Superior National Forest Restoration Act

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

Mr. Speaker, welcome back to the show, unlimited drilling and extinction of wildlife brought to you by the GOP, a subsidiary of Big Oil.

This week's target: The Boundary Waters in northeastern Minnesota, a pristine wilderness that is, in fact, the most visited designated wilderness area in our country. It is the most visited for a good reason. Its beautiful landscapes, crystal clear waters, and abundant wildlife make it a haven for outdoor recreation.

The Boundary Waters support a thriving outdoor recreation economy with hundreds of thousands of annual visitors and tens of thousands of jobs across northeastern Minnesota. In fact, the Boundary Waters is so popular that an overwhelming majority of Minnesota voters oppose building new mines near this federally protected wilderness.

This region and its resources, our resources, have been under threat for years and are being threatened again today.

In 1966, the Bureau of Land Management issued two mineral leases covering 5,000 acres of the Superior National Forest just outside of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. There was never mining on either lease, never mining, yet they were renewed in 1989 and again in 2004.

In 2012, Twin Metals Minnesota, a wholly owned subsidiary of a Chilean mining company, requested another extension of those two expired leases on Forest Service land in the Boundary Waters watershed to build a sulfide-ore copper mine.

In 2016, after an extensive environmental review process, which included public input and scientific analysis, the Forest Service concluded sulfide-ore copper mining, which is significantly different from the taconite mining that the region is used to, could result in ``extreme'' and ``serious and irreparable harm'' in the watershed of this wilderness area.

The watershed there flows north, meaning it would flow past the mine and into our protected wilderness. The Forest Service found that any spills, leaks, or pollution would be all but impossible to contain, putting the entire ecosystem and watershed at risk.

This should have been the answer: ``No'' to this sulfide-ore copper mine because that is what the scientists say, that is what the community wants, and that is what the law means, that a wilderness area is protected from severe harm. However, foreign companies wanting to mine and the politicians who answer to them were too enticed.

As soon as President Trump came into office, his administration ignored the science and community input and reinstated Twin Metals' leases.

The Department of the Interior solicitor under the current administration found that President Trump improperly renewed those leases. Thankfully, after another thorough review and rounds of community input and Tribal consultation, the Biden administration finalized 20-year protections for 225,000 acres around the wilderness area, making that area ineligible for mining, but this bill seeks to undo all of that.

This bill would mandate the withdrawal be overturned and the leases be reinstated with no judicial review allowed. This means that it will not matter if the water and air become poisoned and the surrounding Tribes and communities become severely ill. No one will be able to take those concerns to a judge and ask that they revisit the decision to mine the Boundary Waters.

Mr. Speaker, you will hear today that Americans have to choose between mining for minerals to secure our clean energy future over protecting the health of our families and vulnerable ecosystems. That is simply not the case.

We all understand the need for mining as part of our clean energy future, but America is already a top producer of copper and is already invested in a circular economy with our trusted trading partners for cobalt and nickel.

If we are going to build a sustainable, enduring, modern mining industry, then we have to do that while respecting sound science and community input, including Tribal consultation.

Mr. Speaker, I deeply respect the workers who mine and their families and the way that that tradition has contributed to the backbone of industrial America, but they live and work in locations where mining is appropriate and where there is minimal to no harm to the environment or human health. Unfortunately, this bill disregards all of that and seeks to destroy now and deal with the ramifications not later but not at all.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum).

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

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot about America and America's mineral supplies, but what we are not hearing about is the truth about Antofagasta, the Chilean mining company that is pursuing these leases. In Antofagasta's mines in South America, the minerals are shipped to China for refining and smelting and then sold on the global market.

I have seen no evidence because there is no evidence that Antofagasta won't do the exact same thing here: extracting our publicly owned minerals from pristine wilderness, paying no royalty for them, and then selling them abroad, leaving Americans with all the mess and no benefit.

So much for America first.

I also want to talk about the environmental effects of this mining. Sulfide-ore copper mining is what we are talking about--not iron mining, not taconite iron mining--sulfide-ore copper mining. That is what is being proposed outside of the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area, and that sulfide-ore copper mining poses a unique threat. It is different than taconite iron ore mining.

What happens in sulfide-ore copper mining is the ore that is extracted contains metals that are bound together with sulfur. When exposed to air and water, this sulfide-bearing ore discharges acid mine drainage into the ground and surface water. The waste rocks and the tailings from this mine would generate acid mine drainage for hundreds of years, at least.

Just so everyone knows, these facts aren't hyperbole. This is available information, studied and reported by scientists, with some who have published their findings on the dangers of sulfide-ore copper mining at universities, including the University of Minnesota.

Proponents of this mine say that their tailing facilities would be safe from leakage. We hear that every time about every environmental extraction proposal. However, the facts are clear here. The Forest Service found that 100 percent of sulfide-ore copper mines in the United States experienced pipeline spills or accidental releases.

It is a near certainty that that is what will happen, that we will have a pipeline spill, we will have an accidental release. We will have irreparable, severe environmental damage if this sulfide-ore copper mine is allowed to occur on this Forest Service land. It would infect and pollute the Boundary Waters, and we would be unable to reclaim our beautiful, pristine wilderness.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just heard that Republicans now support a clean energy transition. I hope we can clip that because that is wonderful, wonderful news.

Let me be the first to welcome the majority to the clean energy transition club, where we are going to support investments for States, municipalities, and Tribal governments to purchase clean energy technology, like solar panels, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, wind turbines, all of which, until today apparently, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposed.

As the newest members of the clean energy transition club, let me give my colleagues on the other side of the aisle a brief lesson on where the U.S. stands with mineral production and trade, which is needed for the construction of clean energy technology, as my colleagues have correctly pointed out.

First, the United States is among the top five producers of copper in the world and, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, has a low disruption potential.

Second, while we do not, in the United States, have a significant amount of nickel or cobalt, we do have close trading relationships with our allies who do. Those allies are Canada--which is a leading supplier of nickel--Norway, Japan, and Finland.

However, let's talk about what the Twin Metals mine would produce. If this project by this Chilean-owned mining company was allowed to go forward, mine, and pollute our wilderness, ship the ore and the jobs to China, and sell it anywhere in the world, what would it complete? Even if they were to sell all of it to us--and there is no guarantee they would choose to sell any of it here in the United States--it would produce about 1.5 percent of cobalt, about 2.3 percent of copper, about 3.6 percent of nickel, according to 2019 annual consumption, the most recent figures I could find.

I emphasize there is no guarantee that the minerals produced at this proposed Twin Metals mine would wind up back here in the United States, but we are absolutely guaranteed to end up with pollution, contamination, and the destruction of beloved wilderness lands. That is what is at stake here.

I also emphasize that the bill, H.R. 3195, would undo the withdrawal of 225,000 acres in the Superior National Forest. Removing these lands from the protection from mining would violate the will of indigenous communities.

In this case, the Boundary Waters and Superior National Forest are traditionally known as the Anishinaabe land. The Ojibwe, or Chippewa people, have occupied this area since 1000 C.E.

The region's interconnected waterways have been used as critical trade routes for thousands of years. By the 1830s, the United States Government began forcibly removing indigenous people from their lands in the upper Midwest. In exchange for millions of acres of land, the government promised to pay the Ojibwe people $35,000 each year for 20 years, and the Tribes were also granted the right to hunt, fish, and gather on those ceded lands.

In 1848, copper was discovered along the north shore of Lake Superior. Mining companies pressured the government to open the land to mining, which required another land cession, including what would become the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area.

The Tribes had to sue. In 1985 and 1989, they won confirmation of the Tribe's right to hunt, fish, and gather on those ceded lands, something that had been previously denied.

To further protect these treaty rights, the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe supported the administration's withdrawal, and they support my colleague Representative McCollum's bill to permanently protect this region from mining.

Because of their support for permanent protections, the Tribe has faced boycotts from mining-aligned interest groups, who have boycotted their casinos, event venues, and restaurants. That is a ridiculous and cruel response to a Tribe that is simply trying to protect its ancestral lands and waters from toxic pollution.

To add insult to injury, this bill restricts judicial review of the reinstatement of leases, a blatant attack on treaty rights. The U.S. Government deciding on permits without allowing the Tribes to address their concerns in court is an egregious overreach of legislation in general, but also of particular concern to Tribal governments, who would be directly affected but unable to address their concerns in the only legal means that they currently have.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe in support of permanent protection of their Boundary Waters.

The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe,

January 31, 2020.

Hon. Raul Grijalva,

Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Betty McCollum,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Alan Lowenthal,

Cannon House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives Grijalva, McCollum, and Lowenthal: The

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is a federally recognized Indian

tribe that is comprised of the following six Bands' Bois

Forte; Fond du Lac; Grand Portage; Leech Lake; Mille Lacs;

and White Earth. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe has

approximately 41,000 members. The duly elected governing body

of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is the Tribal Executive

Committee which is comprised of the Chairpersons and

Secretary/Treasurers from the six constituent Bands.

The United States has government-to-government

relationships with both the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and each

of the six Bands of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Three MCT

Bands, Fond Du Lac. Grand Portage and Bois Forte, retain

hunting, fishing, and other usufructuarv rights that extend

throughout the entire northeast portion of the state of

Minnesota under the 1854 Treaty of LaPointe (the ``Ceded

Territory''). In the Ceded Territory, all the Bands have a

legal interest in protecting natural resources and all

federal agencies share in the federal government's trust

responsibility to the Bands to maintain those treaty

resources.

The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe is concerned with the prospect

of a series of sulfide-ore mines being developed in the

headwaters of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area (``BWCA'')

watershed. The BWCA watershed is located on the Minnesota/

Ontario border and is entirely within the 1854 Ceded

Territory. The BWCA watershed is comprised of a vast area of

pristine interconnected waterways that have been used by the

Chippewa for centuries. Low buffering capacity of water and

soil and the interconnection of lakes and streams, make the

BWCA watershed particularly vulnerable to the impacts of

mining.

We are very supportive of HR5598, the Boundary Waters

Wilderness Protection and Pollution Prevention Act. This bill

would permanently withdraw federal minerals from potential

leasing for sulfide-ore copper mining in the Rainy River

Headwaters, which directly drain into the BWCAW. As former US

Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell stated, sulfide-ore copper

mining has the potential to permanently destroy the pure

waters and intact forests in the area of the proposed Twin

Metals mine. The fish in adjacent waters--Birch Lake, the

South Kawishiwi River, and downstream water bodies--are

subject to consumption advisories designated by the Minnesota

Department of Health because of mercury in their flesh.

Sulfide-ore copper mining will increase the amount of mercury

in fish, a toxin of great concern to our members who depend

on wild caught fish for their sustenance. Wild rice and

terrestrial species will also be at risk, as pollution and

habitat destruction will have wide reaching impacts.

We are currently blessed with a healthy environment, a

healthy economy, and a public resource that offers sustenance

and solace. All of this is at risk if any mining proposal in

the watershed moves forward. It is unacceptable to trade this

precious landscape and our way of life to enrich foreign

mining companies that will leave a legacy of degradation that

will last forever. We encourage you, in the strongest terms,

to move this legislation forward. We need this protection

before it is too late, and the future of this area is now in

your hands.

Sincerely,

Catherine J. Chavers,

President.

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

I will be talking about what is good for our economy. There have been studies showing that what is best for the economy, including this area, is to continue to protect these public lands.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an abstract on a study by James Stock and Jacob Bradt, Harvard economists, outlining the regional economic impacts of two scenarios, the first being the now-finalized withdrawal, and the second being if this mine is allowed to proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the link to the full study can be found here: https:// scholar.harvard.edu/files/stock/files/snf_withdrawal_stock-bradt_ updated_june_2019.pdf

Analysis of Proposed 20-Year Mineral Leasing Withdrawal in Superior

National Forest

(By James H. Stock, Department of Economics and Harvard Kennedy School,

Harvard University)

(By Jacob T. Bradt, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, June

24, 2019)

Abstract

The Rainy River Watershed on the Superior National Forest

is home to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW).

It also contains deposits of copper, nickel, and trace

metals, and copper-nickel mining has been proposed adjacent

to and upstream of the BWCAW. This sets up a potential

tradeoff between economic benefits from mining and concerns

about negative economic consequences of that mining on the

local recreational and amenity-based economy. Existing

studies of mining in the Superior National Forest focus on

static effects on a single industry (e.g. mining) at some

unspecified point over a medium-run horizon. We draw on these

studies and the economics literature to provide a unified

analysis of the effect of the proposed mining development on

income and employment over time. Our results suggest that the

proposed development would lead to a boom-bust cycle that is

typical of resource extraction economies, exacerbated by the

likely negative effect on the recreation industry.

Keywords: Economic impact analysis, resource extraction,

recreation economy, mining economy

Declaration of interest: None.

Mr. Speaker, if mining were permitted, these economists find that there would be an initial but temporary net growth in employment.

But over time, any economic benefits of mining would be outweighed by the negative impacts of mining on the existing recreational industry and on folks moving to this area.

Under any scenario where sulfide-ore copper mining is allowed, it leads to a boom-and-bust cycle where the local economy is left worse off than before.

Look, these leases sat for decades and decades with no mining used. Now, when it is economically convenient, they want to mine. That illustrates that this is a boom-bust economy and what will be destroyed, though, is of enduring, lasting, economic value.

By protecting this region and the land this will help preserve and grow the 22,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in annual visitor spending, including its small businesses, which are essential for a strong and robust diversified economy.

The other choice, the alternative, is to allow a Chilean mining company to pollute our land, take our minerals without paying a royalty, ship them overseas to China, smelt them, and sell them on the global market, including to our competitors.

What is best for our American economy is to protect the strong recreational economy we have now in this area and continue to protect these public lands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a 2022 poll citing a 2-1 margin of Minnesotans opposing sulfide-ore copper mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters.

[From Impact Research, May 10, 2022]

Minnesotans Support Permanent Protections for the Boundary Waters From

the Risks of Sulfide-Ore Copper Mining

(By: Zac McCrary, Luke Martin)

Minnesotans are deeply connected to the Boundary Waters

Canoe Area Wilderness and it remains a uniquely popular and

loved resource in an age of polarization. Since 2015, polling

has consistently shown that due to this deep connection,

voters in Minnesota are strongly opposed to sulfide-ore

copper mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters and in its

watershed. Voters support taconite mining and sulfide-ore

copper mining in areas of the state that don't pose a risk to

the pristine Boundary Waters. Voters readily reject mining

industry arguments that the watershed of the Boundary Waters

is specifically needed to fulfill the nation's critical

mineral needs. As a result, Minnesotans support several

legislative and administrative actions that would increase

protections for the Boundary Waters, including permanent

protection.

The Boundary Waters is uniquely popular and well-regarded

in Minnesota. Favorability for the Boundary Waters Canoe Area

Wilderness is near unanimous across the state with 86 percent

statewide who are favorable, including 70 percent who are

very favorable. More than 2-in-3 Minnesotans (67 percent) say

they have personally been to the Boundary Waters including 9

percent who visit every year.

By a 2-1 margin, Minnesotans oppose sulfide-ore copper

mining on the edge of the Boundary Waters (60 percent oppose

vs. 31 percent support). A strong majority of voters have

been consistently opposed to sulfide-ore copper mining in the

watershed of the Boundary Waters since pollsters began asking

this question in 2015. Even among the 31 percent who would

currently support sulfide-ore copper mining on the edge of

the Boundary Waters, their support is soft--just 12 percent

strongly support it, and nearly 2-in-3 supporters (63

percent) say their support is contingent on an environmental

analysis that finds that sulfide-ore copper mining in the

Boundary Water's watershed could be done without risk to the

Boundary Waters.

Minnesotans overwhelmingly support a broad array of

legislative and administrative actions to protect the

Boundary Waters from sulfide-ore copper mining, including

legislation to permanently protect the Boundary Waters:

Minnesotans support legislation to permanently protect the

Boundary Waters from the risks associated with sulfide-ore

copper mining by a 35-point margin (63 percent support vs 28

percent oppose). Permanent protections are also a winning

issue with undecided voters (58 percent support),

Independents who support them by a 7-point margin, and in the

new 8th Congressional District (56 percent support). After

hearing arguments from both sides of the issue, support for

permanent protections increases to 67 percent among all

likely Minnesota voters.

By a 19-point margin (45 percent support vs 26 percent

oppose), Minnesotans agree that the state should update its

nonferrous mining rules have not been updated in 30 years,

and currently allow for levels of pollution that would

contaminate the Boundary Waters. Updating the state's rules

would allow for the application of modern science to protect

the Boundary Waters.

Minnesota voters reject the false choice between mining in

the watershed of the Boundary Waters for critical minerals

needed for national security or clean energy purposes and

protecting the Boundary Waters. In testing responses to

statements about mining for critical minerals in the

watershed of the Boundary Waters for national security or a

green economy, voters agree by double-digit margins that we

don't have to choose between critical minerals and protecting

the Boundary Waters. By working with our allies such as

Canada, Norway, and Australia and increasing recycling in our

own country, we can have both critical minerals the nation

needs and preserve the legacy of the Boundary Waters.

Minnesotans are not anti-mining in general. A majority of

voters support taconite mining (61 percent) and sulfide-ore

copper mining in areas where it would not pose any danger to

the Boundary Waters or its watershed (53 percent). However,

there is overwhelming opposition to sulfide-ore copper mining

in the watershed of the Boundary Waters due to pollution and

contamination risks. Opposition to mining in the Boundary

Waters cuts through demographic, geographic, and ideological

lines, making their protection a clear political winner for

elected leaders in Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter from the Wilderness Society in opposition to this legislation.

The Wilderness Society,

May 11, 2023.

Dear Chairman Pete Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez,

and Members of the House Natural Resources Energy and

Minerals Subcommittee:

On behalf of our more than one million members and

supporters, The Wilderness Society (TWS) writes to urge you

to oppose House Congressional Resolution 34 and the so-called

Superior National Forest Restoration Act. We respectfully

request that this letter be submitted to the hearing record.

TWS supports Public Land Order 7917, which in early 2023

withdrew 225,504 acres of public lands and minerals located

in the headwaters of the Boundary Waters in the Superior

National Forest from the federal mineral leasing program for

twenty years. House Congressional Resolution 34 and the

Superior National Forest Restoration Act would reverse the

goals of that Public Land Order.

The two pieces of legislation being heard by the

Subcommittee today represent a wholesale attack on both the

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness's unique character and

ecological values, as well as an attack on executive agency

authority to protect our federal public lands and waters,

particularly under the Federal Land Policy and Management

Act.

Protecting the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness from

Copper Mining. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in

the Superior National Forest of northeastern Minnesota is

made up of 1.1 million acres of interconnected lakes and

rivers and is located adjacent to and downstream of Voyageurs

National Park and Canada's Quetico Provincial Park. The

Boundary Waters not only provides habitat for wildlife, but

it is also a refuge for people from every state in the U.S.

who visit the Boundary Waters to fish, canoe, hike, recreate,

and enjoy its forests, tranquil lakes, trails, and more than

1,200 miles of canoe routes.

The Boundary Waters is core to the region's booming outdoor

recreation industry, which generates $913 million in revenue

and supports more than 17,000 local jobs annually. A 2019

economic study by Harvard Professor James H. Stock, Ph.D.,

former chair of Harvard's economics department, found that

protecting this watershed from copper mining would result in

1,500 to 4,600 additional jobs and $100 million to $900

million in additional income over a 20-year period in an

already thriving outdoor recreation-based economy.

In October 2021, the Biden administration announced they

were re-initiating the process for a 20-year mineral

withdrawal, reversing a misguided move by the former Trump

administration to prevent a withdrawal and advance the

destructive Twin Metals Mine. In early 2023, the Biden

administration issued an environmental analysis and decision

that found the impacts of sulfide-ore copper mining at the

headwaters of the Boundary Waters could harm the area's

abundant freshwater, deemed ``immaculate'' by the Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency. Secretary Debra Haaland then issued

Public Land Order 7917 withdrawing the area from new mining

leases and permits, protecting America's most visited

Wilderness area as well as Voyageurs National Park from toxic

sulfide-ore copper mining in its headwaters/

Mr. Speaker, lastly I include testimony in opposition to the legislation from Becky Rom, national chair of The Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters, a coalition of businesses, conservation groups, and outdoor recreation organizations.

Mr. Speaker, the link to Becky Rom's testimony can be found here: Https://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20230511/115888/ HHRG-118-II06- Wstate-RomR-20230511.pdf.

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

I will start by noting that the Harvard study was, in fact, peer- reviewed. As a former professor, I am very familiar with the peer- review process. It is a reliable study, and what it shows is what is best for the economy of this region and that is to protect these public lands and waters.

Let me ask, what is the value of clean water? Water is also a valuable resource. It is also a resource in scarce supply around the country.

If this bill moves forward, it will allow for the irreversible pollution of this pristine and incredibly valuable landscape. Remember, the Forest Service concluded after scientific study that there is a virtual certainty of severe and irreparable economic harm. All 100 percent of the sulfide-ore copper mines in this country have had leakages and environmental contamination. That is what will happen here.

This will mean the decimation of local economies that depend on visitation. This is the most visited wilderness area in our country. It belongs to the people of the United States. It does not belong and should not belong to a Chilean mining company which, under our outdated mining laws, will pay no royalty at all to the American people.

If the U.S. wants to reduce our demand for copper, which is increasing, then we should invest in recycling, in reuse, in manufacturing improvements. That would create jobs domestically and not risk special places like the Boundary Waters.

If this mine proceeds, and if this water is contaminated and destroyed, there is no known remediation strategy. It cannot be undone. The U.S. Forest Service has conducted an environmental review. They have consulted with communities, they have consulted with Tribal members, and they have relied on cutting-edge science, and they have concluded that these mines should not go forward.

The science is done here. It just doesn't line up with the answer of my colleagues' donors.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Boundary Waters is not a bathtub. The water flows from one place into the other, and in this case the watershed flows north, meaning it would flow past the mine and into the protected wilderness.

My colleague on the other side of the aisle says there would be no mining in the Boundary Waters, but there would be waste. There would be pollution in those waters because of the watershed.

This is exactly why we should rely on the scientific process and the conclusion of the Forest Service that this mining would cause severe and irreparable harm. I have heard no rebuttal from the other side of the aisle to the fact that 100 percent of every sulfide-ore copper mine in our country has had leakages and environmental harm.

Mr. Speaker, we have been having hearings, markups, and floor votes on this issue for years. Administrations have canceled and reinstated these leases, and then canceled them again.

The Biden administration, unlike the previous administration, took the time and effort to do the process right. They came to the considered decision, based on science, to cancel the wrongly reinstated leases and to protect the Boundary Waters region for the next 20 years.

That decision is not just based on sound science. It also is based on community input, robust Tribal consultation, and at the end of the day on the best interests of the American people because that is who these public lands belong to. That is who should benefit from these public lands.

However, a foreign company and politicians who bend to their interests don't like it. As I have made clear in this Congress, their priority is not putting science first or protecting communities. Their priority is putting corporate polluters' profits above all else by any means necessary.

My Republican colleagues say that the toxic mining industry needs certainty. Well, this is certainty. The Boundary Waters watershed is off limits.

I welcome the opportunity to work across the aisle to reform the mining law; for example, to require royalty payments. That way we can build a sustainable future for the industry. Part of that conversation--support of mining--needs to be recognition that some places are too special and too risky, and some types of mining are too risky to do.

At the end of the day, what would you choose: your child's health, our lands, wilderness, endangered species, tourism jobs, our local economy, or would you choose a foreign company who wants to mine in a location that would hurt the environment, our economy, and our health? I know what I would choose.

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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call up the bill (H.R. 3195) to rescind Public Land Order 7917, to reinstate mineral leases and permits in the Superior National Forest, to ensure timely review of Mine Plans of Operations, 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3195.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3195, the Superior National Forest Restoration Act of 2024.

The district I am proud to represent, Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District, is blessed with an abundance of mineral wealth that would allow America to lead in the 21st century.

We are home to the Duluth Complex, one of the largest undeveloped mineral deposits in the world, which includes an estimated 8 billion tons of copper, nickel, cobalt, and other platinum group metals. In fact, this deposit is the world's second largest copper deposit, with 34 percent of the United States' total reserves and the world's third largest nickel deposit with 95 percent of United States' total reserves.

These minerals are experiencing large upswings in demand due to their use in battery storage, electric vehicles, and other rapidly expanding sectors. Domestic production of these minerals is critical to our national security and our supply chain security.

The deposits in northern Minnesota could provide enough copper for over 70 million electric vehicles and nickel for 3.5 million battery packs.

The Duluth Complex and its abundant resources lies under the Superior National Forest and throughout the iron range. The Superior National Forest is a working industrial forest where timber harvesting and mining are desirable activities.

Regrettably, in January of 2022, the Biden administration caved to radical antijobs, antimining activists by canceling two-decade-old mineral leases held by Twin Metals Minnesota in the Superior National Forest.

At the same time, the Biden administration began the withdrawal process on nearly a quarter million acres of land in the region. The finalized withdrawal of 225,504 acres went into effect in January of 2023 and prohibits the extraction of any mineral, including copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum, and iron ore for the next 20 years.

Northern Minnesota, home to the historic iron range, has been mining iron ore, a critical component in steelmaking, for over 140 years. This is the iron ore that provided the military might to the United States and our Allies to fight and win World War II. The iron ore mined in the region accounts for over 80 percent of America's domestically produced steel. Now, the Biden

administration even wants to restrict iron ore mining in northern Minnesota. They have gone too far, Mr. Chair.

These two actions taken by the Biden administration are in immediate opposition to its stated campaign goals to increase domestic mining to meet rising global mineral demand. They are disregarding years of environmental review, a pending mine plan of operation, and an abundance of support from union workers, local residents, schools, builders, and miners.

In doing this, President Biden has made his real position on mining known. He would rather rely on foreign adversaries like Communist China instead of union workers who stand ready to deliver Minnesota's mineral wealth under the strongest environmental and labor standards in the world.

This is morally irresponsible, as China is the world's top polluter and relies on child slave labor in their mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That is a fact. They use child slave labor.

Imagine the national security crisis we would face should China suddenly decide to withhold these resources.

If the Biden administration's actions are allowed to stand, their direct opposition to the domestic mining industry will not only make our Nation less safe, but it will also cripple a sector that provides incredible economic benefit to northern Minnesota.

The national importance of the Duluth Complex is only matched by its significance to our local community. Twin Metals signed a project labor agreement with the local Iron Range Building and Construction Trades association, guaranteeing local union jobs during the mine's construction. The economic benefits would be felt throughout our State as mineral development provides funding to every single school district in Minnesota through the permanent school trust fund.

The Superior National Forest Restoration Act would revitalize an essential pillar of northern Minnesota's economy, provide for the production of critical minerals, secure our supply chain, strengthen our national security, and bolster the entire domestic mining industry.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 3195, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will just share with you that Congressman James Oberstar, a Democrat for 36 years for Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District, supports mining and timber harvesting. In fact, in 1978, when the wilderness legislation was enacted, he didn't originally support it, but he said if you are going to do it, then do not take away our opportunity to mine outside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and outside the buffer zone. He was right then because he knew that we would be here today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gimenez), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, just to underscore this, when the Under Secretaries of Defense and Energy were asked what it would do to the United States if China stops selling us their critical minerals today, they said that it would be devastating and dangerous.

We cannot allow China to continue to dominate the critical minerals space when we have this opportunity right here.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, I live, work, and play in northern Minnesota. As I said, this is the district that I am privileged to represent. I know clean water. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? It is because the cleanest water is in the heart of mining country in the great State of Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, just so my colleagues understand, in the United States, we have the strongest environmental labor standards. Any mine that mines in Minnesota or other States must follow those standards.

Additionally, I will say, for Twin Metals in particular, the mine's unique underground construction, as well as the mine's planned use of ``dry stack tailings'' means there is no potential for acid rock drainage, and dry stack tailings was recommended for this mine plan of operation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that the United States imports 46 percent of the copper we consume every year from foreign nations ourselves. The first step to reshoring and securing our mineral supply chain must be to allow and support domestic mining. H.R. 3195 does just that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California is right. The United States does produce a lot of copper, but it uses even more. In 2016, the United States was only 29 percent import reliant on copper. Eight years later that number has risen to 46 percent.

This trend cannot continue. We must support our new domestic mines to meet our own demand.

Mr. Speaker, I will also say that my colleague just referenced a Harvard study that was not peer-reviewed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from California just mentioned temporary jobs.

When we first started mining iron ore 145 years ago, the American Rockefeller family thought they were going to be just temporary jobs as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bergman).

Mr. Speaker, first off, they have never completed an environmental review. I will be very clear: There will never be mining in the Boundary Waters or the buffer zone around it. That was decided in 1978. This bill will not circumvent or shortchange environmental review in any way. We are not requiring any permits or mine plants be approved. We are simply requiring that they go through the review process the way any other project would move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Chair, I want to reiterate the fact to the American people, there will be no mining in the Boundary Waters, and there will be no mining in the buffer zone around the Boundary Waters. That was settled in 1978.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), the Chair of the full Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and am prepared to close. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

The Biden administration's mining policy is: anywhere but America, any worker but the American worker.

The Republicans refuse to allow child slave labor to happen. We refuse to allow this great country to purchase minerals mined by child slave labor in Congo. We will not turn a blind eye to the atrocities and the slave labor happening in Congo where this administration wants to purchase its minerals.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3195. The bottom line is you can't be a proponent of national security, a proponent of reducing global emissions, and a proponent of fair labor, and yet be against domestic mining at the same time.

Congress voted to spend billions of dollars on building out transmission and increasing renewable energy development, all of which require enormous amounts of copper, nickel, cobalt, and other minerals that can be sourced right here in the United States of America in my home State of Minnesota.

Issuing directives to pursue renewable energy development while at the same time denying access to the minerals needed to domestically manufacture the products simply does not make sense.

The International Energy Agency estimates that achieving net zero by 2050 would require six times more mines than are currently operating today. While the U.S. is blessed with abundant mineral resources within our borders, domestic, primary mine production of critical minerals-- those defined by USGS as essential for our economic and national security--decreased by almost 25 percent from 2022 to 2023, forcing the U.S. to look elsewhere to source these materials.

We cannot totally rely on our allies to access these vital resources. China currently dominates global production for over half the materials on the critical minerals list. Biden's mining policy of anywhere but America, any worker but American must be stopped.

We can mine these minerals domestically under the best labor and environmental standards in the world. We know this all too well in northern Minnesota, where mining is our past, our present, and our future. If we get the politics out of the way, our mining future will be bright. Minnesotans know how to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support for this bill from the National Mining Association, Jobs for Minnesotans, Mining Minnesota, Up North Jobs, Range Association of Municipalities and Schools. I also include the project labor agreement between Twin Metals Minnesota and Iron Range Building and Construction Trades Council.

Washington, DC, April 29, 2024.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Democratic Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson and Minority Leader Jeffries: On

behalf of the National Mining Association (NMA), I am writing

to express our strong support for the Superior National

Forest Restoration Act (H.R. 3195). Ensuring access to our

federal lands for responsible mineral exploration and

development is critical to securing the essential materials

necessary for nearly every sector of our economy.

Northern Minnesota is a place of tremendous natural beauty

and is also blessed with worldclass mineral deposits

including copper, nickel and essential metals that are vital

for U.S. economic and national security priorities. In fact,

this area contains the largest undeveloped deposits of

nickel, copper and platinum metals in the world. Despite

these abundant resources, the U.S. continues to be

increasingly reliant on foreign sources of metals and

minerals, including from geopolitical adversaries that do not

share our values when it comes to environmental, labor and

safety standards.

The Biden administration's self-sabotage of domestic

mineral supply chains through mineral withdrawals,

restrictions and duplicative permitting processes is

completely out of step with the dramatic increase in minerals

production that is needed in the coming decades to keep up

with new technologies, infrastructure and manufacturing

needs, let alone the administration's energy transition

goals. Instead of ceding our nation's mineral supply chain

security to other countries, the U.S. should utilize its

world-class environmental standards to produce

needed minerals while protecting our environment.

H.R. 3195 supports responsible mineral exploration and

development in an area specifically designated and set aside

by Congress and the U.S. Forest Service for such activities.

The administration's anti-mining actions continue a dangerous

trend of politicizing domestic mineral supply chains first

initiated in the waning days of the Obama administration.

Continuing to pursue dangerous policies that lock up federal

lands with high mineral potential will both kill future

mineral development in this region and deny the hard-working

men and women of Northern Minnesota the opportunity of high-

paying jobs--all, while eliminating significant revenues for

Minnesota's rural communities that come from these projects

in the form of taxes and royalties. These revenues support

local schools and important regional development projects.

Currently, less than half of the mineral needs of U.S.

manufacturing are met by domestically mined minerals. H.R.

3195 will help change this alarming trajectory by ensuring

access to one of our nation's important mineral deposits.

The NMA urges passage of this important legislation and

continued trust of our nation's strong environmental

regulations and system of due process to strengthen a

reliable and stable domestic mineral supply chain for the

future.

Sincerely,

Rich Nolan.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this piece of legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, the so-called WEST Act.

I have great respect for the chairman and the Member who has authored this particular piece of legislation, but we strongly disagree about this particular bill, and I want to tell you why.

First and foremost, just by way of context, we have been on the House floor all day today, the better part of a few hours, debating proposals that the majority has submitted that would roll back environmental protections.

House Republicans want to remove protections for pristine Boundary Waters watershed in Minnesota. They want to eliminate protections for endangered species. As we heard during the last debate, apparently now they want to increase the use of poisonous lead ammunition. This is not what this august body should be spending its time focused on.

Unfortunately, H.R. 3397 is just more of the same. Now, I heard during the presentation by my distinguished colleague on the other side of the aisle reference to hamburgers, the cost of gasoline, and mansions, I believe, none of which have anything to do with this particular bill, Mr. Speaker.

I want to try to explain to the American people what this bill is all about. The Biden administration, in short, has taken steps to enhance public land stewardship. House Republicans are standing in the way.

What do I mean by that? Two weeks ago, on April 18, the Biden administration released the Bureau of Land Management's Conservation and Landscape Health Final Rule, or what has been referred to as the public lands rule.

The rule is a necessary and long overdue update to the agency's framework for public lands management. In particular, the rule will protect clean water, clean air, and wildlife habitat. It will promote the restoration of degraded landscapes. It will ensure that decisions are based on the best available science in collaboration with Tribal, local, and rural communities. That, Mr. Speaker, is progress.

Here is what the bill does not do: It does not disallow or preclude any one of the multiple uses that the chairman referenced during the opening of this particular debate. As my colleagues on the other side have described the rule, I think I heard the word duplicative. The rule is either duplicative or, in the view of the majority, as they have said, it ends all uses of all land in all of the country. It can't be both.

Clearly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle take issue with this particular rule and its protection of wildlife and its inclusion of conservation. I understand that disagreement, but the American people do not agree with that position.

The Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, just by way of background, manages more than 245 million acres of Federal public land, which is roughly one-tenth of America's land base. In my home State of Colorado, the BLM manages more than 8.3 million acres of land.

Many of those acres are near my district; just by way of example, the Yampa Valley Trail in Moffat County.

This includes, by the way, national conservation lands, a collection of revered, treasured landscapes, recreation destinations, other special places that are managed to protect resources to us as Americans. These lands stretch across the Rocky Mountain West. Our citizens, our constituents, rely on these lands, and that is why this rule is such a critical development.

It is also why this rule is so popular. Mr. Speaker, over 90 percent of the comments received during the extensive public comment period were positive. Those comments came from local community leaders, outdoor recreation industry, scientists, small businesses, Tribal communities, many others, citizens in my State and States across the West. They want to see our public lands managed in a balanced and sustainable manner that will promote access and resilience, and that is exactly what the Biden administration has achieved with this new rule and why I am proud to support it.

Now, again, I don't want to belabor this point, but it bears repeating. Despite the claims from my Republican colleagues, the plain language of this rule does not prioritize one use over another. It does not do that. I encourage any American who wishes to learn more to look at the plain language of the rule. It simply puts conservation on equal footing with livestock grazing, mining, and oil and gas development. It doesn't block or stifle development. It achieves a critical balance, and that balance is important; a reasonable balance, a prudent balance.

I support this rule because it will enable us to make science-based and informed decisions about the management of our Nation's public lands. I would encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule for the same reason. If they do, I would encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill, which seeks to undermine those efforts, and to oppose the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.

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

Mr. Speaker, look, I have, again, great respect for the chairman and the gentleman from Utah who just spoke, but balance is exactly what we are trying to achieve. As a Representative from the West, I can tell you that my constituents support this rule, as do the vast majority of folks out West.

There have been these repeated references to Washington. I think the phrase was Washington bureaucrats. I don't know about the gentleman from Utah. Perhaps he doesn't have a relationship with the land management in his State. I certainly have a very productive and robust relationship with our BLM partners in Colorado, including the Western headquarters, which is based in Grand Junction, Colorado--one of the reasons, by the way, that one of the comment sessions, the forums hosted by the BLM with respect to the rulemaking on this particular rule, was held in Colorado.

The agency is listening to the folks on the ground, to citizens, to folks in rural America, to folks in the Rocky Mountain West, to hunters and anglers who, by the way, also support this rule.

There have been multiple references to this notion that somehow, by the BLM promulgating this rule, that enables multiple use and does not put one use ahead of another, that that would somehow negatively implicate hunters or anglers--not true.

How do we know it is not true? Because the back-country hunters and anglers sent a letter yesterday to the Speaker of the House. I will read from it:

We strongly urge the House of Representatives to vote

``no'' on these bills. The bills that they are referencing

include, among others, the WEST Act.

In particular, I will again read from their letter, not my words:

H.R. 3397, that is the WEST Act, would prohibit the

implementation of the recently finalized BLM public lands

rule. Hunters and anglers widely supported this forward-

looking, comprehensive rule that will have a meaningful

impact on fish and wildlife habitat by prioritizing

conservation and restoration alongside other types of land

use.

This is a reasonable rule. It is a prudent rule that unfortunately is being threatened by this extreme bill that I don't think the majority of the American people will support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

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

I would just simply add, and then I know we will continue with this debate, but echoing the sentiments of my colleague from California, there have been repeated, in my view, misstatements about the full ambit of the BLM rule.

To be crystal clear, this is from the executive summary of the rule, it says: ``To support efforts to protect and restore public lands, the proposed rule clarifies that conservation is a use on par with other uses of the public lands under FLPMA's multiple-use and sustained-yield framework.''

This is later in the same summary: ``The rule does not prioritize conservation above other uses. Instead, it provides for considering and, where appropriate, implementing or authorizing conservation. . . .'' on an equal footing with other uses consistent with the plain language of FLPMA. That is from the rule. Context matters, and I think it is an important clarification.

Lastly, I would say, Mr. Speaker, there was some commentary with respect to the full spectrum of engagement by the BLM with citizens across the country as it was promulgating this rule and reference was made to the locations where these forums were held.

I trust that the chairman, my good friend from Arkansas, has been to the communities that he listed--I certainly have--to Reno, to Albuquerque, and to Denver, and I can tell him that every one of those municipalities is nestled within 10, 15, 20, 25 miles of extensive lands that are managed both by the BLM and the Forest Service. How do I know? Because I live in Colorado, and I happen to represent many acres of land managed by the BLM.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

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

I would just simply say, again, there have been a number of misstatements with respect to the constitutionality and the statutory authority of this particular rule that has been promulgated by the BLM.

It is clearly constitutional. It is consistent with the statutory authority that Congress has ultimately conveyed to the BLM via FLPMA. You don't have to take my word for it. You can read the statute. Section 302 very clearly states that the agency has the authority to ultimately ensure multiple use by ``the management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.''

Now, that phrase arguably could be nebulous to some. Well, the good news is that Congress did, in fact, clarify what those present and future needs of the American people happen to be. Again, I will quote from the statute: ``The use of some land for less than all of the resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural, scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the . . . productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.''

That is the statute. You have the statutory authority supporting a rule that by its plain language simply puts conservation on par with other uses. This is not complicated.

The American people support this rule. Hunters and anglers support this rule. Recreationists support this rule. Constituents in Colorado and States across the West support this rule, and so should the Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Speaker, I have participated in a lot of debates during my time in Congress. This has got to be one of the most confounding for me, because repeatedly, unfortunately, I have colleagues, friends on the other side of the aisle, making statements about what this rule does when the plain language of the rule says the exact opposite.

There are folks here in the gallery, I suspect, who are just as confused as I am. One need look no further than the plain language of the rule. The rule says that it is putting conservation on par with these other uses. Grazing is allowed under the rule. Oil and gas development is allowed under the rule. Conservation is allowed under the rule.

If my colleagues don't want conservation considered by the BLM with respect to how these lands are managed, which is clearly what they believe, then they should just say so.

They should just be candid with the American people that they don't think these lands should be managed with conservation in mind at all. I disagree with that view, and the American people disagree with that view, but that is an intellectually honest position.

Be that as it may, don't mischaracterize the rule that the agency ultimately promulgated because the American people can see it for themselves. They can read the same plain language that I have read repeatedly on the House floor over the course of the last hour of debate.

Mr. Speaker, Congress charged the Bureau of Land Management with seeking balance statutorily. That is the word we used in the statute giving BLM its authority: ``so that they are utilized in a combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.'' That is what the Biden administration has done with respect to the development of this rule.

When we had the hearing on this bill in the Natural Resources Committee, a constituent of mine testified in support of the bill. Eagle County Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry said that she made the trip to Washington to be here to support this particular rule.

I think her testimony said it best, so I will quote it here: ``I support the BLM's proposed public lands rule. It will empower the agency to deliver on its multiple-use mandate by placing conservation values on equal footing with other uses on our public lands.''

That is it. People in Colorado, in my State, in my district, and throughout the West rely on our public lands for a wide variety of uses and benefits.

I speak with some authority on this particular subject because I represent a congressional district that is larger than eight States in the Union. That includes over 40 percent of it being public lands managed by the BLM and the Forest Service. When I talk about the need to prioritize resilience and balance, I speak about it on behalf of those communities that I am so honored to represent.

I appreciate the dialogue that we have had with my colleague from Utah and, of course, with my friend, the chairman from Arkansas, but I respectfully disagree with respect to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that perhaps my colleagues will see the light and vote against H.R. 3397. I certainly will be. I yield back the balance of my time.