[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.

                          ____________________