Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong but respectful opposition to H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, as it has been named here, the fifth bill this week brought to you by our friends across the aisle, the GOP, who, unfortunately, this week seem to stand for guns, oil, and pollution.

My home State of New Mexico has a wealth of minerals, many of which are critical to the clean energy transition. We also have a very long history of mining. Mining, of course, has created thousands of jobs, supported economies across the Southwest and the country, and, of course, is an important part of our economies and communities. It has also left a toxic legacy of pollution in its wake.

As we move to the clean energy future, we cannot repeat the shortsightedness and injustices of the past. The Mining Law of 1872-- let me say that again, 1872--a 150-year-old law that was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant after the Civil War, is still the law that governs mining on public lands to this day.

It gives mining companies rights over public lands that all other industries could only dream of. It makes mining the top priority use of our public lands and gives companies the right to develop any valid mining claim, no matter if that land is a sacred site, a beloved local recreation spot, the headwaters of a critical watershed, or a priority area for other kinds of development--not even if it would pollute a nearby community's water supply.

The Mining Act of 1872--not the bill before us but the one that is currently in effect--contains no environmental or community protections, does not require Tribal consultation, and does not charge companies a cent--not one--in royalties for the minerals that they extract on our public lands. Oil, gas, and coal don't even have that good of a deal.

Mr. Speaker, you heard that right. These mining companies, many of which are foreign-owned at this point, don't pay a cent back to the American people for the royalties of those publicly owned minerals. Not even Big Oil has a deal that good.

We cannot build a sustainable mining future for the United States on such a flawed foundation. This is a law from when the government was helping out prospectors, when it was chasing manifest destiny, and we didn't care if we destroyed everything in our wake.

Wake up. It is the year 2024. We don't have to manage our public lands using laws from the 1870s. Many of us agree that the mining law is badly in need of reform. Republicans, Democrats, Tribal leaders, local leaders, environmental advocates, even members of the mining industry themselves think that it is insufficient. What is astounding about the bill that is on the floor today, the so-called Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, is that it doesn't clarify the situation at all. In fact, it chooses to take us in the opposite direction, to before the 1870s. This bill removes the one frail safeguard that we have in that mining law of 1872. Under current law, a mining claim is valid only if it contains valuable minerals. Miners get the rights to the land only if there is something they can show to be mined there.

Under this bill, any American or, frankly, any American subsidiary of a foreign company, including those that are located in adversarial countries, can put four stakes in the ground on open public lands and pay less than $10 an acre per year to have exclusive rights to that land forever.

This bill would create a free-for-all on our public lands. It would enable our public lands to be given away, not just to the highest bidder but to the first person who got there.

Mining companies--or really anyone with any motive--could lock up any public lands to conduct whatever mining-related activities they want, from destroying sacred sites to building a power plant to encroaching on recreational areas.

What if the public wanted to use the land for recreation? What if it was an important site for cultural reasons? What if we wanted to put renewable energy on that land?

Too bad. Under this bill, the mining industry can use it for whatever it wants, including to dump toxic waste.

Now, some of my colleagues say that this is just codifying the existing practice, but let me tell you, that is not true.

As bad as the mining law is already, and we are talking about the one from the 1870s, it at least allows for the invalidating of claims when the claimant can't show or prove that the lands actually contain a valuable mineral, but this bill doesn't do that.

We have seen that in Ranking Member Grijalva's backyard where the proposed Rosemont mine wanted to dump toxic waste on public land. It wasn't allowed because the mine's land claim was invalid.

Now, here is the thing: When the company lost its case in court, it immediately--and when I say immediately, I mean the same day. That company announced that it found an alternative waste site on private lands. Wow.

Clearly, there was not an imminent need. The company simply would have preferred to put its dumpsite on land that was basically for free from the American people.

Let's be honest about what this bill is. It is essentially stripping away the only safeguards we have in a deeply flawed, very old mining law to give away more giveaways to corporate polluters.

On behalf of Ranking Member Grijalva, whom our prayers and our thoughts are with today, I include in the Record a letter from the Pima County Board of Supervisors in support of responsible mining and in opposition to this bill.

County Administrator's Office,

Pima County Governmental Center,

Tucson, AZ, May 23, 2023.

Hon. Congressman Raul Grijalva,

House of Representatives,

Tucson, AZ.

Dear Congressman Grijalva: On May 16, 2023, the Pima County

Board of Supervisors approved the attached Resolution 2023-12

opposing the Permitting for Mining Needs Act (H.R. 209) and

the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act (S. 1281), and supporting

meaningful mining reform. Since then, we became aware of H.R.

2925, which is identical to S. 1281. All three of these bills

contain similar language intended to legislatively reverse

decisions by the U.S. District Court for Arizona and the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which halted the construction

of the proposed Rosemont mine on the eastern slopes of the

Santa Rita Mountains, within the Coronado National Forest.

Located south of Tucson, within Pima County, this mountain

range provides disproportionally high amounts of water for

runoff and ground water recharge for the greater Tucson

basin, is recognized worldwide for its biodiversity, is

culturally important to a number of tribes, and serves as a

respite for Southern Arizonans. The ruling confirmed that the

Forest Service should have required proof that the mining

company's unpatented mining claims were valid before

permitting the mining company to dump waste rock and tailings

on public land.

All three bills contain language that would allow those

with mining claims to ``use, occupy and conduct operations on

public land, with or without the discovery of a valuable

mineral deposit.'' In addition, those with claims could carry

out mining activities on other federal lands absent of

claims. This legislation prioritizes mining over other

equally important interests and is likely to result in

significant unintended consequences. This legislation would

remove the ability of federal land management agencies to

balance the need for other equally important uses of public

land. Furthermore, this legislation is not needed. The mining

industry still has the ability to gain access to public land

via land exchanges, special use permits, and other permitted

means. However, because these actions are discretionary, they

allow for an informed and balanced approach to managing a

multitude of uses across public lands.

This legislation also has a number of unintended

consequences that are alarming for the State of Arizona and

Pima County. Not only would these bills increase the ability

for nuisance claims on Federal land that could block other

necessary federal projects and increase destructive

speculation without mineral extraction, our understanding is

that they could also impact split estate lands. Split estate

lands are lands where the surface is owned separately from

the subsurface mineral rights. In Arizona, this is a common

occurrence. For instance, the surface can be owned privately,

by a local government like Pima County, or managed in trust

by the Arizona State Land Department; whereas the subsurface

mineral rights are publically owned and managed by the

Federal Government. Mining companies or others can make claim

to these subsurface minerals, the exploration and development

of which can significantly impair the rights of the surface

owner to use the surface for its intended purposes.

As the Bureau of Land Management explains on their website:

``When the surface rights to a piece of land and the

subsurface rights (such as the rights to develop minerals)

are owned by different parties, the mineral rights often take

precedence over other rights.''

In addition, the legislation essentially makes mill site

claims moot, which were one way that mines could gain access

to federal land for waste and tailings in areas that

specifically did not have mineral value. Congressional or

administrative mineral withdrawals would also be

substantially impacted, or complicated. Valid unpatented

mining claims are protected or excluded from withdrawals, but

this legislation makes moot the concept of ``validity.''

What is needed is comprehensive and meaningful mining

reform, not these shortsighted changes that provide the

mining industry with exclusive rights to public land.

Please know that Pima County is not anti-mining. The copper

mines in Pima County have contributed significantly to

national and international copper supplies. Pima County has a

good relationship with our two largest copper producers,

Freeport-McMoRan and ASARCO, and in particular has taken

actions to support expansion of existing mining operations in

the area southwest of Tucson. This area is less biologically

diverse and more suitable for development, according to the

County's comprehensive Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 10 permit, both of

which were developed based on the best available science and

informed by extensive public input. This area also has

significant copper reserves for future development. Pima

County has also worked cooperatively with two copper mining

companies that proposed reopening an underground mine on Mt.

Lemmon, north of Tucson, both of which voluntary offered to

comply with the County's Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and

related conservation guidelines.

In summary, Pima County strongly opposes S. 1281, H.R. 2925

and H.R. 209 and the damaging intended and unintended

consequences to the public health, safety and welfare of our

community. In addition, we continue to seek comprehensive

mining reform akin to the comprehensive, science-based and

community informed conservation planning undertaken by our

local community in partnership with Federal agencies.

Sincerely,

Jan Lesher,

Pima County Administrator.

Attachment:

Resolution of the Pima County Board of Supervisors Opposing the Permitting for Mining Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act,

and Supporting Meaningful Mining Reform

Whereas, Pima County and the Pima County Board of

Supervisors have long advocated for meaningful reform of the

1872 Mining Law, acknowledging that mining is necessary and

should occur in places and with methods that protect the

health, safety, and welfare of our County's residents; and

Whereas, on January 2, 2023, the ``Permitting for Mining

Needs Act of 2023'' was introduced as H.R. 209 in the United

States House of Representatives; and

Whereas, on April 25, 2023, the ``Mining Regulatory Clarity

Act'' was introduced as S. 1281 in the United States Senate;

and

Whereas, both Acts do not provide meaningful mining reform

and instead would make it easier for mining companies to gain

access to federal lands at the expense of all other uses such

as recreation, tourism, conservation, watershed protection,

climate mitigation, traditional uses by Tribal Nations,

cultural and historic preservation, healthy forest

management, and other uses that contribute significantly to

the local, state, and national economies; and

Whereas, both Acts would allow mining companies to ``. . .

use, occupy, and conduct operations on public land, with or

without the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit.'' This

includes dumping waste and tailings on federal land without

the need to prove valid mining claims, as well as on federal

land absent of claims; and

Whereas, both Acts would authorize actions where mining

companies secure rights on our federal public lands through

unpatented mining claims without proving that the claims are

valid, actions that have occurred for too many years; and

Whereas, both Acts are intended to legislatively reverse

recent decisions by the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona (``District Court'') in 2019 and the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (``Ninth Circuit'') in 2022

halting the construction of the proposed Rosemont Mine on the

eastern slopes of the Santa Rita Mountains, located in Pima

County, and the dumping of waste rock and tailings on 2,500

acres of unpatented mining claims in the National Forest; and

Whereas, the District Court's ruling, which the Ninth

Circuit later affirmed, confirmed a long-standing concern,

raised by Pima County since the beginning of the Rosemont

Mine federal review process in 2006, that Federal agencies

such as the U.S. Forest Service failed to consider whether

Rosemont held valid unpatented mining claims; and

Whereas, the District Court's ruling confirmed that the

Forest Service needs to consider reasonable alternatives when

reviewing mining proposals, providing the opportunity for a

more balanced approach to public lands management.

Now Therefore Be It Resolved That:

1. The Pima County Board of Supervisors opposes the

Permitting for Mining Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory

Clarity Act, as well as any similar legislation that attempts

to allow mining projects on public lands in areas without

mining claims and in areas with unproven mining claims, and

supports meaningful mining reform;

2. The Pima County Board of Supervisors calls on Arizona's

Congressional delegation to oppose the Permitting for Mining

Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act;

3. The Pima County Board of Supervisors directs the County

Administrator and the County's Federal lobbyists to take the

necessary measures to communicate Pima County's opposition to

the Permitting for Mining Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory

Clarity Act;

4. The Pima County Board of Supervisors directs that

communications to our Congressional delegation emphasize Pima

County's support for meaningful mining reform and our record

of supporting mining projects in Pima County that adhere to

local health, safety, and conservation guidelines;

5. The Pima County Board of Supervisors opposes piece-meal

legislation that does not address the issue of mining reform

comprehensively; and

6. The Pima County Board of Supervisors affirms support for

the rulings by the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals, which is consistent with past resolutions and

actions of the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the mining industry that gets

to have free rein on these lands from other uses.

One of the things that is important to understand about the language in this bill is that any actor with a few dollars to spare could lock up these public lands and just sit on them until somebody buys them out.

That means anyone who wants to use the land, and that could be for recreation, renewable energy, transmission, or even for another mining claim, would be blocked out so long as somebody was sitting on that claim. Again, this bill takes away the only requirement to show an interest in actually mining the land and just rewards the first person to make a claim.

This bill is not only a giveaway to the mining industry; it is literally a giveaway of our public lands. It is completely mystifying because this isn't even what the American people want.

Our friends across the aisle continue to push for an agenda that the American people haven't even asked for. They voted to cut veterans' benefits, to raise healthcare costs, and to enrich and provide these corporate giveaways, just like in this bill. Where is this coming from? I ask my friends: Where is this coming from?

I urge my colleagues to vote against this toxic polluter giveaway, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I deeply appreciate my friends across the aisle for their clarification of their intent, but unfortunately, we can't go forward based on intent. We actually have to go forward based on the bill that they introduced and are asking us to vote on.

I am going to do a little reading from your bill to help clarify for the American people what this bill actually says.

First of all, it addresses security of tenure. For folks that aren't familiar with this kind of jargon, that means ownership, who gets to hold the rights to this land.

Then it defines the kinds of operations that would be tied to this tenure. So let me read them to you. This is what it says in the bill: ``Prospecting, exploration, discovery and assessment, development, extraction, or processing.'' It also goes on to clarify that you can do any activity that is found to be reasonably incident to an activity described in another clause of this bill.

It goes on to say right here in the bill, words on the page, and this is what we were asked to vote on: The ``Rights to Use, Occupation and Operations''--which we have already laid out is basically anything you want to do on the land--``A claimant shall have the right to use and occupy to conduct operations on public land, with or without the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. . . . `'

Yo. This is a giveaway of our public lands. You can say whatever you want on the floor, but the bill that we are voting on literally says: Whatever you want to do on that land, as long as you pay the fee of $10, you show up, and you

make the claim, it is yours. This is a giveaway of public lands. It guts the only safeguard from our Mining Law of 1872.

I want to just make that clarification, and in a moment, we will get more into Rosemont, but I do want to take the opportunity to yield to my dear friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to take on some of these arguments to make sure that folks understand the broader context in which American mining and manufacturing occurs.

First of all, we just heard some claims that these mining companies can't figure out how to get their mines permitted. Well, I hate to inform my colleagues across the aisle, but most of our companies these days are multibillion-dollar, multinational companies that spend literally millions of dollars a year to lobby Federal, State, and local entities and to employ folks to navigate these processes. These are not entities that are struggling to figure out processes.

Secondly, the United States has not disallowed mining. There are many mines in operation. If my friends across the aisle would like to visit New Mexico, I can take you to one of the largest copper mines in North America. There is lots of mining happening in the United States.

It is true that up until the 1990s, we were a net exporter of critical minerals here in the United States. What caused American production to tank was not laws and regulations; it was global commodity prices, just like oil and gas. What happens when there is international competition is that local entities cannot compete because of competitiveness on the global commodities market.

We are all for American competition. We are all for Made in America. That is why our President, of course, has led, and the Democratic Congress passed, three major bills for a renaissance of American manufacturing and our economy: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the American Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, which are making the largest single investment in reshoring American jobs in modern history. That is the reality of what is happening on the ground.

I want to take the opportunity to yield to my dear friend and my sister from New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Ledger Fernandez).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that we do have mining in our backyards. As the gentlewoman from New Mexico and I both noted, we have multiple mines in New Mexico. What we don't want are mines poisoning our watersheds and destroying sacred sites irrevocably. What we fear and what we know, based on the language that is in the bill that we will be voting on and that we are debating today, is that that would be the outcome of what they are trying to pass.

I also want to clarify for the record that we actually had Secretary Deb Haaland this morning in front of our committee. She stated this morning that the Biden administration has approved 40 new mines or mining modification permits just since President Biden took office, including 5 critical minerals mines, so the assertion that we heard this afternoon that there has been no new mining is just false.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to address the specific example that was just brought forward about a mining exclusion in the Grand Canyon because I believe that the exclusion that we are talking about was to mine uranium in the Grand Canyon.

Now, I ask the American people: Is that what you would like to see?

In New Mexico, we know the legacy of uranium mining. Our communities are dying from it, the mining communities whose water has been poisoned for generations and those who have been impacted by the materials that were built from that uranium.

That is why Congresswoman Leger Fernandez has been leading an effort that is bipartisan and bicameral with our colleagues from New Mexico to get a RECA amendment passed in this Chamber so that we can help address those communities.

That is why we should not be mining uranium in the Grand Canyon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, proponents of H.R. 2925 would like to argue that this bill is a surgical fix to a problem created by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision on the Rosemont Copper Mine. If this is surgery, then like the mining law of 1872, it is surgery with an ax, not a scalpel. If that evokes an image for you of our post-Civil War surgical maneuvers, then that is what this bill

does because it takes away guardrails to protect our communities.

Let's clarify. In 2022, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the proposed Rosemont mine in southern Arizona could not use invalid mining claims to permanently bury Colorado's thousands of acres of national forests in mining waste, including sites that were sacred to multiple Tribes. The court ruled that it was not a valid mining claim to do this.

The requirement that mining claims must contain valuable minerals for the claim to be valid is a core tenet of the mining law. It is the one, as we have said, fragile guardrail that we have in this antiquated law.

For over 150 years, the mining law of 1872 has given mining precedence over all other uses and values of our public lands. This imbalance of power has left a toxic trail of pollution, destruction, and desecration of sacred sites, and it continues to impact our communities today.

We urgently need to reform the mining law. Instead, the bill that is being put forward here today would make things worse and take us back. It is such a breathtaking giveaway of our public lands that former Department of the Interior Solicitor John Leshy said that it should be called the mining charity act because of the giveaways for these mining companies rather than the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act.

This bill allows anyone to put a stake in the ground in any open public land and pay less than $10 a year to make a claim to those rights forever. Our public land managers have long said that once there is a mining claim in place, they cannot say no to anything mining related on that land.

If this bill becomes law, then the mining industry would be free to pick and choose which of our public lands to lock away and then permanently bury, destroy watersheds, or pollute our communities, to do whatever it wants on those lands that it has tied up. The unintended consequences of this bill go far beyond mining and could hurt our communities irrevocably.

I want to reiterate that this bill empowers anyone with a few dollars, including foreign companies in adversarial nations, to blanket our public lands in untouchable mining claims and block other uses of this land. This bill will create chaos, not clarity, on our public lands.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

America was blessed by our creator with natural beauty and an abundance of natural resources--from grazing to farmlands, to minerals, fossil fuels, solar and wind--so we could feed our families and fuel our progress.

We owe the American people, and most importantly, our children and grandchildren a duty to protect those resources so they are available for future generations and Americans are not left with public lands that have been degraded, mines that have been depleted, and profits shipped off to foreign corporations.

We owe a duty to those who love the forests and rivers in Minnesota or the rangeland in the Southwest to protect it and allow its use for recreation, grazing, and extraction.

The Natural Resources bills that Republicans have made in order with this rule fail to protect America's blessed creation for future generations. The bills would eliminate environmental protections and increase mining corporations' ability to take public lands from the American people for free.

Let me repeat that because Americans may not know that right now mining corporations--those big, profitable mining corporations--do not pay a dime in royalties when they take Americans' gold, silver, copper, or other precious minerals.

That takes me to H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act. The 1872 mining law that we operate under now is old. It needs updating. It gives away our public resources for free. In the arid West, it allows mining companies to use as much precious water as they want and doesn't require those big corporations to fully clean up after themselves.

Last week, I visited the Pecos Watershed, a vital resource for northern New Mexico communities and a river that flows to Texas. In that watershed, a foreign company had mined, polluted, and abandoned the people and the river that I visited.

We need to protect this type of land with these kinds of water resources, but H.R. 2925 would actually make it harder to protect this and other watersheds. It favors the biggest mining corporations and, even worse, favors foreign corporations.

We all know there is a long history of bad actors exploiting, misusing, and abusing their mining claims. H.R. 2925 would give away our Federal lands to these bad actors. Under the Republicans' proposal, corporations with the money could put four sticks in the ground, pay a fee, and then claim that land for mining without even proving the existence of minerals. The Republican proposal would also loosen restrictions so these corporations, even those based in countries like China or Russia, could more easily exploit American natural resources for free.

Why would Republicans work on a bipartisan basis to ban China from mining American data with TikTok but then be okay with China mining American natural resources for free?

In the Rules Committee, I introduced an amendment to prohibit our adversaries, like China, from taking our public lands and minerals. Sadly, every Republican on the Rules Committee voted against making in order these amendments to prevent foreign adversaries from accessing these valuable American resources.

I also introduced an amendment that would require mining corporations to make sure our waterways are not contaminated. Republicans blocked that, too.

Our current 150-year-old mining laws are not equipped for today's environmental challenges, but Republicans' response is to make it easier, not harder, for these greedy mining corporations to take what they want and leave their messes behind.

As if that weren't enough, this rule also makes in order what we should call the no public use on public lands act. This bill would overturn a new Bureau of Land Management rule that finally recognizes conservation and public land management as a value on par with other uses.

The BLM rule does not change their existing land management processes. BLM will continue to allow grazing, drilling, and other extraction on managed lands. What it does do is allow BLM to also include the important goal of conservation of the public lands as they consider new applications for Americans' public lands.

I might remind my Republican colleagues that they are turning their back on a great legacy, a great Republican legacy, from the Clean Water Act, the EPA, and the words of that great Republican President, Teddy Roosevelt, who said: ``Conservation is a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring the safety and continuance of the Nation.''

This patriotic goal of conservation and preservation is vital so our grandchildren can one day see the beauty that the West holds, and farmers and ranchers agree. They and other stewards of our land actively engaged with the Biden administration in the development of this rule. Congress should listen to the science and the stewards of this land on this issue instead of trying to dictate what is best for the West from D.C.

We should also continue President Biden's policy of ensuring our energy independence and security, all while growing American industry. I must also point out that the Biden BLM rule explicitly prevents foreign entities from holding conservation or mitigation leases, something that I might remember and remind our Republicans they were unwilling to do with regards to mining.

The rule also allows a bill that ignores science and would prevent regulation of lead-based tackle and ammunition. Didn't we learn our lesson with leaded gasoline and its harmful effects on people and the environment? Apparently not. Lead is poison.

We all have heard of and sometimes seen the death of bald eagles and other magnificent birds who have consumed even the smallest amount of lead buckshot or fragmented lead ammo. Lead finds its way onto hunters' and anglers' tables, too. One study found that there were lead fragments in 34 percent of ground venison burgers. Do you want your children to consume lead?

Every year, I make tamales for Christmas, and as my family has done for generations, we use wild game--deer, elk, and antelope--that has been hunted in New Mexico. We are grateful for lead-free ammunition because we don't want to poison ourselves or our environment.

This rule also makes in order a bill to undo the Biden administration's work to protect one of the world's most fragile and significant ecosystems, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In recent years we have seen record amounts of oil and gas production in the United States. We are the top producer of oil in the world right now. We can do that while also preserving the beautiful lands that make ``America the Beautiful'' the right song to sing.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to address the issue of anti-Semitism not just on college campuses but also across the country since October 7. Let me be clear: Anti-Semitism and hate in any form is simply unacceptable anywhere in our country. This rise in hatred across the United States should be a wake-up call for our democracy.

However, last fall, House Republicans proposed a 25 percent budget cut to the office that is actively investigating incidents of anti- Semitism on campuses. If you care about anti-Semitism, why do you take away the resources from the office that is prosecuting those kinds of claims?

Well, yesterday we got an answer why. My Republican Rules Committee colleague, Representative Massie, was very honest describing what this bill really is about when he said: ``Everybody has introduced almost at this point a bill to deal with something along these lines since October 7. None of them actually get to anything real. I think it is a political ping-pong game, of course. We''--meaning Republicans--``get to serve every time, and a lot of these''--meaning resolutions like this--``are just political traps. I call them sticky traps designed to split the Democratic Party and get them stuck in the sticky trap.''

I thank Mr. Massie for his refreshing honesty and candor, but if we wanted to actually do something real, we could. Rather than doing a sticky trap, we could take up my colleague Congresswoman Manning's bipartisan bill, H.R. 7921, the Countering Anti-Semitism Act, which would designate a senior official at the Department of Education to counter anti-Semitism on college campuses, among many other solutions that are also based on Biden's policy regarding attacking anti- Semitism. If we want to deal with anti-Semitism on college campuses, I suggest a bill with real solutions is a good place to start.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, how dare the party of Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene come down here and lecture Democrats about anti-Semitism. Remember, the leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, dines with Holocaust deniers and said there were ``fine people on both sides'' at a rally where white supremacists chanted: ``Jews will not replace us.'' Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared on stage at a white nationalist rally alongside a Holocaust denier. She tweeted anti- Semitic videos and talks about Jewish space lasers.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from Politico titled: ``Donald Trump dined with white nationalist, Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes.''

Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from The Atlantic titled: ``Trump Defends White-Nationalist Protesters: `Some Very Fine People on Both Sides.' ''

Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the record, actually, my objection to this absurd attack on Democrats for pointing out that this bill has in the title ``anti-Semitism,'' but there are problems with it.

We need to address anti-Semitism and look at the root causes. Instead, what are we doing? We are debating codifying a definition that numerous Jewish organizations, including Jewish Action, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and the New Israel Fund, among others, oppose.

The reason these organizations oppose it is because we cannot equate criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism. They are two very different things.

We need to remember that we are constitutionally bound to protect free speech, even, and more importantly, when it is speech with which we do not agree.

Yesterday, for example, in the Rules Committee hearing for this bill, Representative Fry called Prime Minister Netanyahu's work in Gaza remarkable. He praised it. I personally don't think it is remarkable that over 35,000 people, most of them children and women, are dead. I don't think it is remarkable that over 130 hostages are still not home.

Netanyahu is being protested in his own country for these and many other things. I don't think it is remarkable that 27 kids have already died of malnutrition and that famine is imminent for 1.1 million Gazans.

Saying none of this is anti-Semitic.

I am Catholic with Sephardi heritage, and I think that my love that comes from the teaching and my spirituality calls upon me to talk about these things. That is not anti-Semitic.

That is the worry that these Jewish organizations, ACLU, and others talk about today. If we really want to move forward on combating anti- Semitism, let's fund the office that investigates and takes action against those colleges that fail to protect their students. Let's move forward with Congresswoman Manning's bipartisan bill, H.R. 7921, the Countering Antisemitism Act.

We should investigate how these issues continue to seep into our schools and communities.

We could do real work to address these root causes. Instead, we're debating a definition that numerous Jewish organizations, including Jewish Action, The Jewish Council for Public affairs, and the New Israel Fund, oppose.

The reason these organizations oppose it is because we cannot equate criticism of Israeli policies with Antisemitism. That is free speech.

Yesterday, in the Rules Committee Hearing for this very bill, Representative Fry called Prime Minister Netanyahu's work during this war ``remarkable.''

I don't think it's remarkable that over 35,000 people are dead.

I don't think it's remarkable that over 130 hostages are still not back home today.

I don't think it's remarkable that 27 kids died of malnutrition or that Famine is imminent for 1.1 million Gazans

Saying all of this could be construed as antisemitic if we adopt the definition we're debating today.

That is not helping us move forward or address the scourge of antisemitism that's hurting our students and their families.

To move us forward in the fight against antisemitism, we could consider Congresswoman Manning's bipartisan bill H.R. 7921, the Countering Antisemitism Act.

This bill would designate a senior official at the Department of Education to counter antisemitism on college campuses, among other solutions.

We could increase funding at the Office for Civil Rights so the office has the resources to actually investigate and address antisemitism on college campuses.

If we want to deal with antisemitism on college campuses then I would suggest that these are good places to start.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 17, a bill to help with pay disparities for women in the workforce and strengthen our economy.

Madam Speaker, rising costs are affecting American families and the American worker, but instead of helping families put more money in their pockets to save for retirement, to send their kids to college, or to simply put food on the table, House Republicans are focused on helping Big Oil and Big Mining corporations.

My colleagues constantly talk about the economic hardship Americans face, but instead of bringing legislation to actually address that, nearly every bill in this rule would create a corporate giveaway at the expense of our public lands.

We see where their real priorities are--with the biggest corporations, foreign corporations, even Chinese corporations--but House Democrats are focused on the American people.

That is why we must bring up H.R. 17, the Paycheck Fairness Act, to address the wage gap for women of this country and make sure families aren't cheated out of dollars and paychecks that they deserve.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, to discuss our proposal.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just want to make the record clear. Democrats and President Biden have repeatedly and constantly, and not just since October 7, condemned anti-Semitism and taken actual actions to actually address it, and that is the problem with what we are hearing.

As their own Rules Committee member has said it, these are about sticky bills. They are not about getting solutions.

We must remember that most of the bills in the rule today are actually talking about our natural resources and how Republicans want to turn the clock back on the progress that Americans have been demanding for decades to protect our natural beauty but also to protect our natural resources for Americans.

I want to talk a little bit about mining reform, a 1872 mining law that says it all. That law is way too old and needs fixing. Well, how do we make sure we go about fixing it?

The Republicans' proposal is to just give more of it away. It makes it easier for foreign corporations and for big, greedy corporations to take that land, to take those natural resources.

What do Democrats propose? We propose responsible mining reform that allows for critical minerals to be extracted without destroying our environment.

My good friend and ranking member, the former chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, introduced the Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act, of which I am a cosponsor.

That kind of bill would require annual rental payments for claimed public lands, treating mine operators the same way we treat oil and gas or any other ones. Let's make them pay for our resources. They belong to us.

Imagine if the $300 billion in profits that is going to those foreign corporations went to Americans instead.

We would set a royalty rate of not less than 5 percent and not greater than 8 percent, based on gross income.

We would make sure that there would be a reclamation fund, so when the mining companies go in there and make their mess that there would be a way for us to clean it up.

I can tell you, New Mexico is littered. In Colorado, all the intermountain areas are left with these abandoned mines that leach acid into our rivers and streams and make it so that we cannot hike and camp on those lands.

I have picked up those rocks that when they are exposed to air and water create sulfuric acid, and they leave piles of them.

Those are the things that we must be doing. We must give the Secretary of the Interior the right to protect our public lands, to protect the waters of Minnesota, right, and to protect the waters of this great country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

The natural resources bills that we are dealing with here today, as I pointed out, are a great gift to big mining corporations and overturn decades of work by local organizations and by the public in these areas who want to see their lands protected.

What is interesting is Republicans are putting forward these bills, even though the American public and their own constituents are not interested in seeing what they are doing.

While Republicans are helping out the big mining corporation fans, their constituents want the opposite.

I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the article titled: ``Analysis: Public Comments Overwhelmingly Support BLM Public Lands Rule.''

Madam Speaker, that analysis found that the Biden administration's Public Lands Rule received 92 percent of support in public comments.

Madam Speaker, 92 percent of the 150,000 Americans who commented on this rule agreed that the BLM is moving in the right direction by protecting our public lands.

Many of them were farmers, ranchers, and stewards of the land. In fact, one farmer said to me: I recognize how important it is to allow our land to recover so that we can use it in the future for grazing.

I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the following article titled: ``The 2023 Conservation in the West Poll from Colorado College.''

Madam Speaker, the article can be found here: https://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/stateoftherockies/ conservationinthewest/2023.html

This survey found that 82 percent of voters across 8 Western States support the conservation of our public lands and waters. Let's listen to the people on the ground.

While Republicans want to mine the beautiful forests of Minnesota, constituents actually want to protect the area from sulfite or copper mining.

I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the article titled: ``The Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters 2022 Post-Election Poll.''

Madam Speaker, the article can be found here: Https://www.savetheboundary waters.org/sites/default/files/resource- file/Campaign%20To%20 Save%20The%20Boundary%20

Waters%20__%202022%20Post-Election%20Poll%20Results.pdf

Madam Speaker, the poll found over 70 percent of Minnesotans support proposed legislation to permanently protect the boundary waters from risks associated with sulfite or copper mining.

The boundary waters are one of the most visited national recreational areas in the United States. I look forward to going and looking at those lakes and those rivers and those forests and how they are intertwined and how those canoes glide along their surfaces.

Minnesotans know what that beauty looks like, and they want to make sure that the mining that is proposed by the Trump administration--and I might remind people that the Trump administration overturned actions by Obama, so they could give two leases to a Chilean billionaire--a Chilean billionaire, who it so happens, was a landlord of the President's daughter.

These kinds of dealings with foreign corporations, we must say ``no'' to. Why would Minnesotans want to take their precious natural resources and have them leased so a Chilean billionaire can make even more money?

We are urging our Republican colleagues to listen to their constituents, to listen to the people who are speaking on these issues, to vote against these rules, and to vote against these bills.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Madam Speaker, the bills my Republican colleagues have proposed today threaten to overturn regulations put in place to make sure that we are responsible in our use of natural resources.

The Biden administration has worked to reverse many of the Trump-era policies that just help the rich get richer.

For too long, what we have seen in America is the rich keep getting richer, and it appears that Republicans, certain Republicans, but most definitely former President Trump favored the richest corporations.

In turn, I ask my colleagues to think about what our role is here in Congress. I remind my colleagues of these powerful words from the Conference of Bishops.

``We show our respect for the creator by our stewardship of creation. Care for the Earth is not just an Earth Day slogan, it is a requirement of our faith. We are called to protect people and the planet, living our faith in relationship with all of God's creation.''

It is possible to protect the planet and still be a leader in energy. In the last 3 years, the Biden administration has invested over $18 billion toward Federal, State, local, and Tribal land conservation efforts in all 50 States. Contrary to what my colleagues claim, the U.S. has had record oil and gas production under the Biden administration. We produced an average of 12.9 million barrels of crude oil, millions more than are coming out of Russia and Saudi Arabia.

Regulations are important. They prevent catastrophic environmental disasters, like the 137 oil spills that occurred during the second year of the Trump administration.

Remember, there will be no more elk to hunt, no more breathtaking lakes reflecting the sunlight to hike to, and no more oil and minerals to drill for if we do not listen to the experts about protecting our lands and waters. Wildlife protections and mining regulations are in place to make sure future generations of Americans can enjoy the same beautiful landscapes and profit off of America's resources.

Finally, I need to remind everybody, we all condemned October 7. We all have condemned Hamas. It is a terrorist organization. However, we have taken up these resolutions over and over again.

Once again, our Republican colleague has spoken the truth when he has said that these are sticky resolutions simply intended to divide the Democrats. Let's not work on division. Let's come together in love and a belief in each of our individual strengths to push back against the hatred that we see and to do it in a manner that is not partisan, that uplifts our morality, that uplifts our empathy for all, and that addresses all the forms of hatred that we see.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be back on the House floor with the gentlewoman from Indiana. It is great to be with her, and so far, she is allowing me to actually speak and hasn't called for me to be silenced.

The last time we debated, I stated an uncomfortable fact about he who shall not be named and the gentlewoman had me silenced, had my words stricken from the Congressional Record.

You just have to love that, Mr. Speaker. The party of free speech that rails against woke this and cancel culture that, and calls us snowflakes, can't handle it when someone comes down here and tells the truth. They try to silence the people they disagree with. It is really quite stunning.

Here is more of the truth, and let's see if I am allowed to talk this time.

Mr. Speaker, under Republican control, the House of Representatives has become a place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones not at all. What we are dealing with today is a bunch of weird, whacky, poorly drafted culture war nonsense.

This is all just a waste of time. These bills aren't going anywhere. It is not even political theater. It is theater of the absurd.

The government shuts down in a few days, and instead of actually working with Democrats to keep the lights on, instead of actually doing something to fix the problems that the American people want us to fix, my Republican friends are doing nothing.

The roof is on fire, and instead of calling 911, they are sweeping the floors. I mean, it is beyond nuts.

Last night in the Rules Committee, during our hearing on this rule, I had some Republican Members telling me they didn't like my tone. They didn't like the fact that I said we don't share the same values.

I am sorry I hurt people's feelings, Mr. Speaker, but the truth is the truth. We don't all believe in the same things. When it comes to my friends on the other side of the aisle in this Chamber, we really don't share the same values. I know many of my friends on the Republican side are nice and good people, but their ideas are not nice and are not good.

Let me just give you a couple of examples.

Democrats want to make sure that our kids go to college and get a good education that prepares them for the workforce, and instead of working with us, Republicans go on and on about woke this and woke that in our schools.

Apparently, anyone who wants to teach facts is woke nowadays. They want colleges to stop being ``woke,'' even though they can't quite define what that even means. It is all political BS, Mr. Speaker.

Here is another example. Democrats actually want an economy that works for everyone, and thanks to the Biden-Harris administration, we are fighting to grow the economy from the bottom up and the middle out, but not Republicans. They are talking about woke economic policies.

I don't even know what they are talking about or what they mean, but do you want to know what people back home talk to me about? They are asking me: Why are Republicans trying to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires? Why are Republicans trying to go after Social Security and Medicare?

Another example, Mr. Speaker, is that Democrats actually care about strengthening and protecting the Violence Against Women Act, but not Republicans. A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act. Let me say that again: A majority of their Conference voted against extending the Violence Against Women Act.

Now, they have the nerve to come down here and talk about violence against women and use it as part of their sick ploy to go after immigrants. Give me a break. Their bill is so poorly written that it could hurt survivors of domestic violence.

I could go right down the list. It is obvious to me that, at some point, the RNC talking points went out to everybody, and those talking points said woke, woke, woke. Now, we have to waste time on this trash.

It is just another week of the GOP circus. As I have said before, calling this a clown show is an insult to actual working clowns.

Most of all, it is an insult to the American people for Republicans to use these hallowed Halls and to spend hours and hours of time this week on these absurd, awful bills. Again, none of them are going anywhere.

The reason to be in Congress is to help people. That means putting people over politics. It means not caving in to the most extreme members of your party. It means getting stuff done, which is a radical idea.

None of these bills, as I said, are going anywhere. Yet, here we are, playing these absurd, ridiculous games.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the chairman of the Rules Committee, but let me just state for the record that nothing he talked about will be at all impacted by any of the stuff that we are talking about here today. None of these bills are going anywhere.

If you want to pass legislation to address some of the issues that were raised, maybe we ought to work in a bipartisan way. Maybe it ought not to be ``my way or the highway.''

These aren't serious pieces of legislation. These are press releases. Let's all be honest with the American people about that. This is not serious legislating. We haven't done serious legislating here in a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I will zoom in a little bit on this Congress in general. I just mentioned that this is the most dysfunctional Congress in history. If anyone wants proof, look no further than this resolution: five more closed rules that allow zero amendments to come to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, for folks who don't know, a closed rule means no amendments. It means: Take it or leave it. If you have a good idea and want to improve a bill, too bad.

This is how they govern in Russia and China, and that is what the Republicans are turning this place into.

With these five closed rules they are bringing to the floor today, Republicans are breaking their own record for shutting down debate. With today's vote, there will be 106 closed rules in this Congress-- 106. This is now officially the most closed Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, what gets me is that my friends on the other side have been totally fooled. They were tricked by their own leadership, first by Speaker McCarthy and now Speaker Johnson.

The gentlewoman from Indiana and her colleagues on the Rules Committee were promised a more open process. They were told the Rules Committee was going to be different, more open, would have more regular order and more amendments, and more debate.

Speaker McCarthy was even blackmailed into putting members of the Freedom Caucus on the Rules Committee to guarantee a more open process, but apparently, it didn't matter because he totally broke his promise, and now Speaker Johnson is shredding it.

During the first 9 months under Speaker Johnson, we saw 64 closed rules, even more than the 42 closed rules we saw under Speaker McCarthy. They traded a bad Speaker for an even worse one. Republican leaders have blocked 5,799 amendments from even coming to the floor. Mr. Speaker, 5,799 amendments have been blocked from coming to the floor by the Republican majority.

By the way, they are not just Democratic amendments. They blocked Republican, bipartisan, and Democratic amendments. They blocked an amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. firearms across the Mexican border. They blocked an amendment to combat fentanyl trafficking at ports of entry.

Holy hell, Mr. Speaker, they even blocked my amendment to protect food for seniors who participate in the Meals on Wheels program. They have even blocked over half of their own Republican Members' amendments.

Let me say that again. Most Republican amendments have been blocked by this Congress. These amendments have been prevented from even seeing the light of day or getting a debate on the House floor. There have been 98 amendments that Rules Committee Republicans had either authored or supported that have been blocked by their own majority.

When you are on the Rules Committee, you like to have a little juice, but 98 of your amendments, Republican amendments, have been blocked by your own party. That is almost 100 amendments, and that is just Rules Republicans.

I am sure they would have loved to have had the opportunity to debate their amendments on the floor. If Rules Committee Republicans can't get amendments, how the hell do you think the rest of us are doing?

Republicans said they wanted an open process in this Congress. They want an open process, my foot, Mr. Speaker.

Under this majority, the Rules Committee has become a place where democracy goes to die. Their Members should be outraged with the Speaker and this leadership just as much as Democrats should be. Again, 106 completely closed rules blocked all amendments--a shameful statistic, an all-time authoritarian high set under this Republican majority.

Let's look at the results. Look at what they have to show for it. Republicans had the most unproductive Congress in the history of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, 26 days we went without a Speaker because they were fighting with each other. Weeks were wasted with failed rule votes while they argued among themselves instead of negotiating with Democrats.

There were broken promises on the appropriation process where they kicked the can down the road with another failed CR, bringing us to the brink of catastrophic debt default and then asking Democrats to bail them out. Mr. Speaker, 10 months of passing no legislation through the Rules Committee that ever became law.

I congratulate my friends. In addition to being the most incompetent, dysfunctional, unproductive Congress in American history, they now have also presided over the most closed Congress in American history. Well done, well done, and they are not done yet. We have to live through 3 more months of this. God help us.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate what the gentleman from South Carolina just said. We have different viewpoints and different values.

I am sorry that he feels he lives in a wrecked country. I don't believe that. I think the United States of America is the greatest country on this planet, and I am proud to serve in Congress to try to help the people of this country. I would never refer to this country as a ``wrecked country.''

Again, the gentleman who just spoke, I thought when he was appointed to the Rules Committee, he was appointed to make sure that we had a more open process.

I regret to inform the gentleman that 106 closed rules slipped by him this Congress. I appreciate him standing in the breach.

By the way, when he refers to all the amendments that were rejected as being dumb, 50 percent of them were Republican amendments.

I think 27 of your amendments were denied. I wouldn't classify them as dumb, even though I may disagree with the intent.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a list of the 106 closed rules issued by the Republican majority in the 118th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, beneath all these statistics about closed rules are actual ideas that are being blocked from being debated on the House floor.

These are thoughtful proposals that Members have worked hard to develop, ideas to help actual people, and they deserved a debate in an up-or-down vote.

They are proposals like this: An amendment to disrupt the smuggling of U.S. guns across the Mexico border to help cartels, an amendment authorizing funding for DHS to combat fentanyl trafficking at our ports of entry, and an amendment to prevent cuts to Meals on Wheels.

Those are home-delivered meals to seniors, Mr. Speaker, and that was my amendment, by the way, so I can assure you that it was a very, very good idea.

They even blocked an amendment to provide postpartum mental health information to pregnant students, and that was a Republican amendment.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans haven't just blocked amendments by reporting out closed rules. Their structured rules, the rules that allowed a few amendments, have also continually blocked thoughtful, rule-complied amendments.

They seem especially focused on blocking Democratic ideas from a debate in an up-or-down vote on the floor. A quarter of their structured rules--get this--blocked all Democratic amendments.

Now, let me quickly just list a few ideas that Republicans were either too afraid to debate or couldn't spare 10 minutes for consideration on the House floor: An amendment to protect children from getting asthma; amendments to ensure the regulation of dark money in politics, and to prevent corrupt pay-to-play political donation deals with Federal contractors; and an amendment to provide cancer screenings to Federal firefighters as part of their DOD annual physicals, when we know they are exposed to cancer-causing chemicals as part of their jobs. There is simply no excuse for this, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, I was confused when she said, you don't offer alternatives. That is what amendments are. They are alternative ideas.

I just went through a list of some of the alternatives we wanted to offer dealing with firefighters and cancer screening, dealing with children with asthma, and dealing with making sure senior citizens have adequate access to nutrition. Those are alternatives. Those are ideas.

My friends, unfortunately, are in control of this place, so they get to bring the bills to the Rules Committee.

We try to present alternatives through the amendment process, but here is another alternative. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 16, the American Dream and Promise Act of 2023.

Mr. Speaker, the bigoted hatred that we are seeing directed at immigrants in Ohio and across the country is sickening. According to research done by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, there has been a rise in conspiracy theories that stigmatize minorities and promote hatred of ethnically diverse communities.

Get this. Politicians' use of bigoted rhetoric can also play a role in hate crime incidents. It is sad, but to be frank, we didn't need researchers to tell us this.

We can see and we can hear it from the Republican Party every single day, and it does a grave disservice to the Dreamers, to TPS holders, and to DACA recipients in this country who only know America as their home.

These are taxpayers, small business owners, educators, and critical parts of our communities. Dreamers were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own, and it is past time to grant them the pathway to citizenship that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. There is a lot of work that needs to be done to fix our broken immigration system and secure our border, but unlike the messaging bills before us this week, this is a bill that actually does something, and it is actually bipartisan. It sends the message that we are sick of the vitriol and hate crimes against this community and that we value their many contributions that make this country a better place.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar), a great leader, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia), who will also speak on the importance of defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

You have got to love when Republicans try to talk tough about immigration reform. I just want to remind my colleagues that one of the most conservative Senators in the United States Senate is from Oklahoma. He wrote a comprehensive immigration reform bill that has some very tough provisions in it. Their standard-bearer, the man who I cannot name on the floor for fear that my words will be taken down, told Republicans to not allow it to come to the floor for debate or a vote.

They would rather have a campaign issue than to solve a problem. I mean, let that sink in. Let that sink in.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article from the National Institute of Justice titled: ``Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-born Citizen Rate.''

Mr. Speaker, all day long, Republicans spout hateful rhetoric about undocumented immigration and crime because they want us to be scared and they want to divide us, but their claims are simply not rooted in truth. In fact, undocumented immigrants are less likely, not more, than U.S.-born citizens to commit crimes, including violent crime.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an article by the CATO Institute titled: ``Sanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Rates.''

Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence, none, either in Florida or in the rest of the country that sanctuary cities result in more crime. There is none, zero. However, that won't matter to Republicans because they are unmoved by the facts.

Mr. Speaker, earlier I listed some examples of ideas that Republicans blocked from even being considered on the floor. Here are a few more. I just want people to appreciate this.

An amendment that would protect access to IVF for Federal employees, they blocked it.

They blocked an amendment to require a study for Tribal consultations before enactment of an oil and gas bill that could affect their subsistence resources.

An amendment to make critical targeted investments in small-town police departments for the recruitment, retention, mental health support, and training they need to protect themselves and their communities, they blocked that, too.

They blocked an amendment to ensure continued access to emergency care for pregnant servicewomen at military treatment facilities.

Maybe Republicans don't believe in IVF or any of these other ideas, but they can just vote ``no.'' Why block these ideas from even being debated unless they are afraid they would pass?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to close yet. There may be someone else.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to get back to this extraordinary closed House. I just want everybody to appreciate how awful this process is.

Here are yet more examples of ideas that were too scary, too revolutionary, too controversial to even be debated on the House floor, according to this Republican majority:

An amendment to provide grants to organizations that are helping to transition servicemembers to civilian life, including job recruitment training, they blocked that. I mean, what are they thinking? Who does that?

They blocked an amendment to ensure that students with dietary restrictions like lactose intolerance can have an alternative to whole milk at lunch. Is lactose intolerance now woke? I mean, I don't get it. That was blocked.

They blocked an amendment to ensure that a bill wouldn't cause our domestic energy prices to increase.

I ask, again, what is the majority afraid of? I mean, we have our differences. We ought to have substantive debate on the floor and then have votes. I am willing to bet there are some thoughtful Republicans who would support some of these amendments that I mentioned here.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

We have heard a lot about wokeness here today, but I want to focus on the woke Democratic ideas that Republicans have blocked in this record- breaking closed Congress. I mean, ideas like protecting IVF, fighting fentanyl trafficking, and making sure lactose-intolerant students have something nutritious to drink at lunch. Wow. I mean, that those ideas are woke is crazy.

There have been 106 closed rules. That is a big number, a record- breaking number, but much more important is what that number represents. These ideas and all the other blocked amendments I highlighted would have helped everyday Americans. Is that woke? Is it woke to try and keep kids from getting asthma, to provide job training to veterans? To provide cancer screenings to firefighters, is that woke?

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what my Republican colleagues are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid to vote ``no.'' Maybe they are afraid to vote ``yes.'' This is Congress, Mr. Speaker. We are here to take hard votes. This record-breaking number of closed rules is a disservice to the people the Republicans represent.

Mr. Speaker, while Republicans want to talk about being woke, I wish instead that they would wake the hell up and do the people's business. For example, I don't know, maybe pass a bill to prevent a government shutdown. What we are doing today is merely a political exercise. Their obsession with trying to inject politics and culture wars into everything is getting really old, almost as old as the Presidential nominee.

Let me just say I love this place, and I love all the different things that we have been called on to do. I will just say this, Mr. Speaker: I want everybody to join with me and let's end this. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1194 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1194, providing for the House's consideration of several pieces of legislation.

The rule provides for H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, to be considered under a closed rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees and provides for one motion to recommitment.

Additionally, the rule also provides for H.J. Res. 109, a joint resolution associated with a rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to ``Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 121.''

H.J. Res. 109 would be considered under a closed rule, and it provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, to be considered under a structured rule. It also provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Finally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024 to be considered under a closed rule.

It also provides 30 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the underlying pieces of legislation.

Beginning with H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, Madam Speaker, I am glad this rule provides for consideration of this legislation, of which I am a proud cosponsor.

The core premise of this legislation is simple. The Census should be an accurate reflection of this country's citizenry.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, noncitizens comprise approximately 6.7 percent of the Nation's 333 million people.

Including noncitizens in the apportionment of congressional districts will directly impact representation in Congress.

This, to me and most Americans, seems to be a way to take Representatives away from red States and add them to blue States; to literally change the makeup of this body by diluting the influence and number of red districts and adding blue districts in their place.

Under President Biden's watch, nearly 4.7 million illegal aliens have been released into the country, and more than 1.8 million known illegal alien got-aways have escaped into the United States. When added up, these numbers are larger than the population of 32 States.

This isn't simply a constitutional argument. This is a deliberate effort by Joe Biden and the Democrat machine in Washington.

On day one of taking office, President Biden issued Executive Order 13986 requiring noncitizens to be counted in the Census both for the purposes of enumeration and determining congressional apportionment.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue. Having an accurate count of U.S. citizens for the purpose of congressional representation should not be a partisan issue. Yet, here we are with two sides debating the question of who should be counted.

This is a question firmly in Congress' purview. In Department of Commerce v. New York, following the Trump administration's attempt to reinstate a citizenship question on the decennial Census, the Supreme Court made clear this decision is up to the Congress.

I appreciate the leadership of the authors of this bill to ensure Congress is carrying out that responsibility. I hope this measure will have the full support of my colleagues.

Moving on to the financial sector, as a member of the Financial Services Committee, I am glad to see floor consideration of H.J. Res. 109.

This legislation addresses an SEC action that bypassed proper rulemaking procedures. Rather than following the processes laid out by the Congressional Review Act and Administrative Procedures Act, the SEC relied erroneously on a staff accounting bulletin.

You don't have to take our word for it. SEC Commissioner Hester Pierce is on record having said the staff accounting bulletin may not be the appropriate vehicle through which to make this accounting change.

Beyond that, however, this rule brings more uncertainty into the crypto industry by going beyond clarifying how to account for digital assets.

Indeed, this rule effectively requires banks and financial institutions to place digital assets on their balance sheets.

This makes it unclear if customers' assets will be lost if the custodian becomes insolvent. It also increases capital, liquidity, and other requirements for financial institutions in order to manage the risk associated with these assets that should never really be on their books.

The digital assets ecosystem needs more clarity, not less. My colleagues and I on the Financial Services Committee have worked hard this Congress to provide clear rules of the road for digital assets innovation. This rule clearly does the opposite.

The rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 6192, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act.

One thing we all have come to expect from this administration is the persistent attacks on American energy and consumer choice. This legislation is another attempt by the Republican majority to defend against the latest attack as the focus of congressional Democrats has now turned inside every American's home.

The Biden administration is now willing to reduce the affordability and reliability of everyday household appliances in pursuit of an out- of-touch, unrealistic, and unaffordable green agenda.

Under the guise of increased efficiency, the administration has offered new rules on home appliances that will raise costs, thus making these household necessities less available, especially to people of modest means. This is at a time when homeowners are already spending 34 percent more on home appliances than they did less than two decades ago.

When Americans are struggling to pay for food under the crushing reality of Bidenflation, they now must also worry about affording the appliances they use to prepare it. Instead of relief, the administration offers more obstacles. That is why we need to pass H.R. 6192.

Finally, the rule provides for H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024. Simply put, our country is blessed with a diverse array of abundant natural resources. We must be responsible stewards of these resources, but responsible stewardship does not mean abandoning the resources that we have. It does not mean making ourselves more reliant on other countries in the name of unrealistic agendas that are divorced from national needs and our own national security.

This bipartisan bill provides certainty where certainty is lacking and allows necessary projects to responsibly move forward.

I look forward to consideration of all of these pieces of legislation and urge the passage of this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

(Mr. NEGUSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I agree it is ridiculous that we must consider legislation like the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, but that is the level of ridiculousness that the Democratic Party has forced us into with their out-of-touch, woke agenda. The priorities of the American people are protecting their right to consumer choice, not to be policed in their own homes. Democrats are fighting for woke corporations. Republicans are fighting for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy).

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague on the other side of the aisle, this is just one piece of the Democrats' green agenda that is fast-tracking a path to all electric vehicles and appliances at a time when our grid can least afford it without any consideration for grid stability.

This move to all EVs and electric appliances in our homes is not something that consumers are ready for, and it is not something that consumers want. The American people want to have choice and affordability, and the actions of the Democrats on this issue are the opposite of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just unpack some of those arguments made against this bill, that H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, will discourage immigrants from participating in the Census.

Revealing that someone is not a citizen does not reveal if someone is here illegally. The individual could have lawful permanent residence, they could be a nonimmigrant residing in the U.S. during an authorized period of stay. Moreover, the Census Bureau must follow strict rules of confidentiality and cannot disclose data tied to an individual respondent in the decennial Census. It can only share aggregate information not attributed to a particular person.

Furthermore, even if respondents were reluctant to complete the Census questionnaire, they would still likely be enumerated by the Census Bureau using other methods, such as review of official records to determine the inhabitants of a particular address or by using proxy information such as reliable information from a neighbor.

Also, there was an argument that H.R. 7109 would skew the distribution of Federal assistance away from States and localities.

This argument is a red herring. H.R. 7109 makes absolutely no changes whatsoever to any laws implicating Federal assistance. Noncitizens would still be counted in the decennial Census. They would only be excluded from the congressional apportionment base.

One other argument that has just been made is that H.R. 7109 fundamentally misunderstands how apportionment was designed by the Framers of the Constitution.

While Democrats may claim that the Evenwel v. Abbott Supreme Court decision requires the phrase ``whole number of persons'' in section 2 of the 14th Amendment to be interpreted as any resident, regardless of citizenship status, section 5 of the 14th Amendment permits the use of implementing statutes for the 14th Amendment. It is this implementing statute which H.R. 7109 amends to explicitly exclude noncitizens from the apportionment base.

Beyond that, the historical context surrounding the phrase ``whole number of persons'' was specifically chosen to make clear that the drafters rejected counting individuals as partial persons. It does not in any way signify that any person taking up residence in a State should be counted for the purpose of apportionment, and certainly not that noncitizens must be included in the apportionment base.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I just make note of a few things with regard to the Equal Representation Act. We have heard some comments from our Democrat colleagues that this is somehow unconstitutional.

The court case referenced in Department of Commerce v. New York, the lower court dismissed the plaintiff's claims under the Enumeration Clause, permitted claims under the Administrative Procedures Act and Due Process Clause.

However, the Supreme Court upheld requiring the citizenship question only on the claims under the Administrative Procedures Act and not on constitutional grounds, saying that it is Congress' responsibility to determine whether and how this should take place. That is what we are doing here today in the Equal Representation Act by saying precisely that noncitizens should not count in congressional apportionment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on the Equal Representation Act. This bill would restore the one-person, one-vote principle in apportionment. Only citizens are eligible to vote for candidates for Federal offices, including Members of Congress and electors for President of the United States.

However, under the current practice, noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents, nonimmigrants, and even illegal aliens are wrongly included in a State's population for purposes of the apportionment calculation. Thus, States with higher proportions of noncitizens residing in that State are advantaged over States with a lower concentration of noncitizens.

In the case of illegal aliens, the status quo is particularly concerning as some States or major metropolitan areas within those States have declared themselves sanctuary jurisdictions, shielding illegal aliens from Federal immigration law enforcement, with some even providing special services to the illegal alien population residing in those jurisdictions.

Illegal aliens incentivized to move to those jurisdictions, who reside in that State on Census day, and who are enumerated in the Census, would add to the State's population for the purposes of apportionment.

It is appropriate for Congress to direct the Census Bureau to collect one of the most fundamental data points regarding individuals residing in the United States: Whether or not they are a citizen.

Article I of the Constitution requires the Census of the population to be taken every 10 years. This is directed by law. The Supreme Court has explained that Congress is permitted by the Constitution to inquire about citizenship on this questionnaire, on the Census. Adding a citizenship question to the decennial Census is an appropriate exercise of Article I authority over the Census and is the responsibility of Congress

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

Mr. Speaker, I note that the Founders never would have intended a U.S. President allowing 6.7 million illegal immigrants into the country, including terrorists and the drug cartels. I think that is probably not something that was envisioned by the Founders.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close as well, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, we, once again, have before us today the opportunity to move legislation that could have a positive effect on the everyday lives of all Americans, whether that is pushing back on the overreach and the administrative uncertainty of this bureaucratic state, or protecting the core functions of government agencies and protecting our very system of government.

The choice we have before us in this rule is clear, and we must take action.

H.R. 7109, the Equal Representation Act, ensures that the Census count only U.S. citizens for congressional apportionment and Presidential electors. This should not be a novel concept. It should just be a minimum standard.

H.J. Res. 109 provides clarity in the digital assets sector, an area where the United States should be leading. Congress must provide clear rules of the road for digital asset innovators. However, the rule proposed by the SEC does just the opposite.

With respect to home appliances, I think we should all agree that less intrusion by the government is the answer here. This administration's reckless pursuit of its green agenda surely could stop in our kitchens, can it not?

At a minimum, we shouldn't be making living in this country more unaffordable than it already is by this administration. H.R. 6192 is a step in the right direction.

Regarding our natural resources, our country is blessed with a diverse array of abundant natural resources. We ought to use those resources responsibly. H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, is responsible and worthy of our support.

I look forward to moving these bills out of the House this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call up the bill (H.R. 2925) to amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 to provide for security of tenure for use of mining claims for ancillary activities, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2925.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024.

In May 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower decision revoking an approved mine plan for the Rosemont Copper Mine Project in Arizona. Commonly called the Rosemont decision, this determination upended decades of regulatory precedent and specific U.S. Forest Service regulations that allow approvals of operations on or off a mining claim so long as these operations meet environmental and regulatory standards.

If allowed to stand, the Rosemont decision would require the discovery and determination of a valid mineral deposit, meaning that operators must prove the existence of a commercially developable deposit on a claim before a plan of operations can be approved.

However, operators' plans of operations must include the intended uses of the surface of the mining claim, including those for waste rock placements, mills, offices, and roads. The mining plan of operations is key in determining the economic feasibility of a mining site, which in turn factors into the basis of determining which mineral deposits are commercially developable and, therefore, valid.

In short, the court's ruling puts the cart before the horse and fails to reflect the actual process of how one develops a mine. This bill would restore status quo as it existed before the misguided Rosemont decision and clarify that mine operators can continue to operate on Federal lands as they have for decades.

According to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, ``It is the policy of the United States that . . . the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals.'' The Rosemont decision blatantly disregards this statement.

With mineral demand expected to grow exponentially in the coming decades, Congress must safeguard and defend the country's ability to access our own resources.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 2925, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

With all due respect to my friend from New Mexico, I greatly appreciate her passion to protect this administration, to protect an administration that is having an attack on American mining, on American energy that is causing prices to increase, for inflation to go up, and it is causing us to be more dependent on our adversaries like China for minerals and elements, like Russia, OPEC, Venezuela, all of the above, Iran, for our energy. I understand that she is passionate about that, and I respect her passion.

When we talk about an old, archaic mining law that Ulysses S. Grant signed into law in 1872, I am reminded of something our Founders did long before that.

In 1787, they passed or established our Constitution that says that there is separation of powers, that the legislative branch legislates and that the executive branch enforces.

Now, almost 250 years later, we have got an administrative branch, and thanks to the administrative state in the Administrative Powers Act, we have bureaucrats that think their job is to legislate.

We are not changing the law, the mining law. We are pushing back on rules that are being pushed out by an administration that thinks it is their job to legislate.

I will remind my friends across the aisle that 2 years ago, they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. They had an opportunity to change the mining law, and they didn't do it. We are not changing the mining law. We are pushing back on overreaching regulations from the administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As I talked earlier about the Constitution and how it is the legislature that makes the laws, it is not through an administrative rule and it is also not by court decision, not the third branch of government that gets to make the laws. It is Congress that gets to make the laws.

When the Court has stepped in and made a ruling that creates uncertainty, it is causing mines not to be developed in the United States. Mining companies don't know if they can get a permit. If they cannot get a permit, they have to prove that there is material there before they get a chance to develop the permit. We need this legislative fix that only Congress can provide, to provide clarity and certainty so that we can develop these mineral resources here in the United States, which simply isn't happening today.

I will remind my friends across the aisle that under the law that this bill would codify, operators must still, as they have for decades, submit a mine plan of operations to the BLM or Forest Service for approval before building a new mine under the authorities that we would be giving them in this legislation.

The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service both have strict time-bound requirements on what a claimant must do to maintain a claim and what they can do with a claim on Federal land to conduct mining.

If a claim holder does not meet these requirements, BLM or the Forest Service has the power to enforce compliance or immediately suspend the claimant from the area.

Now, while my friends across the aisle are doubling down on this administration's attack on American mining and energy development, while they are cheering on the Ninth Circuit, Republicans are taking action.

Mining is not happening in the United States because of the impediments that my friends across the aisle are causing.

Where is mining taking place? It is happening in China. If you go back just to 1995 and take one mineral that is critical to the lower- carbon energy sector that my friends talk about so much, you can't do that without copper. In 1995, the United States produced over three times more copper than China. If you look at 2020, China is producing about 10 times more copper than we are.

This is one metal. We could repeat this chart for critical elements and for other metals. If you look at it for steel, we produced more steel than China in 1995. They produce 12 times more steel than we do today.

When these renewable energy projects take place, when mandates are put out there to build electric vehicles, where are these materials coming from? We don't have the processing capacity anymore either. We have got two copper smelters. China has got over 50.

China controls 60 percent of global production, an estimated 90 percent of

processing, and over 75 percent of manufacturing of critical minerals. In terms of individual minerals, China refines 72 percent of global- refined cobalt, 98 percent of global gallium, and 85 percent of global- refined rare-earth elements.

China also currently dominates the world's electric battery market, producing about 90 percent of the raw materials and 77 percent of global EV battery manufacturing capacity.

Disallowing domestic mining will only drive both our allies and ourselves into further reliance on China. We are disallowing mining at the same time we are putting mandates out there for people to drive electric vehicles.

By breaking even the first link in the Chinese global supply chain, we will be able to send strong market signals to American companies looking to invest in domestic mining and processing ventures. That is what H.R. 2925 would do.

The Republican ideas are pro-America and pro-American supply chain. They are using the resources that God has blessed us with. If we don't pass this bill, we are just going to be more reliant on China, and we are going to see less development in the U.S.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very rich that my friends across the aisle are bringing China into the equation now. The simple fact is that, under this administration and under this court ruling, nobody is going to be mining in the United States. They know China is not going to mine anything here under their policies, but also no American companies are going to be able to develop mines under their policies.

At the same time, they are pushing this electrification of everything and electric vehicles. They approved billions and billions of dollars in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. That is hard to say because we all know it drove inflation higher. In that bill, the IRA, they approved billions of dollars to invest in things that require metals and critical minerals.

The question was asked in the opening statement: Who wants this? Who wants mining in the United States?

I think the answer is everybody wants what comes from mining except my friends across the aisle. They don't want it in their backyard. They want their cake, and they want to be able to eat it, too. They want to have all these metals and critical elements that can be used to make and manufacture the things that they think are going to save the planet, but they just don't want it to happen here in the U.S., where we have the strictest mining laws, the strictest labor laws, and the strictest safety laws. We do things right here. We recover mines correctly.

What they want to do is have all their electric cars, solar farms, windmills, and transmission lines and magically get this material from somewhere else.

There are mines. There are still mines all across this country, but the

fact is they are not even coming close to meeting the demands that we have. Even though we have everything we need in the U.S., it is just in the ground.

Reaching net zero emissions by 2050 would require more copper than has been produced over the entire course of human history. That is the challenge we face under Democratic policy: a demand for more copper than we have mined in human history between now and 2050 if we were going to get to net zero emissions.

How are we going to do that if we don't use the elements and minerals that God has blessed us with here in our country? The simple answer is that we are going to have to rely on somebody else to supply that. Guess who the number one supplier of nearly every one of those metals and elements is in the world today? It is China. That is the simple fact.

We can make a decision to either support H.R. 2925 and support American minerals and resources, or we can leave the status quo under the Rosemont court ruling and rely more on China and others, even Russia. We have talked about nuclear power, which could be a great contributor to zero emission energy. Most of our uranium now comes from Russia.

So whom do we want to rely on? Where do we want that wealth to go when Americans spend their money on energy and minerals? I would rather it stay here in America supporting American mining, supporting American jobs, and supporting American processing and manufacturing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, there is another side to this story, as well. My colleagues can try to frame it that they are okay with it in their backyard because they have some of it there, but for the future, they don't want any more of it in their backyard.

I am from Arkansas. We have about 10 percent of our landmass as Federal lands, but when you go out West, Federal lands can account for as much as 86 percent of the land area in certain States and can account for 75 percent of our Nation's metals production.

When you look at that, Mr. Speaker, more than one-half of federally owned public lands are already either restricted or banned to mining operations due to withdrawals under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Antiquities Act, and specific congressional actions.

If land hasn't been withdrawn from operation under the mining law, such as the land outside the Grand Canyon, then no new mining claims can be staked.

So, I am asking, how much is enough? How much of our land do we have to lock up and say that you can't have access, can't manage it, can't produce energy off of it, and can't mine on it?

It seems as if, as time goes on, the answer is all of it. We want to lock all of it up. We want to be reliant on somebody else who is doing a lot more damage to the environment somewhere on the planet than we do here in the U.S. when we mine in a very environmentally friendly manner and sustainably with the highest levels of standards.

Mr. Speaker, we can try to frame this any way you want to, but when we are having to import so much of our metals and critical minerals when they are right here in the ground in the United States, then that is a ``not in my backyard'' policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to assert my firm belief that we should not be mining uranium in the Grand Canyon.

Nobody was ever proposing to mine uranium in the Grand Canyon, but a favorite talking point of my colleagues across the aisle is to say that these evil mining companies are going to be mining uranium in the Grand Canyon.

It is as if there is going to be this big excavator reaching over the side, digging out and making the Grand Canyon even more grand. The uranium deposits are well outside the boundaries of Grand Canyon National Park. They are in land north of the Grand Canyon between the boundary of the Grand Canyon National Park and the State of Utah.

It is an easy talking point to say that we are going to ban mining in the Grand Canyon. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? I don't know anybody who wants to mine in the Grand Canyon.

I do want to reiterate and push back on the assertion that the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act is unnecessary and that mining companies should have to prove the existence of a valid claim before beginning any operations.

A 2020 Department of the Interior solicitor's opinion stated: ``As a practical matter, requiring the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit before allowing any reasonably incident mining uses, including the removal of any minerals, puts the cart before the horse, since such uses and removal are necessary to make a discovery. If entering open lands to explore for and develop minerals is considered `unauthorized' unless or until miners have proven a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit, they could not, as a practical matter, ever discover a valuable mineral deposit and all mining would effectively be prohibited. Such an outcome was clearly not the intent of Congress, in no small part because such an interpretation would also leave many, if not most, miners legally in trespass.'' That all came from that solicitor's opinion.

It is clear that H.R. 2925 is a legislative fix that only Congress can provide. It is needed to provide clarity and certainty in the United States' ability to responsibly mine materials essential to our national security and to make us economically competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2925. Contrary to the misconceptions that I have heard regarding the bill, this legislation does not grant mining companies free license to do whatever they want on Federal lands. It does not exempt mining activity from NEPA or any other environmental review. It does not allow companies to subvert governmental authority or oversight. It simply restates over a century of mining law and decades of regulatory practice.

In passing this bill, we will reaffirm American miners' rights to operate under the law, just as they have done for decades, to provide the essential materials we depend on every day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Amodei for his work to bring H.R. 2925 to the floor, and I yield back the balance of my time.