Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023

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. 615) to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from prohibiting the use of lead ammunition or tackle on certain Federal land or water under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, 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 include extraneous material on H.R. 615.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 615, sponsored by my colleague, Congressman Wittman of Virginia.

This commonsense bill protects hunters' and anglers' ability to continue using cost-effective lead ammunition and fishing equipment in our National Wildlife Refuge System. At the same time, this legislation gives the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the flexibility to make targeted decisions on lead use in refuges based on sound, site-specific science and in coordination with State fish and wildlife agencies.

In the United States, sportsmen's and -women's participation is crucial to the success of wildlife conservation. The North American model of wildlife conservation operates on seven interdependent principles. Embedded in these principles are sound science, active management, and access to hunting and fishing. This model is a success story that is best characterized by the millions of dollars paid by hunters and anglers for wildlife conservation each year through excise taxes on the equipment that they use.

In fiscal year 2024, the Service apportioned nearly $1 billion in receipts from excise taxes on firearms manufacturers. Of that, about $800 million was targeted to wildlife restoration. Similarly, $381 million was generated from excise taxes on fishing equipment for fish conservation.

Last year, after significant pushback from stakeholders and Members of Congress, the Fish and Wildlife Service denied a petition from far- left environmental groups to ban the use of lead ammunition and tackle throughout the system. However, the Fish and Wildlife Service is still pressing ahead with refuge-specific lead bans.

In its 2023-2024 hunting and sports fishing regulations for the system, the Service is banning the use of lead ammunition and tackle in eight refuges. It tries to lessen the blow by expanding access to hunting and fishing in three other refuges, but this expansion also includes a lead ban.

Why does any of this matter? It is about access and how the Service's actions are limiting access.

In 2021, the National Shooting Sports Foundation concluded that lead- free hunting ammunition is, on average, almost 25 percent more expensive than lead. Not only are alternative materials such as copper more expensive, but this administration also continues to push policies that prohibit mining such resources here in America.

Their lead bans will result in decreased hunting and fishing participation for all but the wealthy and a reduction in wildlife conservation and restoration funding.

Instead of regulating hunters and anglers off of our Federal lands, the Service should be working with State managers, conservation organizations, and sportsmen and -women. Where lead is shown to cause harm to wildlife populations, it should be addressed accordingly, but a systemwide ban or refuge-by-refuge bans where no scientific link can be made is the wrong approach and ultimately undermines wildlife conservation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, September 15, 2023.

Hon. Bruce Westerman,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 615, the ``Protecting Access for

Hunters and Anglers Act of 2023''. Thank you for

collaborating with the Committee on Agriculture on the

matters within our jurisdiction.

The Committee on Agriculture will forego any further

consideration of this bill. However, by foregoing

consideration at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction

over any subject matter contained in this or similar

legislation. The Committee on Agriculture also reserves the

right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of

conferees should it become necessary and ask that you support

such a request.

We would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 615 and request a

copy of our letters on this matter be published in the

Congressional Record during Floor consideration.

Sincerely,

Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. The rule this administration put out has absolutely nothing to do with protecting wildlife, wildlife conservation, or protecting human health. As the gentleman alluded to, I believe this bill probably is more aimed at restricting the sale of ammunition and any kind of attack Democrats can take on our Second Amendment rights.

This bill will hurt conservation. It is senseless. It is based on no facts. The Fish and Wildlife Service can't produce a document to show why they should ban lead ammunition or lead fishing tackle. It is simply another move by an administration that wants to write the law instead of letting Congress write the laws and them enforce the laws.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. Speaker, I serve as the co-chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, and I would like to point out that not only does the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation endorse this legislation, but so do organizations such as the Mule Deer Foundation, the American Sportfishing Association, Ducks Unlimited, and Delta Waterfowl. The who's who of sportsmen and -women organizations support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this list of endorsements.

October 27, 2022.

Cosponsor Request: Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act

Dear Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus Member: The

undersigned organizations, representing millions of hunters,

anglers, wildlife professionals, and outdoor enthusiasts are

writing to express our support for the Protecting Access for

Hunters and Anglers Act (S. 4940/H.R. 9088). Introduced by

Senator Steve Daines with a companion bill from

Representatives Rob Wittman and Bruce Westerman, this

legislation would prohibit the Secretaries of Agriculture and

the Interior from prohibiting the use of lead ammunition or

tackle on certain Federal lands and waters absent field data

delineating a science-based nexus to a wildlife species

population decline. Overly broad and arbitrary ammunition and

tackle bans have severe and unnecessary detrimental impacts

on the economy while also serving as a hinderance to fish and

wildlife conservation programs and projects. To that end, we

are united in respectfully requesting that you join as a

cosponsor of this important legislation.

At the outset, it is important to note that with few

exceptions, fish and wildlife are successfully managed at the

population level. Additionally, with the exception of Federal

Trust Species and certain other species, fish and wildlife

management decisions are primarily driven by state fish and

wildlife agencies. With those considerations in mind, in the

very rare occurrences that science-based field-data clearly

delineates a causational nexus between traditional ammunition

or tackle and changes in fish or wildlife population health,

state fish and wildlife agencies already have the ability to

regulate the use of those to both achieve conservation

objectives and minimize impacts to anglers and hunters.

That said, we do not believe wildlife management decisions

should be driven or decided by political motivations,

litigation, at the ballot box or by anyone other than the

applicable fish and wildlife department of the State in which

the specific Federal land or water is located. Furthermore,

we maintain that any restrictions on the use of lead

ammunition and tackle on federal lands and waters by a

federal agency must have the support of the respective state

fish and wildlife agency, which is required by the Protecting

Access for Hunters and Anglers Act. Simply put, this

legislation reaffirms state fish and wildlife management

authority.

In many cases, alternatives to lead ammunition and tackle

that deliver similar performance at a comparable cost simply

do not exist. Therefore, overly broad and arbitrary bans on

traditional ammunition and tackle serve as a disincentive to

the recruitment, retention and reactivation of hunters and

anglers and, as a result, have significant negative economic

consequences for sportsmen and women and local and regional

economies. In addition, these bans result in decreases to the

excise taxes that hunters and anglers voluntarily imposed on

ammunition and fishing tackle as part of the Pittman-

Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, both of which provide the

lion's share of funding for state fish and wildlife

conservation, research, public access to natural resources

and other important programs that promote hunting and fishing

and sustainable populations of fish and wildlife species.

Recently, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) published a final rule that, while expanding access

to hunting and fishing opportunities at certain wildlife

refuges, also seeks to phase out the use of traditional lead

ammunition and fishing tackle. We are disappointed to see the

lack of a science-based justification for the arbitrary

limitation on the use of lead ammunition and tackle. This

rule does not recognize state fish and wildlife as the

primary managers of our nation's fish and wildlife.

Concurrently, litigation initiated by animal rights interests

is pending against a similar, previous rule to expand hunting

and fishing access on national wildlife refuges alleging that

the additional use of lead ammunition and tackle will harm

wildlife species at those refuges. However, those allegations

are not substantiated by science.

The litigation not only lacks scientific justification, but

it is entirely without legal merit. In light of the timing of

this litigation, we are concerned the USFWS has engaged in

settlement negotiations with the litigants. Despite strong

opposition from many of the undersigned, we believe the USFWS

continues conversations with the plaintiff. Furthermore, we

are concerned that an overly broad, onerous and unnecessary

ban on the use of traditional ammunition and tackle in the

National Wildlife Refuge System could be forthcoming.

For these reasons, we strongly support the Protecting

Access for Hunters and Anglers Act (S. 4940/H.R. 9088) and

encourage you to serve as a cosponsor of this vital

legislation.

Thank you for your leadership and continued service on

behalf of America's outdoor heritage.

Sincerely,

American Catnshing Association, American Sportfishing

Association, Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S),

BoatU.S., Boone and Crockett Club, California Waterfowl

Association, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional

Sportsmen's Foundation, Council to Advance Hunting and the

Shooting Sports, Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited,

International Game Fish Association, Major League Fishing,

Marine Retailers Association of the Americas, Mule Deer

Foundation, National Professional Anglers Association,

National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports

Foundation, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, Pope

& Young Club, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club

International, The Bass Federation, Inc., The Walleye

Federation, LLC, Whitetails Unlimited, Wildlife Mississippi.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

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

I appreciate the gentleman pointing out some important facts about how this rule came to be from this administration that is anything but transparent. It is an administration that rejects any kind of oversight. I couldn't even start to tell you how much information they are behind on sending to the committee that we have requested just so we can do oversight, but I can imagine how this meeting probably went down.

The radical environmental groups go over to the administration to have a meeting and the administration says, well, there are no facts, no science, nothing that supports what you are wanting to do. However, wink, wink, if you were to sue us and we went to court, then we could settle that and maybe we will give you a half dozen to a dozen refuges that we will ban lead on and that will make their friends happy. I think that is exactly what happened, and that is why we are here today with a bill in Congress to say you can't do that.

Enough is enough. Manage these lands for the public, not for your special interest radical environmental groups. I think Congress has to take the lead on this.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, hunters and anglers are the backbone of American wildlife conservation efforts and are invested in the long-term health of wildlife.

It is important that Congress comes to their defense against ideologically driven and unscientific decisions that limit access to our public lands.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the big bad government was really basing their actions on science, why did they randomly pick seven wildlife refuges? Why didn't they propose this across the Nation?

Again, this is a classic sue and settle. They got sued by their friends in the radical environmental groups, and they decided to settle and give them a little consolation prize of a few wildlife refuges, thinking we might just turn our backs and say it was just a few refuges. They are just giving a little gift to their friends in the radical environmental movement. Let's go on and work on something else, but you have to stop these actions where they start.

To be clear, this bill doesn't prevent the Federal Government from banning the use of lead ammunition and tackle, but it does say that any ban must be supported by site-specific science showing that the use of lead is harming wildlife in that refuge.

It also requires that States be properly consulted when the Federal Government proposes to ban the use of lead. If some of my colleagues have an issue with that, they must ask themselves if they consider States to be partners in conserving wildlife or stakeholders who they can ignore.

I believe that a true partnership between States and Federal Government and wildlife conservation is the best path forward, and this bill is a step in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Wittman for his leadership on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, 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.

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

General Leave

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

Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule, H. Res. 1455, providing for the House's consideration of seven pieces of legislation.

First, the rule provides for H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, to be considered under a structured rule.

Second, the rule provides for H.R. 4790, the Prioritizing Economic Growth Over Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Third, the rule provides for H.R. 5339, the Protecting Americans' Investments from Woke Policies Act, under a closed rule.

Fourth, the rule provides for H.R. 5179, the Anti-BDS Labeling Act, under a closed rule.

The rule provides for H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, and H.R. 5717, the No Bailouts for Sanctuary Cities Act.

Mr. Speaker, I support this rule and the underlying legislation, beginning with H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act.

As a Member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, we have spent countless hours addressing the serious issues within higher education under the Biden administration, where activism is often prioritized and differing viewpoints are silenced.

These conversations have become increasingly necessary, as we have seen waves of anti-Semitic protests where students are supporting terrorist organizations, and these protests are sweeping the Nation.

Too many institutions of higher education have cowered to the mob of protesters, often compromising the safety and well-being of their students. Freedom of speech is under attack on our campuses nationwide, and it is our students who are paying the price.

This mindset weakens what has historically been the strength of America: free-flowing and open debate at our institutions of learning. We must not let campus activists, woke faculty, and partisan administrators turn post-secondary education into DEI indoctrination camps. Denying speech undermines the very fabric of the Nation and is against everything our Founders intended.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad this legislation includes my Students Bill of Rights Act of 2024, which aims to address the erosion of First Amendment rights faced by students, and provides protections for academic freedom and expression.

Our students should never feel afraid to express their point of view or fear retribution or negative consequences for their future.

This woke mind virus doesn't stop there, which brings me to H.R. 5339, the Protecting American Investments from Woke Policies Act. It protects the retirement savings of workers, retirees, and their families by rolling back woke ESG requirements that have nothing to do with the bottom line.

The bill ensures that financial institutions are focused on maximizing returns in retirement plans rather than advancing the Biden- Harris administration's radical agenda at the expense of American workers. Forcing often underperforming and relatively high-risk investments on our seniors is not what they are asking us to do in this Chamber.

In this spirit, I am glad the bill includes one of my pieces of legislation, the Retirement Proxy Protection Act. The bill ensures that fiduciaries prioritize economic interests of plan beneficiaries when voting on shareholder proposals.

Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 4790, a comprehensive bill package targeting unelected bureaucrats.

Time and time again, this administration has prioritized, again, an ESG agenda and initiatives that are against the well-being of workers and American businesses.

Democrat-appointed bureaucrats are attempting to use regulation to create climate and social policy in our financial markets, ultimately raising costs and limiting growth.

This legislation aims to stop unnecessary political reporting requirements for companies, make Federal regulators more transparent, and reduce the SEC's power over shareholders.

I am proud that another one of my bills, the No Expensive, Stifling Governance Act, or No ESG Act, is included as part of this package.

I will also touch on a bill brought forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaLota), my friend, H.R. 5717, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. Despite the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 clearly stating that no restrictions can be placed on communication between local or State authorities and Federal immigration officials about someone's immigration status, many cities still choose not to comply.

We have known for years that sanctuary cities create incredible challenges for Federal law enforcement, and in doing so, public safety is endangered.

Let's take Aurora, Colorado, for example. They are experiencing unprecedented gang violence due to a neighboring sanctuary city.

We also know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a master class in how to not handle border security. This administration has totally failed, alongside the sanctuary cities, in enforcing our immigration laws because the crime that finds a home in a sanctuary city spreads to other jurisdictions.

If sanctuary cities choose to operate this way and endanger their own communities, neighboring communities, and, ultimately, the entire Nation, then they must be forced to balance their irresponsible choices with the loss of other Federal support. It is pretty simple: If you fail to comply with the law, you should not expect support.

Our constituents understand and also demand that their tax dollars not support sanctuary cities that actively undermine their public safety and our immigration law.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 136 to push back on EPA overregulation, H.R. 5179 to end anti-Israel boycotts, and H.R. 7909, the Violence Against Women Act, which would crack down on crime caused by the Biden-Harris administration's open-border policies.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these important bills, and I urge the passage of this rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague and the chair of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I note that what my colleague, the ranking member, does not note is that this House has passed under Republican leadership more than 300 bills out of the House of Representatives with 92 percent bipartisan support. Many of these bills go to the Democrat- controlled Senate where they die.

The ranking member also likes to criticize this majority when he knows full well just last Congress when he was chair, the Rules Committee was no bastion of an open process.

For the record, here are some statistics that might help paint a better picture and provide context for the cherry-picked numbers the Member rattled off.

It is true there have been more closed rules, but this majority has reported nearly twice the amount of bills in the last Congress. Considered as a percentage, this majority has reported fewer closed rules than when he had the gavel.

Even more, over a third of the closed rules were because no amendments

were offered, making the rule closed by definition.

Not considering those closed rules brings us still at roughly the same rate as a percentage of closed rules from the last Congress but with significantly more bills offered.

I also remind this body that the previous Congress saw the use and abuse of partisan en bloc amendment votes, which created omnibus-style amendments designed to defeat Republican, or tough amendments, and had the practical effect of stifling the Republican minority.

Even with this procedural atrocity, the ranking member still can't claim a higher ground on making minority amendments in order.

We also needed to keep up with the onslaught of regulations from the Biden-Harris administration that they have unleashed on the American people from unelected bureaucrats.

We have considered numerous disapproval resolutions, which traditionally are carried closed because of how they are written. The ranking member carried on this tradition when he had the gavel.

While the ranking member wants to talk about how we are stifling Democrat amendments, this majority has actually made more minority amendments in order as a percentage than the previous Congress when he was calling the shots.

While the ranking member shakes his finger at the majority for the way this Congress has gone, I point out that he understands the unique difficulties and the tough decisions the Rules Committee is tasked with in moving the majority's agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague from South Carolina (Mr. Norman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach).

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

The other side of the aisle won't even deport violent criminals. That is against the very safety of American citizens. In New York City, under Bill de Blasio, they passed a series of sanctuary city policies between 2014 and 2018 that prohibit the New York Police Department and correction and probation departments from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents except under very limited circumstances.

However, now, more than 100,000 migrants have passed through New York City since the spring of 2022, and 58,000 still remain in the city's care. Current Mayor Eric Adams and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, have said: ``We don't have capacity.''

For years, ICE has warned that sanctuary cities create a public safety threat, and they are one of the biggest impediments to public safety efforts. However, under the Biden and Harris administration, the crisis at the southern border has only worsened the consequences of sanctuary policies and made enforcing current immigration laws even more difficult.

H.R. 5717, despite mischaracterizations from my friends on the other side of the aisle, creates an incentive for local jurisdictions to cooperate with Federal immigration officials by prohibiting Federal funds from being used to provide sanctuary for illegal aliens going to sanctuary jurisdictions. Under current law, it creates a perverse incentive for sanctuary cities to willingly flout the law.

H.R. 5717 holds sanctuary cities accountable for exacerbating the Biden-Harris border crisis and flouting Federal immigration law by prohibiting the use of taxpayer dollars to fund housing, healthcare costs, and other benefits for illegal immigrants in such municipalities.

Taxpayers who are at risk due to the border crisis should not be funding local governments not interested in upholding the rule of law. No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities corrects these perverse incentives and ensures that taxpayers are not on the hook for this lawlessness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire if the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is prepared to close.

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

Despite what my colleagues on the left have to say, the American people know that the Biden-Harris administration has been a relentless, woke assault on the American economy, the education system, and even Americans' retirement accounts.

The American people know the Biden-Harris administration has resulted in crippling inflation, a wide-open border, decreasing public safety, and increasing drug overdose deaths.

With the bills before us today, we continue to deliver for the American people. House Republicans are fighting at every turn to secure our borders, restore our economy, and protect free speech and free markets.

The Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act and the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act are commonsense bills that would immediately make our communities safer, something the Biden-Harris administration has repeatedly failed to do. I would hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would support these important bills.

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

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