Alaska’s Right to Produce 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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, once again, instead of dealing with the real problems facing Americans every day, we are back on the House floor talking about the GOP agenda--guns, oil, and polluters. It is a relentless mission to wreak havoc on our planet and communities, but before we go into the merits of this bill, here is a dose of reality.

Last year, as our Republican friends turned a blind eye, the global climate surpassed 2 degrees Celsius, a threshold that ought to be taken quite seriously. For the first time in recorded history, we passed this threshold, and that made it the hottest year on record.

Experts have determined that a 2-degree rise in global temperatures will inarguably cause dangerous and cascading effects on humans and our planet. That hasn't stopped my colleagues across the aisle. It is as if the majority is playing a dangerous game of chicken with our environment, betting against Mother Nature.

In the disaster department, 2023 was a showcase of calamity. We tallied up a staggering $63 billion in weather-related catastrophes. This includes 19 severe storms, 2 tropical cyclones, 4 floods, a winter weather event, a drought, and a wildfire event. It is as if Republicans were sitting on the front row with the popcorn in their hands, leaning over to ask their oil and gas buddies what they needed in addition to all the other giveaways they have received from the Republican majority.

There is actually even more. In a display of unparalleled negligence, 2023 also came with 10 oil tanker spills because apparently the GOP agenda is also: Spill, baby, spill, and let the taxpayer foot the bill.

We are not even talking yet about pipeline leaks. Every day in America, some aspect of this spiderweb of fossil fuel infrastructure is exploding, bursting, leaking, spilling. Last fall, there were almost 1.1 million gallons of crude oil released into the Gulf of Mexico, yet my friends across the aisle don't ever legislate about that or do oversight about that. Republican Members don't talk about it or acknowledge it. One has to wonder if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle even care about it.

Here we are again with an effort to expand our Nation's carbon footprint and expose our coastal communities to future disasters and oil spills. Not only does this bill grant access to one of our most ecologically sensitive and difficult regions to productively drill, but it reverses significant strides by the Biden administration to protect lands that Tribal nations have occupied and held sacred since time immemorial.

The Arctic refuge is one of the last truly wild places left in America, and the urgency to preserve the Arctic refuge transcends environmental concerns. It is a rallying cry against irreversible devastation and destruction, things that would fundamentally change and ruin this unique, fragile, and wild place.

The coastal plain, which is the heart of the Porcupine caribou herd's calving grounds, hosts nearly 200 migratory bird species annually. Equally vital, the 9,000-strong Gwich'in Nation, whose subsistence and culture depend on the caribou herd, resides along the migratory route. This means that development in this area would disrupt not only biodiversity, but it would be an assault on their indigenous livelihoods and traditions.

We have already seen how that plays out. In Nuiqsut, the Alaska Native village nearest to the Willow oil and gas project, 70 percent of households rely on subsistence resources for more than half of their diet. With the new Willow development, hunters are being forced to travel farther and farther to find resources and avoid hunting grounds that are now dominated by the fossil fuel industry. Rolling back NPR-A protections would make matters even worse.

In the Bering Sea, which is home to many unique marine ecosystems and rich in indigenous cultures, sea ice is melting earlier and freezing later. This threatens access to subsistence hunting and fishing grounds. Any increased vessel traffic related to oil and gas development would further stress and create risk for an already vulnerable ecosystem.

Exploiting these sensitive areas is equivalent to sacrificing those on the front lines of the climate crisis as martyrs in order to temporarily quench the insatiable thirst of Big Oil for money.

Let's get one more thing clear. The drilling that would be green- lighted in this bill would not make us energy independent. The United States is already the number one producer of oil and gas in the world. We are exporting record amounts of fossil fuel, but consumers still get hit with price shocks

anytime OPEC decides to raise prices or Russia starts a war in Europe because oil and gas are global commodities.

Fossil fuel dependence is not true energy independence because you are always on the roller coaster. You are always subject to the whims of some cartel, somebody gaming the global commodity market, some explosion, some international event.

If we want energy independence, we need a transition to clean energy, which is cheaper, safer, and generated entirely here at home, instead of being at the mercy of global price shocks like oil and gas.

The Republican agenda is predictable, repetitive, and dangerous. They need to stop putting polluters over people.

Enough is enough. We can no longer exploit our frontline communities and delicate ecosystems to pad the pockets of the fossil fuel industries and its GOP cronies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate my colleague's love of tennis, our mutual love of tennis and his sense of humor. I have less appreciation when he draws tortured analogies to international sanctions and national security issues. It is just hard to take that kind of sanctimony seriously from somebody who just last week voted, along with the majority of the House Republican Conference, to hand Ukraine over to Vladimir Putin.

As I often say in these debates, you have to take a lot of this political theater with a grain of salt, in this case, with a glass of vodka.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alaska (Mrs. Peltola).

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a master class in deflection. I think perhaps the fact that a majority of the Republican Conference voted to hand Ukraine to Russia last week has touched a nerve as people have begun to consider the reality of that.

Going back and trying to deflect to a pipeline from many years ago that no longer even functions, because it was blown up, certainly doesn't change the fact that last week when we had a chance to vote for critical lifeline military support for Ukraine as it fights for its survival against Russia, a significant majority of my colleagues across the aisle voted ``no.''

They voted with Vladimir Putin and so congratulations on the deflection. Moscow Marge couldn't have done it any better. It might even make the highlight reel on RT tonight.

I don't watch that network, but I just have to wonder if maybe there wouldn't be coverage of some of these things that we are hearing from across the aisle.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is getting almost comical. I have now heard yet another speech pretending to oppose Vladimir Putin and Russia less than a week after the gentleman who just spoke voted to hand Ukraine over to Putin, voted ``no'' on essential military aid to our Ukrainian allies who are fighting for their very existence against this terrible war of aggression by Vladimir Putin made possible and financed, of course, by the fossil fuel industry in Russia, which American oil and gas companies truly helped to develop.

You just have to wonder if there is not a lot of damage control underway right now across the aisle. Maybe folks realize just how reckless and dangerous that vote against Ukraine was last week, that vote that a majority, solid majority of my Republican friends took right along with Moscow Marge and the rest of the pro-Putin caucus.

I am going to keep bringing this up each time I hear one of these anti-Ukraine voters pretend to care about Ukraine or pretend to oppose Vladimir Putin and Russia because last week they had a chance to actually show their colors, and we saw their colors.

There is another way in which they are really doing a great favor to Vladimir Putin and Russia, and it is by opposing the clean energy transition at every turn and in every possible way. Vladimir Putin's worst nightmare is to break the fossil fuel paradigm that made him rich and powerful, that enabled him to have all this influence and leverage over Europe because a clean energy economy would make him irrelevant. It would make him a lot less powerful.

Go ahead and keep helping Vladimir Putin with your votes, with your energy policy, but we are going to stand for a clean energy transition, and we are going to support Ukraine.

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

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

I thank the gentleman from Washington for his refreshingly rare vote for Ukraine military aid and also the chairman, Mr. Westerman, for joining Democrats in that very important vote in the interests of our national security.

I think, as we continue with this debate, it is worth talking about just what a fiscal and financial boondoggle drilling in the Arctic refuge is. It is, first of all, a proposition that is so deeply unpopular that the only way it became law was to sneak it into the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Trump tax scam.

Two lease sales were included in the legislation to partly offset tax cuts for the wealthy. Initially, Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration claimed that these lease sales would bring in $1.8 billion in revenues for the Federal Government and the State of Alaska through bonus bids, and they proceeded to give a whole bunch of tax cuts away to billionaires and corporations on the basis of this illusory offset.

Later, the Congressional Budget Office lowered the estimate to $900 million, specifically $725 million for the first lease sale. Fast forward to the first lease sale that finally took place in 2021 in the final days of the Trump administration. Guess what happened? Well, it generated less than $15 million--not billion--in bonus bids, around 2 percent of what even CBO's reduced estimate had projected.

In 2022, two of those lessees actually asked BLM to cancel and refund their leases. They wanted out. Separately in 2021, two development companies, Chevron and Hilcorp, paid $10 million to get out, just to walk away from their legacy leases in the Arctic refuge. At least five major U.S. banks and 18 other international banks have said they won't finance drilling in the refuge.

If my Republican colleagues are interested in Federal revenues, if they are interested in fiscal conservatism, I am sorry to say that the pristine Alaska wilderness is not their piggy bank, and, in any event, it turns out that it is empty.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I sometimes feel like, serving in this Congress, I need a good chiropractor because you just political whiplash one day to another, one week to another.

Just now, my friend from Louisiana, in service of the fossil fuel agenda, made a sanctimonious speech opposing Russia and Vladimir Putin as if the whole country, the whole world, didn't watch his vote last week with the rest of his Republican Conference to hand Ukraine over to Russia, to vote ``no'' on critical military aid to Ukraine.

It is like that. It is remarkable whiplash.

My friend has the ability to actually criticize the air quality in California caused by catastrophic wildfires driven by the climate crisis caused by our fossil fuel addiction and suggests that that is because of California's climate agenda, which is absurd, while ignoring the fact that the one place of persistent air pollution and respiratory illness and other problems with air quality in California is in the oil patch, Bakersfield, former Speaker McCarthy's district where it is frankly a lot like Louisiana and Texas. It is pretty rich.

Yet, we also have a Record if anybody is interested in cutting through the political theater and seeing where people really stand, including last week's vote against Ukraine.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that if our friends across the aisle are so concerned with American energy bills, you would think they would at some point say no to the LNG export extravaganza that all serious economic analysis shows is driving up U.S. energy prices. Yet, they continue to come to this floor to introduce legislation and advocate against the commonsense pause that the Biden administration has taken so that we can look at the impacts of more LNG export infrastructure on U.S. energy prices as well as our climate crisis.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentleman from Arkansas talk about energy subsidies and to criticize the subsidies that he believes should be questioned for clean energy.

I hope he has the same concern about the much greater amount of subsidy, especially if you consider all the environmental externalities that taxpayers just pick up the tab for and have for the past hundred years when it comes to the fossil fuel industry.

There is a lot of work we could do together to take inappropriate subsidies out of U.S. energy policy, and I hope the gentleman would be interested in that.

I want to assure him when it comes to the forestry and trees and air quality part of our conversation that the wildfires and the air quality problems in California, because of them, are not something you can log your way out of.

I know the gentleman is interested in forest management, and there is a lot that we could work on there together as well for healthy forests. Some of the worst wildfires in California that produced the worst air quality were through heavily cutover land where there had been all the clear-cutting anybody could ever want.

The same can be said for some of the terrible Canadian wildfires last year that gave us awful air quality right here in Washington, D.C. Much of that ripped right through heavily cutover, clear-cut land.

Logging, you know, is not the simple solution to these problems. A better solution is to step back and realize the climate crisis that is driving it and to begin working together to actually reduce the worst impacts of that crisis.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I oppose this bill. We have massive wildfires, prolonged droughts, stronger hurricanes, and coastal flooding. All across this country, our communities are feeling the increased severity and frequency of tragic events from the climate crisis, sending us dire warnings.

The crisis is real, it is here, and we need to act now for the sake of this planet and future generations.

In the Arctic, temperatures are rising four times faster than the global average. In the indigenous communities in northern Alaska who are so disproportionately facing the devastating impacts of the climate crisis, we must also pay attention to the impacts on them.

The melting permafrost is creating our country's first but not last climate refugees. Changing species migration patterns are threatening food security and cultural continuity. Oil and gas development only exacerbates all of these impacts.

Of course, not all Alaskans, including indigenous Alaskans, share the same perspective on oil and gas development. Native American Tribes are not a monolith.

You can bet that whenever my friends across the aisle can find some indigenous individual or advocacy group or other entity that supports oil and gas development, they are going to wrap themselves around Tribal consultation and pretend to be great champions for Indian Country.

In many other votes, when Indian Country opposes pipelines and dams and mining projects and other things that are against their interests, I am afraid the Tribes are thrown under the bus by my Republican friends pretty much every time.

Revenue from extraction often supports local governments and indigenous regional and village corporations.

That is part of the consideration in Alaska, but in so many cases, the tradeoffs create unacceptable impacts as well. That is why it is not a monolith when you talk to indigenous communities in Alaska.

This bill is an instrument of blunt force that allows for extraction across Alaska in places that are too special and too fragile to drill.

It would reinstate oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area known to the Gwich'in people as ``The sacred place where life begins.'' These were leases the Biden administration canceled because they were based on shoddy Trump-era analyses.

The bill would withdraw the administration's rule to protect over 13 million acres of public land in the NPR-A, a region that is already feeling the impacts of oil and gas development.

It would undo protection of 125 million acres of the Arctic Ocean from offshore drilling, and it would undo the reinstatement of the Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area. In the Bering Sea, an oil spill would be beyond detrimental. It would be catastrophic.

Rolling back these protections is the wrong approach. We can't simply give these lands and waters away to the highest bidder.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

We have a process problem. Last week, the Rules Committee issued a notice for amendment submission for this bill, and 16 amendments were submitted: 12 from Democrats, 4 from Republicans.

We really should be having an open, robust, and lively debate, but no. The amendment debate this afternoon will be really quick because all six Natural Resources bills up this week, with all six of those bills, this is the only bill that was open to any amendments, and Republicans made only one, this one, this fossil fuel industry wish. That was the only one made in order.

Republicans have made a mockery of what they promised, and they boasted about back in the early days of this Congress.

They guaranteed it would be a robust and open process. Half the time, the Rules Committee isn't even open, but when it is, it is cooking the books like we see this week with this one single amendment for us to debate.

With other bills that have been up this afternoon, the so-called Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, my colleague, Representative Leger Fernandez, filed several amendments, amendments that Ranking Member Grijalva previously offered at the bill's markup.

They would prevent foreign bad actors, for example, including adversaries like China from mining our Federal lands, something that is all too common today through their thinly veiled American subsidiaries, but no, that was not ruled in order, so we don't get to talk about it.

Yesterday at the Rules Committee hearing, Chair Westerman told us he didn't accept the amendment because it wasn't worded properly.

Well, this language was already in the Republicans' prized H.R. 1 where it was included as a Republican amendment, so it is hard to take that argument seriously.

Maybe they realized H.R. 1 would never become law and that is why more than a year later, Republicans still haven't sent that bill even to the Senate, or maybe they realized foreign bad actors also happen to be padding their pockets.

If that is not the case, I am eager to continue working across the aisle to get these bad actors off our Federal lands, and we will be following up.

Now, back to Alaska. The amendment we are here to debate would do nothing but make the bill more extreme. It would prevent the administration from designating any further special areas without an act of Congress, preventing further protections for an area that is so fragile, special, and ecologically important.

They blocked debate on every other amendment, including my amendment to require a study on the impacts to subsistence resources, another to prohibit the Secretary from issuing the lease sale until revenue is raised at least to the level that CBO estimates, and one to prohibit oil and gas leasing in the Arctic Ocean.

Representative Peltola, the sole House Representative for Alaska, filed an amendment to protect the critically important Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area, but Republicans refused to let that proceed. This is not good faith debate.

I will end with a word about my friend's statement that he asked Secretary Haaland repeatedly about Tribal consultation. My friend would have been well-served to listen to Secretary Haaland and learn a thing or two about Tribal consultation. She is the highest-ranking indigenous person in American history. She knows a thing or two about this subject, including the fact that a nonprofit advocacy group, which is the consultation that my friend was referring to, is not a group she has to meet with or consult as part of Tribal consultation.

Tribal consultation is government to government. That is how it works. If there was a little more listening and a little less screaming and table-pounding, there might be a better understanding of Tribal consultation across the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call up the bill (H.R. 6285) to ratify and approve all authorizations, permits, verifications, extensions, biological opinions, incidental take statements, and any other approvals or orders issued pursuant to Federal law necessary for the establishment and administration of the Coastal Plain oil and gas leasing program, 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. 6285.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6285, Alaska's Right to Produce Act.

H.R. 6285, introduced by Congressman Stauber, would block the Biden administration's attacks on Alaska, its North Slope communities, and their elected indigenous leaders.

Last September, the Biden administration announced two decisions that would disenfranchise Alaskan and North Slope communities.

First, the administration announced it was rescinding energy leases in the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR.

When it passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Congress approved and mandated the Department of the Interior for commercial leasing, exploration, development, and production in the 1002 Area. Production in the 1002 Area would be limited to roughly 2,000 acres out of the 19- million-acre refuge. This is just a tiny postage stamp when looking at the big picture.

Specifically, the law required the Department to conduct two lease sales in ANWR, the first by December 2021 and the second by December 2024. The Trump administration held the first lease sale, but the Biden administration immediately halted it and canceled the leases without warning last September.

Again, this was a law passed by Congress. Congress mandated lease sales in the 1002 Area with the goal of improving energy security and generating revenue for our country, the State of Alaska, and local communities on the North Slope. The funds these energy projects generate are necessary to support public projects and basic amenities, like roads and modern water and sewer systems, which have only recently arrived on the North Slope within the last 40 years. These amenities are ubiquitous to the lower 48, but the infrastructure is still being developed up in the North Slope.

In a hearing on these issues in September, Nagruk Harcharek, president of The Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, testified on the importance of energy production to quality of life for Alaskans living on the North Slope: ``We can quantify the powerful impact of these projects by observing the increase of life expectancy on the North Slope. In 1969, before our people had any land rights and no economic prospects as a result, life expectancy was just 34 years. By 1980, our average life expectancy was 65, roughly equivalent with Libya and lower than North Korea. Today, our people can expect to live to an average of 77 years. This increase, the most dramatic in the United States, can be directly connected to the proliferation of a basic economy, modern infrastructure, and services supported by resource development projects.''

While the administration canceled the ANWR leases, it also issued a proposed rulemaking for the management of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, or NPR-A. This rulemaking, the final version of which was announced 2 weeks ago, would lock up 13 million acres out of the 23 million acres that comprise the petroleum reserve and make it more challenging to conduct exploration and production activities in the rest of the petroleum reserve.

To make matters worse, meaningful engagement with local governments, Alaska Native corporations, federally recognized Tribes, and Tribal nonprofits across the North Slope of Alaska was severely lacking throughout the rulemaking process. It was utterly nonexistent before the rule was proposed. Additionally, an affront to the communities on the North Slope, the rule was proposed during the whaling season and overlapped with the ANWR comment period.

When pressed to provide more time to comment during a virtual meeting, Department officials explained that they couldn't extend the comment period further because of the Congressional Review Act.

These actions and the utter lack of meaningful engagement and input were panned by the entire Alaska delegation, along with every elected official, local governments, Alaska Native corporations, federally recognized Tribes, and Tribal nonprofits across the North Slope of Alaska.

Again, I thank Congressman Stauber for his work on this bill to repeal these disastrous actions by the Biden administration and for listening to the voices of Alaskans.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 6285, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the lead sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on the HEAT team.

I will also point out to the American people that the Biden administration is the gift that keeps on giving to Putin. Not only would they not put sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, now they have put sanctions on U.S. pipelines.

They have put a pause on LNG gas exports. Our friends in Europe, Germany, and Poland would love to have our LNG. They would love to have U.S. LNG, but guess what? We have got a lot of it, but we can't send it there because this President not only won't restrict Russia, he restricts American producers and allows Putin to continue to fund his war machine by selling gas to Europe.

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

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

I love the way my colleague across the aisle operates. He talks about deflecting when what he is doing is deflecting. He is trying to deflect from the issue in Alaska--where, once again, the Biden administration has failed miserably--by talking about Ukraine.

I don't know if the gentleman has checked the voting record, but I voted to support Ukraine. It is regrettable that we have to send more foreign aid, more military equipment to support countries that are fighting against evil regimes like Putin, like Iran because of bad foreign policy, and a lot of it has to do with energy policy.

I would prefer not to have to vote to send more military aid to our allies and our friends who are fighting for freedom and democracy, but this President and his administration has put us in a weakened place on the world stage, and, unfortunately, we have to take votes like that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate Mr. Hern's leadership on the RSC and the establishment of the HEAT team and the efforts that they have been putting into making sure we are energy independent here in America.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), the chairman of the Western Caucus.

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

I just have to take issue with this issue about lackluster sales or lackluster lease sales. I note that the first ANWR lease sale was held in early 2021

during the throes of the COVID pandemic when oil prices were historically low, and the argument is that the administration projected, the Trump administration projected $1.8 billion from ANWR lease sales over 10 years, and my friends are arguing they only made less than 1 percent of those initial projections. They are not telling, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story.

This one sale was held after the election of President Biden who said on the campaign trail that he would end oil and gas production on Federal lands. I have to point out to my friends that revenue comes from oil and gas royalties based on production, not leasing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

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

Mr. Speaker, a lot of things to contest here and issues to cover, but I want to start with this idea of environmental treasures and this idea that ANWR is this environmental treasure that was never intended for any kind of development. Let's look at a little history.

When ANWR was created in 1980, the law included a section, section 1002, setting aside 1.5 million acres of the coastal plain to be assessed for its development potential. After years of careful study, in 1987, the Department of the Interior recommended that the 1002 Area be open to responsible development projects.

The Alaska Native village of Kaktovik, which has public interest in the lands in ANWR and multiple entities as members of Voice, is the sole community located in the 1002 Area of ANWR and the only community located in all of the over 19 million acres of ANWR.

The president of Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation testified: ``We are a small community that suffers as the Federal winds blow and feel the Biden administration is working to effectively erase us from the land that we have inhabited for hundreds of years. Since 1980, we have fought to open the 1002 Area, also known as the coastal plain, to oil drilling and pursue economic freedom.''

On to another issue that my friend from California mentioned about the poor air quality there due to forest fires: if my colleagues would work with us on that, we could fix that issue, as well.

What California has is very poor forest management. They have a hands-off approach to forest management. As a result of that, we are even losing giant sequoias. As much as 20 percent of the ones on the planet we lost in 2 years due to catastrophic wildfire were not because of climate change but because fire had been suppressed in those groves for over 100 years. They finally had to pay the piper. You had white fir trees that grew up into the lower canopy of the giant sequoias. My colleague from California knows I am a forester and would love to help fix some of those problems with forests in California.

Now, to this issue about energy cost and reliability, as my friends across the aisle are pushing for more and more solar and wind, I am an all-of-the-above energy kind of guy. I would love to have more solar and wind, but we have to have baseload power. We have to have either coal or natural gas or a lot more hydro or a lot more nuclear power.

Going back to an earlier discussion that nuclear power is generated from uranium and that we are now dependent on Russia, we have to buy our uranium--most of it--from Russia or Kazakhstan to generate our nuclear power.

When we talk about low-cost solar energy, I have a real problem with that. Maybe it is low cost in the United States because we pay solar farm developers 30 percent of their costs with our tax dollars. If you build a solar farm, you get a 30 percent tax credit back. If you spend a million dollars, you get $300,000 back from your fellow taxpayers. If you build a windmill, you get 2.7 cents per kilowatt hour.

Maybe that is a way that it is lower cost, but if it is truly lower cost, why is the number one manufacturer of solar farms in the world building 50 gigawatts of coal power plants every year? That is China, which we rely on to buy not only the elements and minerals that we need to do electrification but also builds most of the solar panels with Uyghur slave labor. They are building a big coal plant every 5 days.

Now, natural gas in the United States has caused us to be able to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions more than any other country in the world. We are only around 13 percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions now, and China is over twice that.

When we become more dependent on China, when we become more dependent on Russia, who are big polluters, then we are becoming more responsible for global greenhouse gas emissions than if we would use our own energy and our own minerals to build things here, to build them more efficiently and more effectively than any place in the world.

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

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

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

To close, I am going to quote from the testimony of Charles Lampe, the President of the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation who testified on the Biden administration's action in November.

We do not approve of efforts to turn our homeland into one

giant national park, which literally guarantees us a fate

with no economy, no jobs, reduced subsistence, and no hope

for the future of our people.

I urge all my colleagues to show their support for Alaska and the Alaska Native communities on the North Slope by voting for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6285, Alaska's Right to Produce Act.

From Minnesota to Alaska, President Biden has repeatedly prevented the responsible production of America's abundant natural resources.

In Minnesota's Eighth District, which I am proud to represent, the Biden administration banned mining, locking up the world's largest untapped copper-nickel mine in the world.

Now he has turned his focus to the great State of Alaska, where he has made multiple moves to block energy development on Alaska's North Slope.

Last fall, the Biden administration first announced their plans to cancel the remaining oil and gas lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and limit energy development within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. I will repeat that, National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. And within the last 2 weeks, the Biden administration finalized this devastating blow to the Alaska communities.

To quote from the testimony of Charles Lampe, the president of Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation in response to these actions, ``We are a small community that suffers as the Federal winds blow and feel the Biden administration is working to effectively erase us from the land that we have inhabited for hundreds of years.''

These actions have only further reinforced my view that Biden's energy and mining policy can be summed up as ``anywhere but America, any worker but American.''

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration has levied more sanctions against the great State of Alaska than they have Iran. The Biden administration has put 63 sanctions against energy production in Alaska, more than Iran. In fact, they are taking off sanctions from Iran. This administration has taken off sanctions from Iran.

They are punishing the great State of Alaska. It is uncalled for. Not only does this decision run counter to the wishes of Alaska's Tribes and other hardworking Alaskans who stood to benefit from the jobs, opportunities, and revenue that the responsible production of these resources would create, but it will further cement our reliance on Iran, Russia, China, and Venezuela for the energy and natural resources on which we all rely.

Mr. Speaker, how does that make any sense?

As our adversaries become more and more hostile, shouldn't the President be doing everything in his power to make American energy independent once again?

Energy security is national security.

At a time when American families are struggling under the weight of record-high inflation and energy prices due to Biden policies, shouldn't the President be doing everything he can to support domestic energy projects that will create jobs and lower costs?

As the chairman of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, I am proud to introduce the Alaska's Right to Produce Act to allow Alaskans to develop their God-given natural resources. I introduced this commonsense legislation with Alaska's Representative Mary Peltola, a Democrat, and Alaska's two Senators, and I thank them for their leadership on this critical issue.

The Alaskans on the North Slope support this legislation, Mr. Speaker. They support it because the oil and gas revenues allow them to build schools and hospitals, pay for their police, pay for their fire service, have libraries, have the fundamental parts of our communities that we all have and all deserve.

The only way they can sustain that, Mr. Speaker, is allowing things like this to go forward. Alaskans should be proud to ethically and responsibly resource this. Again, there were 63 sanctions against the great State. You have got to be kidding me. As my co-chair of the Tennis Caucus would agree, John McEnroe, ``You have got to be kidding me.'' It is unbelievable. The great people of Alaska deserve better than what this administration is forcing upon them.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

I rise to offer my amendment that strengthens the underlying legislation to prevent the Biden administration from taking further steps to block oil and gas production in the great State of Alaska.

In the Bureau of Land Management's press release announcing the final NPR-A rule, they teased future action by the administration to create new special areas or expand/adjust existing special areas within the boundaries of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. These special areas are a means to lock up acreage from oil and gas production. There is no disputing that.

My amendment prohibits the Department of the Interior from creating or expanding special areas without congressional authorization.

When the administration announced its moratorium and canceled leases in ANWR and withdrew millions of acreage from development within the NPR-A, the local Alaska Native communities on the North Slope weren't given a proper heads-up, just like members of the Navajo Nation heard about the Chaco Canyon withdrawal. Alaska Native community leaders learned of these policy changes in the media.

This administration did not even properly consult with the very communities this oil and gas development would benefit, and it is clear why, because they weren't in lockstep with the administration's policies.

Mr. Speaker, just this morning we had a hearing. I asked the Secretary of the Interior five times if she consulted with the North Slope Native American communities, and she would not answer.

I finally had to go get some emails where they requested a meeting with her, and she denied meeting with them.

Let's make it very clear. The Alaskans on the North Slope requested a meeting with the Secretary of the Interior prior to this rule, and she blew them off. She didn't have the courtesy to meet with them after she was up there in Alaska already.

The administration also held an incredibly short public comment period on these actions. When the Bureau of Land Management was pressed on this

timeline, which was right in the middle of whaling season for the sustenance fishing communities that support oil and gas development, a BLM official responded that the administration wanted a short comment period to rush a rule through in order to prevent it from falling into the Congressional Review Act window.

Mr. Speaker, not only did this administration fail to properly consult with local Native Alaskan communities on the North Slope, but they have taken explicit steps to subvert Congress' constitutional responsibility to serve as a check on the executive branch.

This administration cannot be trusted to do right by the American people. Policies coming out of this administration, especially energy and natural resources policies, undermine the American people and the hardworking men and women who stand ready to responsibly develop our vast natural resources.

That is why Congress must take every step to prevent the administration from pushing forward these policies. We must close every loophole that might be out there to shut down domestic energy production.

This includes preventing the administration from creating new or expanding existing special areas within the NPR-A.

They can't be trusted to do the right thing by the American people and the Alaska Native communities on the North Slope.

Congress must step in. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment, as well as joining me in voting for the underlying legislation.

The Alaskan communities deserve this. They have been producing energy under their feet in their natural resource space for years.

The energy production--we want to be energy independent, and again, the oil and gas royalties will help the North Slope communities, Mr. Speaker.

I said 10 minutes ago they had come to an EMR hearing stating that these royalties help us live, help us buy our food, help us build our infrastructure. Without those revenues, they can't do it. They simply can't do it. In fact, at the EMR hearing, there was a resident that actually was in tears, Mr. Speaker, because of this rule. It is going to be devastating for her and her family to not be able to live on the North Slope comfortably.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Louisiana, I actually liked his expression, and I think my colleague on the other side of the aisle may be offended by this, but you know, my good friend from Louisiana actually said--

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1173 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

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

Madam Speaker, we are here to debate the rule providing for consideration of six bills to support our natural resources, public lands, and outdoor recreation.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the Committee on Natural Resources and provides each bill one motion to recommit.

The rule further provides for consideration of the Antisemitism Awareness Act under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the Committee on the Judiciary and one motion to recommit.

First and foremost, House Republicans stand with Israel and are horrified by the increase in harassment on college campuses toward Israel and its allies. For years, Jewish college students have faced increasing anti-Semitism, and since October 7 there has been an over 300 percent increase in incidents on campuses.

Students are supposed to be protected from harassment, but it has been made abundantly clear that the leaders of these institutions are not going to do anything to stop it. Instead, they are allowing large- scale harassment to reign, forcing Jewish students to stay home.

Since these institutions refuse to protect their students, it is time for Congress to take action. H.R. 6090 clearly defines anti-Semitism according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition. This will empower universities to take clear steps to keep Jewish students safe and respond to hostile, hateful speech not protected under the First Amendment.

Additionally, the bills under this rule protect domestic energy production; reverse the Biden administration's stop to push mineral production in my home State of Minnesota; and, finally, delist the gray wolf from the endangered species list. I am proud to stand in support of these today.

The gray wolf is an ESA success story. Its numbers in most of the country are thriving to the point where they have become a menace across much of northern Minnesota. The only reason it has not been delisted as yet is because there are a handful of activist groups and judges that would like to keep it listed forever. Rather than pushing for radical environmental activism, we should be celebrating the fact that the ESA achieved its goal and gratefully turn management and conservation efforts back to the States.

Madam Speaker, America is home to a wealth of natural resources, but this administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle continue to wage war on domestic production. From energy in Alaska to minerals in Minnesota, the bills under this rule empower our domestic producers.

H.R. 6285 reverses Biden's decision to ban oil and gas development in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, supporting energy independence, good-paying jobs, lower fuel prices, and economic security that comes with it.

H.R. 3397 will ensure rural economies across the West maintain access to public lands for grazing, energy and mineral development, recreation, and timber production.

H.R. 615 upholds State wildlife management authority to protect against baseless claims that traditional lead fishing tackle and ammunition should be restricted.

H.R. 2925 would ensure responsible mineral development can continue on Federal lands. It unlocks mining projects across Western States, returning to the past 100 years of precedence and removing uncertainty created by the Rosemont decision from the Ninth Circuit.

H.R. 3195 helps the United States meet the rise in demand for critical minerals across the world by unlocking access to critical minerals in Minnesota. The Biden administration is leaving America at a disadvantage while adversaries, like China, work to expand their global influence. We cannot let this happen. We can be both good stewards of our public lands and take advantage of the many resources they provide.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

(Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lawler).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York.

Madam Speaker, I am disturbed by my colleagues who are shameless enough to argue in favor of anti-Semitism. It is not covered by the First Amendment. It is hateful.

Universities have been rewarding bad behavior and punishing the ones being attacked, who now don't feel safe enough to go to class. This cannot be the norm.

I am disappointed in the universities that are standing by and allowing this and equally disappointed in my colleagues who do not see it as a problem.

Stopping anti-Semitism is not a messaging tactic like the other side implies. Stopping anti-Semitism is something we must do.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Kean), my colleague.

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

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

House Republicans trust the American people to be good stewards of the land. The amount of regulations in place under this administration is insulting, and it is economically unsound.

While China and our adversaries are bolstering their capabilities, the Biden administration is tying our hands behind our backs. The bills counter Federal Government overreach, empower producers, and protect our lands. I am proud to stand in support of these bills today.

The gray wolf should be taken off the endangered species list. The American people should be permitted to access the wealth of resources this land provides, and they should be trusted to manage their lands at the State level without the Federal Government breathing down their neck at every turn.

Finally, universities are failing to keep their Jewish students safe, so Congress is taking action.

Those in the Jewish community should know that House Republicans support them and condemn the failed actions of universities to intervene. I am hopeful that H.R. 6090 clarifies the definition of anti-Semitism so that these universities finally run out of excuses for their inaction. Stopping anti-Semitism is something we must do.

Madam Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as follows:

An Amendment To H. Res. 1173 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New

Mexico

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 7. Immediatety upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 17) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938

to provide more effective remedies to victims of

discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex,

and for other purposes. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be

considered as read. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment

thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except:

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Education and the Workforce or their respective designees;

and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 17.

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