universities, minority-serving educational
institutions, minority-owned business enterprises, women-
owned business enterprises, and community-based organizations
that are principally administered by, operated by, or serving
minority communities.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Schrier of Washington

Page 7, line 15, strike ``and''.
Page 7, line 20, strike the period at the end and insert
``; and''.
Page 7, after line 20, insert the following new
subparagraph:
``(H) may be used for conservation infrastructure projects
related to the protection and conservation of a species of
greatest conservation need and the habitat of such
species.''.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. David Scott of Georgia

Page 7, line 15, strike ``and''.
Page 7, line 20, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 7, after line 20, insert the following new
subparagraph:
``(H) may be used to conserve and restore a native
pollinator species which is a species of greatest
conservation need.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell) and the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, this en bloc consists of four amendments:
Amendment No. 3, offered by the gentlewoman from Texas; amendment No.
7, offered by the gentleman from Georgia; amendment No. 6, offered by
the gentlewoman from Washington; and amendment No. 1, offered by the
gentlewoman from Florida.
Amendment No. 3, offered by the gentlewoman from Texas, requires the
Secretary of the Interior to submit a report to the House Committee on
Natural Resources and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works outlining the dollar amount of grants, contracts, and
subcontracts, and the percent of total awards and grants that were
awarded or allocated under RAWA to HBCUs and minority-serving
institutions, minority- and women-owned businesses, and community-based
organizations serving minority communities.
Current conservation and restoration practices underutilize the
breadth of traditional, indigenous, and local knowledge found in our
communities. To be successful in our restoration and conservation
goals, we must use all of the tools at our disposal.
Amendment No. 7, offered by the gentleman from Georgia, adds
activities that support native pollinator conservation and restoration
to the list of appropriate uses of funds from the Wildlife Conservation
and Restoration Subaccount.
While many State wildlife action plans already include projects that
will conserve and restore native pollinator species and habitat, we
recognize the important role that pollinators play in ecosystem
functionality.
Twenty-seven States included monarch butterflies in their State
wildlife action plans, and thousands of other pollinators are
identified as species of greatest conservation need.
Our pollinators are at risk, and it is important that we not forget
the important impact they have on our landscape.
Amendment No. 6, offered by the gentlewoman from Washington,
clarifies that the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Subaccount
funds may include conservation infrastructure projects related to the
protection and conservation of a species of greatest conservation need
and the habitat of those species.
Conservation infrastructure projects are cost-effective methods to
enhance conservation and build climate resiliency. They can protect
against excessive heat and coastal storms while improving wildlife
habitat and carbon sequestration.
Conservation infrastructure projects improve the health and
management of ecosystems so that they provide important benefits and
services. Examples include managing stormwater runoff, improving water
quality for wildlife, restoring wildlife habitat in the built
environment, and attracting beneficial species.

{time} 1600

Finally, amendment No. 1, offered by the gentlewoman from Florida,
broadens the appropriate uses of Wildlife Conservation and Restoration
Subaccount funds to include using innovative technologies, tools,
strategies, or collaborative partnerships that accelerate, expand, or
replicate effective and measurable recovery efforts for species of the
greatest conservation need and endangered species.
Supporting the implementation and expansion of new, creative
conservation methods is of the utmost importance if we wish to
interrupt the ongoing mass extinction event. In this time of need, our
species and ecosystems need all the help we can provide. Funding
innovative ideas will fill the gaps left by traditional conservation
methods while spurring research and creating jobs.

[[Page H5521]]

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I also rise in support of this amendment en bloc.
None of the amendments included in this amendment en bloc would add
more spending to this bill. Three of the amendments in this en bloc
amend title I by adding more flexibility for State fish and wildlife
agencies when they make conservation investments funded under this
bill.
These amendments do not impose new mandates, but rather, provide
States more tools to manage wildlife as they see fit.
Mr. Scott's amendment on helping pollinators and their habitats will
enhance ongoing efforts aimed at helping the monarch butterfly.
Pollinators are critical to ecosystem conservation around the world.
That is why my Republican colleagues and I have continuously supported
the Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for the monarch
butterfly, which allows private companies and landowners to contribute
to proactive conservation.
The amendment from Congresswoman Cherfilus-McCormick recommends that
States prioritize funding toward innovative strategies and partnerships
to recover species. I believe that innovation is critical for ensuring
widespread species recovery. The current species recovery framework
under the Endangered Species Act is not only outdated, but it is broken
and needs innovation.
Republicans have offered numerous ideas to use innovation to spur
species recovery. One idea from Representative Herrell of New Mexico
would help incentivize proactive Candidate Conservation Agreements that
allow private companies and landowners to contribute toward at-risk
species conservation through their own dollars and efforts. Sounds like
a good, commonsense idea.
The outdated Endangered Species Act has become a top-down government
approach that rarely works to help species or people. Innovative
approaches like Ms. Herrell's are much needed.
I was disappointed to see that the majority discarded amendments like
Ms. Herrell's without even giving us the chance to debate its merits on
the House floor.
Representative Stauber also had an innovative idea to update the
Endangered Species Act that he offered as an amendment. His amendment
would have provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the
flexibility to utilize so-called 4(d) rules for endangered species.
Under a 4(d) rule, the Secretary of the Interior can issue a rule for
individual species that tailors protections to that species'
conservation and recovery. Unfortunately, again, the majority also
ignored that amendment.
The amendment by Congresswoman Schrier is also included in this en
bloc by encouraging States to invest in ``conservation infrastructure
projects.'' While States already have flexibility to decide how to
spend the funding provided in title I of the bill, this amendment would
give them the option to invest in natural solutions, such as buffer
strips, wetlands--one of my favorite things--planting trees, and other
natural solutions to environmental challenges.
Lastly, Congresswoman Jackson Lee's amendment would require the
Secretary of the Interior to issue a report within 1 year of this
bill's enactment, detailing the percentage of total awards and grants
that were awarded or allocated to institutions serving minority
communities.
While I support this amendment and its reporting requirement, I have
bad news for the sponsor. Because the bill lacks a sunset provision,
there is little incentive and recourse for Congress to fix any
problems. In other words, if the reports required by this amendment
highlight a glaring flaw with the programs being carried out under this
bill, there will be no guarantee that Congress will fix the problem.
The same is true for the State reports required under the bill.
For that reason, I offered a commonsense amendment that would have
included a 7-year sunset to ensure that Congress would have to fix any
flaws associated with this new program. Unfortunately, as I stated
earlier, my amendment was also blocked by the majority.
This bill and the process to rush this bill to the floor today are
unfortunate. It could have been avoided, but at least the amendments
included in this en bloc do not spend any more taxpayer money and
provide some needed accountability.
Mr. Speaker, I support the en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am glad we found an area of agreement
this afternoon. I think we have more agreement than people realize.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee), the author of one of these very critical amendments.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be yielded to by the
gentlewoman. I thank her for championing this outstanding legislation,
and I thank my good friend for acknowledging the en bloc.
I will say that there is good news. The good news is that the
Recovering America's Wildlife Act is once-in-a-generation funding for
the conservation of threatened species of animals and plants as well as
habitat preservation. I will discuss the importance of it as I also
present to the body my amendment.

Let me, first of all, say I pay tribute to Ellison, 7 years old, and
to Roy, 7 years old, my twin grandchildren who love every species that
they can find within their backyard or anyplace else that you would
take them. I see in their lifetime the vision of this legislation. They
love the outdoors. They love to see crawling things, and they are a boy
and a girl.
Yet, what are we facing today? The world is facing an unprecedented
loss of wildlife. Bird populations have declined almost 30 percent in
the U.S. and Canada since 1970. Over 40 percent of America's freshwater
fish are at risk of extinction, and State agencies have identified
12,000 species of wildlife in need of conservation.
The Speaker pro tempore knows that Texas and Louisiana experienced a
catastrophic oil spill some years ago. I remember visiting oyster
fishermen and others who were devastated. We need to get in there and
make a difference.
Mr. Speaker, 12,000 species are currently identified as endangered in
the United States, and 1,300 of them are in my State of Texas. As I
said, fishermen are still crying out for help. Climate change poses an
unprecedented challenge to plant and animal species due to wildfires,
droughts, floods, and temperature shifts. Hurricane Harvey devastated
the coast and the opportunities for wildlife. The resulting threat to
biodiversity has the potential to disrupt our ecosystem and, with it,
human quality of life and sustainability.
Urban sprawl as well as development of suburbs and exurbs also
encroach on the habitat that supports biodiversity, and it has ripple
effects that compound the gradation of our environment from climate
change.
We want to be hanging in there with fisherman, sportsmen, bikers,
hikers--bikers in the appropriate atmosphere, but hikers in particular.
Our children deserve to know the natural beauty of their country.
They deserve to see the beauty of wildlife. They deserve to be good
custodians of that, and the children need to be diverse.
So the amendment that I offer is to ensure that children will
continue to spend their days fishing, gardening alongside bees,
watching the migratory birds, but also looking at the wilds and the
species that are in them.
The Recovering America's Wildlife Act provides $1.3 billion in
funding to protect our Nation's wildlife, $50 million of which will go
to Texas.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, this is a great effort. My amendment
fixes and adds to this. By adding title IV, we stipulate the Secretary
of the Interior must, no later than 1 year after passage, provide a
report on the dollar amount of grants, contracts, and subcontracts that
were allocated to historically Black colleges and universities,
Hispanic-serving educational institutions, tribally controlled colleges
and universities, and women- and minority-owned businesses.
My amendment goes into the broad span of Americans, brings them into

[[Page H5522]]

the arena, and gives a needed investment in people of color who deserve
to be not only included but intentionally targeted in new conservation
investments to open their eyes, to give them the opportunity, and to
ensure our Native American friends are included as well along with
women- and minority-owned businesses. Let them have an investment as
well.
In addition, with the enactment of this legislation, my amendment
would create a framework for prioritizing historically disadvantaged
groups in environmental efforts, bring them, again, into the fold,
which should be replicated in future efforts. This is an important
step.
I want you to listen to me, historically Black colleges and Hispanic-
serving institutions, this is also a day for you. Support this
legislation, and we will expand and build and support America.
Mr. Speaker, as a staunch advocate for the environment I rise in
support of the Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2021.
This bill provides once-in-a-generation funding for the conservation
of threatened species of animals and plants, as well as habitat
preservation.
12,000 species are currently identified as endangered in the United
States. 1,300 of those are in my home state of Texas.
In addition to providing $1.3 billion in funding to protect our
nation's wildlife--$50 million of which will go to Texas--the
Recovering America's Wildlife Act of 2021 designates portion of this
federal funding for special projects that revitalize species facing a
conservation need.
In addition to my support of H.R. 2773, I rise to put forth an
important amendment to today's legislation.
Firstly, this legislation does not stipulate significant transparency
regarding the handling of these funds.
Secondly, nowhere in this bill does it require the Department of the
Interior to include people of color.
My amendment fixes both of those issues. By adding Title IV, we
stipulate the Secretary of the Interior must, no later than one year
after passage, provide a report on the dollar amount of grants,
contracts, and subcontracts that were allocated to Historically Black
Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-serving educational institutions,
Tribally controlled colleges and universities, and women and minority
owned business.
My amendment addresses a needed investment in people of color who
deserve to be not only included, but intentionally targeted in new
conservation investments.
Passage of this bill will encourage fairness in the allocation of
contract, subcontract, and grant dollars, as well as greater
transparency into the details of those allocations.
Climate change poses unprecedented challenges to plant and animal
species due to wildfires, droughts, floods, and temperature shifts.
The resulting threat to biodiversity has the potential to disrupt our
ecosystem, and with it, human quality-of-life and sustainability.
Urban sprawl as well as development of suburbs and exurbs also
encroach on the habitat that supports biodiversity, and it has ripple
effects that compound the degradation of our environment from climate
change.
This bill takes these problems seriously and provides funding for
programs that are essential for human sustainability as well as the
resilience of plants and animals.
Our children deserve to know the natural beauty of their country.
They deserve to grow up in an America teeming with wild strength,
diversity, and beauty.
They deserve to embrace the long American history of wildlife
sportsmanship, recreation, and appreciation.
By supporting H.R. 2773, we ensure that childhood days spent fishing
at the lake, gardening alongside bees, or watching the flight of
migratory birds are not things of the past.
Through this bill we preserve the heritage of our country.
Additionally, enactment of this legislation would create a framework
for prioritizing historically disadvantaged groups in environmental
efforts that should be replicated in future efforts.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, again, I support this group of amendments
en bloc and encourage a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this
en bloc package as well as the bill upon final passage, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, the
previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
The question is on the amendments en bloc.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
are postponed.

Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Dingell of Michigan

Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1170, I offer
amendments en bloc.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en
bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 2 consisting of amendment Nos. 2 and 8,
printed in part D of House Report 117-366, offered by Mrs. Dingell of
Michigan:

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bentz of Oregon

Page 34, after line 13, add the following new subsection:
(k) Administrative Costs.--Of the funds made available
under each of paragraphs (1) and (3) of subsection (e), not
more than 1.85 percent may be used by the Secretary for
administrative costs.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Tiffany of Wisconsin

Page 34, after line 13, add the following new subsection:
(k) Inspector General.--There is authorized to be
appropriated to the Office of the Inspector General of the
Department of the Interior \1/2\ of 1 percent of the amounts
made available under subsection (c) for the purposes of
providing oversight and accountability with respect to
expenditure of funds authorized under such subsection, to
remain available until September 30, 2029.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell) and the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, en bloc No. 2 consists of two good-
government amendments offered by my Republican colleagues: amendment
No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Oregon and amendment No. 8 offered
by the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Amendment No. 2 stipulates that no more than 1.85 percent of funds
can be used for administrative costs in the grant programs authorized
by title III.
The purpose of the Recovering America's Wildlife Act is to fund on-
the-ground efforts that are focused on conserving and restoring
wildlife and habitat. This 1.85 percent cap will ensure that these
dollars are being used toward actions that create the most impact.
Amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin requires that
half of 1 percent of the money in the Endangered Species Recovery and
Habitat Conservation Legacy Fund be directed to the Office of the
Inspector General of the Department of the Interior to oversee the
expenditure of the fund.
This amendment will ensure that money from the Endangered Species
Recovery and Habitat Conservation Legacy Fund is used appropriately and
in a manner that is in line with the spirit of this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on en bloc No. 2,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in wholehearted support of these
amendments en bloc, which include amendments from our colleagues from
Oregon (Mr. Bentz) and from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).
These amendments would ensure that the funds provided in title III
are subject to the same overhead cap requirements and oversight
measures as title I.
The original point of this bill was to empower States and Tribes to
carry out species conservation, not set up another Washington, D.C.-
based Federal program, which is now what the bill does. Not only does
title III change that intent by giving more than $180 million annually
in the first 4 years to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but it was
also added at the Rules Committee and was not part of the bill that the
Committee on Natural Resources marked up. Because the Committee on
Natural Resources never had the

[[Page H5523]]

chance to debate this title when we marked up the original bill, we did
not have the opportunity to add these good-governance amendments to it
like we did for titles I and II.
I believe that title III should be removed altogether. Unfortunately,
Representative Moore's amendment, which would have removed title III,
was not made in order, so we didn't even get the chance to debate it,
much less vote on it today.

{time} 1615

In the absence of that amendment, the least we can do is ensure funds
allocated by title III are being spent responsibly and with some
oversight.
I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the amendments, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).
Mr. TIFFANY. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for saying it
quite well. The least we can do here is make sure that with these funds
we try to have some oversight and responsibility in terms of how they
are going to be spent. I thank the author for including this amendment
in the bill.
If there is no pay-for, then there must be some measure of
accountability for the expenditure of these funds ensuring the
Department of the Interior Inspector General's office has the proper
resources to monitor this spending.
Unfortunately, the bill in its current form has no sunset on the
mandatory spending of $1.4 billion, so I thank the gentlewoman for
including this in the package.
Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Bentz).
Mr. BENTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my amendment No. 8.
This fiscally responsible amendment would establish a 1.85 percent
administrative cap for the Department of the Interior when implementing
title III of this bill.
Title I of the bill, which provides funding to State fish and
wildlife departments for species conservation, includes a 1.85 percent
administrative cap.
Title II of the bill, which covers Tribal Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration, includes a 3 percent administrative cap for the Department
of the Interior.
However, as currently drafted, title III does not have an
administrative cap.
The original intent of this bill was to provide States with funding
to conserve species of greatest conservation need.
Unfortunately, the majority decided to ignore the committee process
by airdropping in title III to give more funding to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Not only did they circumvent process to add the entire title to the
bill, they didn't carry over any of the good government amendments made
in committee.
Under the current text, the State and Tribal portions of the bill
would be subject to strict administrative caps, but the Federal
Government would not be. This is backwards, as the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service needs much more oversight since the agency is part of
the reason we find ourselves in the position we are currently in with
respect to the broken Endangered Species Act.
Additionally, the programs funded in title III already receive
existing appropriations, and if the majority would like to increase
them, they should do it through the appropriations process instead of
airdropping in another layer of statute and bureaucracy into the
legislation.
For these reasons, title III should be struck from the bill.
Unfortunately, the majority refused to allow a vote on my colleague
from Utah's amendment that would have done just that.
The very least we can do is at least ensure that title III is subject
to the same administrative requirements as the other titles.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I again encourage adoption of these
amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the
en bloc package as well as the bill upon final passage, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee). Pursuant to House
Resolution Number 1170, the previous question is ordered on the
amendments en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs.
Dingell).
The question is on the amendments en bloc.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. Dingell. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
are postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Kildee.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No.
4 printed in part D of House Report 117-366.
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 29, line 18, insert ``and efforts to manage, control,
and prevent invasive species, disease, and other risks to
such species'' after ``efforts''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Dingell) for offering this very important piece of legislation
and to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Meijer) for his support on the
amendment that I am offering and all of our dedication to the Great
Lakes being quite evident by this work.
Growing up in Michigan, my family would camp and fish every year in
East Tawas, Michigan. We grew up on the Great Lakes. These are really
fond memories I have from my childhood, and it is a particular honor as
a result to represent 118 miles of Lake Huron shoreline in Congress.
Over the past couple of centuries, nearly 200 non-native species have
established populations in the Great Lakes. In my home State, invasive
species like Asian carp, zebra mussels, and phragmites threaten the
health of our Great Lakes. Zebra mussels have clogged our water
infrastructure costing millions in cleanup. Asian carp eat the wetland
plants that are critical habitats for native fish and waterfowl. We
have to prevent the spread of invasive species in our Great Lakes, we
have an obligation to do that.
This bipartisan amendment would expand the ability of the Fish and
Wildlife Service Endangered Species Recovery and Habitat Conservation
Legacy Fund to manage and prevent invasive species. We believe this
simple amendment makes this very good bill stronger and will have a
positive impact on the Great Lakes economy.
When we protect our wildlife and natural resources, we strengthen our
economy and we preserve our way of life. The Great Lakes are a source
of drinking water for millions, a critical wildlife habitat, and help
support 1 million jobs in boating, fishing, and tourism industries.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this
bipartisan amendment to protect our Great Lakes and strengthen our
natural resources, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this amendment,
which adds more responsibilities to the already duplicative and
expensive title III portion of this bill, which was never debated in
the Committee on Natural Resources.
I have no objection to efforts aimed at controlling invasive species,
and these efforts are already being carried

[[Page H5524]]

out by many Federal agencies. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the agency funded by title III at the expense of State and
Tribal funding, already administers invasive species control programs,
including the Coastal Program and the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
Program, two programs that title III would duplicate.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, at USDA
monitors, responds to, and conducts control and eradication programs to
address invasive species that pose a threat to U.S. agriculture.
These and other similar programs are subject to Federal
appropriations, which is what title III should be subject to as well--
not permanent mandatory funding. If the majority would like to increase
Federal funding for invasive species control, they should do it through
the appropriations process instead of airdropping another layer of
bureaucracy into this bill.
For these reasons, we should be striking title III from the bill, at
least until the committee of jurisdiction has a chance to consider and
mark up its provisions. Unfortunately, the majority refused to allow a
vote on my colleague from Utah, Mr. Moore's amendment, which would have
done just that.
I oppose this amendment to allow the funding for title III to be used
for even more duplicative Federal bureaucracy.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, and
I agree that we ought to do everything we can to address this issue of
invasive species. I just happen to believe that this bill is a very
appropriate approach to this.
Coming from the Great Lakes, I will say we need every tool we can get
our hands on to protect this incredible resource. I welcome the
opportunity to include this language in this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Dingell), my colleague, friend, and the sponsor of this
legislation.
Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from
Michigan for this amendment.
This bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan and
cosponsored by the Republican gentleman from northern Michigan makes it
clear--or western Michigan, not from where Dan and I are, but it is
Michigan--makes it clear that eligible funding for conservation
activities under the Endangered Species Recovery and Habitat
Conservation Legacy Fund include invasive species and disease
management control and prevention efforts.
Invasive species and diseases pose severe threats to our Nation's
wildlife population, especially for species that are already threatened
or endangered.
Few places in the United States are more familiar with invasive
species than the Great Lakes region which has been battling sea
lampreys, zebra and quagga mussels, and now Asian carp. Native fish
species are smaller and less plentiful than they once were thanks to
these invasive species.
On the disease front, chronic waste and disease, a fatal disease for
North America's deer, elk, and moose have spread to 25 States posing
significant risks to those populations.
To properly recover native species, we must provide the resources and
coordinate efforts to eradicate or control invasive species, prevent
new introductions, and better understand emerging diseases.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I have no more speakers, and I am prepared
to close.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the debate and the conversation, but for
me and I think for Congresswoman Dingell, and certainly for Congressman
Meijer and anybody else who has grown up knowing and loving the Great
Lakes, this is an important economic resource. It is an important
cultural resource. It is literally the definition of the lines of our
State.
Protecting the Great Lakes is an incredibly high priority for
Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, people all
across the spectrum. And every opportunity we have to take even a small
step to do more to protect this precious water resource we are going to
take that opportunity.
For that reason, I support the underlying legislation. I advocate on
behalf of my amendment. I hope my colleagues will join me, Mr. Meijer
and Mrs. Dingell in supporting it, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, once again, we all have invasive
species that we deal with. It is something we should be focusing on. We
just don't need another duplicative Federal program to do that.
Madam Speaker, I encourage a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, the
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
are postponed.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Butterfield

The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment No.
5 printed in part D of House Report 117-366.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD: Madam Speaker, as the designee of Mrs. Kirkpatrick,
I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 3, line 24, insert ``nonprofit organizations,'' after
``territories,''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) and a Member opposed
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.

{time} 1630

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Speaker, I thank Mrs. Dingell and the ranking
member for their courtesy, and I also thank the Natural Resources
Committee for all the work they do. I am not on that committee, but I
have great respect and admiration for the committee and its chairman. I
thank you for letting me have 5 minutes to present this amendment.
Madam Speaker, this amendment is rather simple. It is
straightforward. The underlying bill establishes a new, competitive
grant program to support innovative strategies to help species
recovery. That is the underlying bill we have been debating all
afternoon. However, as drafted, the bill limits those competitive
grants to only State wildlife agencies.
Specifically, my amendment expands the eligibility of the grant
program to include nonprofit organizations like the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, the North Carolina Wildlife Federation,
the Pamlico Albemarle Wildlife Conservationists, and so many more
wonderful organizations in my State, and perhaps in your States all
across the country.
Many of these nonprofits have tremendous expertise in helping species
recover and they should be eligible to participate in this new program
under this amendment.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment,
which will strengthen our species recovery efforts.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized
for 5 minutes.
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

[[Page H5525]]

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. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the
gentleman from Arkansas, and I respect his position, but I just want to
remind my colleagues that in my State and most States these
organizations that are not nonprofits who care about the environment
and care about protecting endangered species--in most States and in all
of your States--these are not radical groups. These are good grassroots
nonprofit organizations who really care about the environment and want
to do their part in protecting our economy and our environmental
economy.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please vote for this amendment.
I understand the gentleman's concern, but I assure him that the
nonprofits that I speak of are not radical groups, they are good
environmental organizations.
Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
Mrs. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, this amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Arizona and the gentleman from North Carolina adds
nonprofit organizations to the list of entities that are eligible to
compete for innovation grants funded by the Wildlife Conservation and
Restoration Subaccount.

Ten percent of subaccount funds are used to fund innovation grants.
These grants are meant to catalyze the innovation of techniques, tools,
and strategies while fostering collaborative partnerships that
accelerate, expand, or replicate effective and measurable recovery
efforts for species of greatest conservation need and species listed
under the Endangered Species Act.
Including nonprofit organizations in this competitive grant process
will foster collaboration and ensure that the best strategies and
efforts are being funded.
Madam Speaker, I am sure that none of the groups are the radical
groups that you are referring to, but I don't know. It is a competitive
process that will be carefully managed.
Madam Speaker, I support my colleague's amendment.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, there are some wonderful groups out
there that do great work, but this bill is not about funding private
groups or nonprofit groups. This bill is about funding State and Tribal
entities. It is what it was originally about. It has changed, it is now
funding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well. I guess the
majority is thinking, why not just throw in some of these environmental
groups. Who else will this bill be putting funding out to before it is
said and done?
There are groups that abuse the process. They abuse it greatly. They
abuse it at the expense of the American taxpayer. They abuse it at the
expense of the environment. They claim they are wanting to help the
environment and they are destroying the environment.
Madam Speaker, I am opposed to this amendment, and I hope my
colleagues will join me in opposing it.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Madam Speaker, in closing, let me thank the
gentlewoman from Michigan for supporting this amendment. It is a very
simple amendment. It is a very commonsense amendment. It will allow and
authorize nonprofit organizations, as Mrs. Dingell said, to compete for
funding.
It will not be a guarantee of funding. It will be an opportunity to
compete for funding. It is a worthwhile amendment, and I ask my
colleagues to vote ``yea.''
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1170, the
previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Butterfield).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The
SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8,
the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
are postponed.

____________________