Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1550) to redesignate Saratoga National Historical Park as Saratoga National Battlefield Park.

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. 1550, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Representative Stefanik's bill, H.R. 1550, which will redesignate the Saratoga National Historical Park located in her district as the Saratoga National Battlefield Park.

Saratoga County, New York, is the fastest growing county in New York State and features a robust economy and world-class tourist destinations for families and history buffs alike. However, this prosperous community in upstate New York would not exist if not for a series of legendary events that took place nearly 250 years ago.

In September 1777, General Horatio Gates led Continental Army troops against the British empire in present-day Saratoga County. In the ensuing Battles of Saratoga, American colonists forged a turning point in the Revolutionary War by routing the British invasion force.

Today, this 3,400-acre site is considered a unit of the National Park System. There, visitors can explore trails and experience the historic battlefield, which includes landmarks, fortifications, and other important structures.

Representative Stefanik's legislation would redesignate this hallowed site as the Saratoga National Battlefield Park, thereby recognizing its significance as a historic battlefield and highlighting the sacrifices made by the soldiers who fought there.

While this area was originally named Saratoga Battlefield Park by the State of New York, the battlefield nomenclature was dropped in 1938 when the area became part of the National Park System. With the battles' upcoming 250th anniversary, however, residents of Saratoga County and New York State have called for renaming the park to clarify its place in the heroic struggle for American independence.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Stefanik for her leadership on this issue. She is a longstanding advocate for honoring America's history and protecting hallowed battlefields. Her leadership was crucial in ensuring the passage of the bipartisan American Battlefield Protection Program Enhancement Act, which was signed into law earlier this year.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), the lead sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill by Representative Stefanik acknowledges a significant site for its pivotal role in American history as we approach our Nation's 250th anniversary.

I urge the adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1829) to require the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain lands within the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, and for other purposes.

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. 1829, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support Congressman Crane's bill, the Apache County and Navajo County Conveyance Act of 2025. This legislation would transfer small parcels of Federal land to Apache and Navajo Counties to expand existing cemeteries.

Located in eastern Arizona, the communities in Pinedale and Alpine are surrounded by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Given the large Federal footprint, both communities have struggled to expand their respective cemeteries, which are currently located on U.S. Forest Service land and operated under a special use permit. If the cemeteries are not expanded, families will be forced to travel long distances to distant cemeteries to visit their deceased relatives.

To address this need, Pinedale and Alpine have worked with their respective counties to identify additional land to expand their cemeteries.

This bill provides a straightforward, commonsense solution by transferring U.S. Forest Service land adjacent to the cemeteries to the respective counties.

While this is a straightforward bill, I think many of us can attest to the invaluable role a burial place can play in the grieving process. Burial sites are sacred, eternal resting places that provide closure for the families of the deceased. Families should not be forced to travel long distances to lay their loved ones to rest due to the red tape of Federal land ownership.

As chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I fought to elevate the voices of rural communities and highlight their unique challenges. This bill addresses one of those unique challenges.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Crane for his work on this legislation. I support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Crane), the lead sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1829 will ensure that two rural communities in eastern Arizona have the space to lay their beloved community members to rest. I thank Congressman Crane for spearheading this critical issue on behalf of his constituents.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 531) to amend the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 531, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the South Pacific Tuna Treaty Act of 2025, introduced by my friend, Congresswoman Radewagen from American Samoa.

This legislation, which was adopted by voice vote in the House in the 118th Congress, codifies updates to the South Pacific Tuna Treaty that were first agreed to in 2016 and later adopted by the United States Senate in 2022.

The United States first entered into this treaty with 16 Pacific Island nations under President Ronald Reagan. It gives the United States access to some of the most fertile fishing waters that are found anywhere in the world.

This strengthens the United States' tuna fleet, which has experienced a rapid decline in recent decades, while also bolstering the United States' presence in the South Pacific.

The 2016 amendments improved the treaty's execution and clarified specific provisions. However, these important updates have not been codified, which has caused regulatory uncertainty.

Mr. Speaker, adopting this legislation will bring about the next chapter of the United States' engagement in the South Pacific. I thank Mrs. Radewagen for her leadership on this important issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from American Samoa (Mrs. Radewagen), the lead sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, on April 17, American Samoa celebrated 125 years as a territory of the United States. As we observe this historic milestone, enacting this legislation will ensure that the United States will continue its strong presence in the Pacific region.

When President Reagan first signed the legislation that established this treaty in the 1980s, he spoke of the bonds of friendship and affection that unite our people. This bill will ensure that these important partnerships will continue for years and decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Radewagen once again for her tireless work on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support its swift passage, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 249) to redesignate certain facilities at Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park in honor of Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 249, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 249, introduced by Representative Pallone, which would redesignate

certain amenities at Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park in honor of the late Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr.

Specifically, this bipartisan bill would rename two sites within the historical park as the Bill Pascrell, Jr. Scenic Overlook Trail Bridge and the Bill Pascrell, Jr. Overlook Park.

Paterson, New Jersey, was home to Congressman Pascrell, a former Member of this body and, before that, a high school teacher and college professor.

Congressman Pascrell was instrumental in the designation of the Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park in 2009. Known for his plainspoken demeanor and deep commitment to his constituents, Congressman Pascrell served our Nation in the U.S. Army and in this body for nearly three decades, until his passing last August.

Overlook Park is a 2.5-acre area providing panoramic views of the falls and the gateway to the larger historical park.

The Great Falls Scenic Overlook Trail Bridge is one of two year-round pedestrian bridges connecting visitors to the falls. It serves approximately 300,000 visitors annually and links the park's visitors center to the falls' viewing platform.

Mr. Speaker, this straightforward and bipartisan legislation has the full support of the entire New Jersey delegation. I commend Representative Pallone for his work on this legislation. I support the bill, and 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, this is a straightforward, bipartisan bill that renames beloved sites for the late Representative Bill Pascrell, Jr. I urge its adoption and yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 618) to amend the Apex Project, Nevada Land Transfer and Authorization Act of 1989 to include the City of North Las Vegas and the Apex Industrial Park Owners Association, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 618, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Representative Horsford's bill, H.R. 618, the Apex Area Technical Corrections Act.

H.R. 618 is a bipartisan bill supported by the entire Nevada delegation that would streamline permitting in the Apex Industrial Park in North Las Vegas to encourage new business development and economic growth.

Specifically, the legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to grant utility and transportation rights-of-way to the Apex Industrial Park Owners Association, the city of North Las Vegas, and Clark County for electric, power, water, natural gas, telephone, railroad, or highway facilities.

Congress created the Apex Industrial Park in 1989 by authorizing the sale of roughly 21,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management land to Clark County, Nevada, to establish a new area to attract businesses and create jobs.

While the original law directed BLM to issue utility and transportation rights-of-way for Apex, businesses seeking to start construction or expand operations currently face a complicated permitting process. The delayed installation of utilities has stalled the growth of existing businesses in the Apex area. Additionally, the prolonged permitting process deters new investment and hinders economic development in North Las Vegas.

Removing bureaucratic delays by the Federal Government is necessary for the growth and prosperity of North Las Vegas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Horsford and the entire Nevada delegation for their work on this issue. I support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this legislation would support economic growth, create jobs, and attract new businesses to North Las Vegas by streamlining permitting and cutting Federal red tape. I commend Representative Horsford on this bill, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 952) to convey the reversionary interest of the United States in certain land in Sacramento, California.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 952, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Representative Matsui's bill, the Reversionary Interest Conveyance Act. This legislation previously passed the House by voice vote last December.

This bill resolves the stubborn property law issue afflicting a small parcel of land in California. The current owners of an eight-acre property in Sacramento recently discovered a reversionary interest on their land, which a railroad company originally conveyed. The reversionary interest, which dates back to the days of the transcontinental railroad in the 19th century, requires the land to revert to ownership by the United States since it is no longer used for railroad purposes. Because of this outdated encumbrance, the owners of this property are limited in their ability to develop or sell the land.

The Bureau of Land Management, which would inherit the property through the reversion, does not want to manage the land in question. Since the agency can't extinguish the reversionary interests unilaterally, the BLM has encouraged Congress to address the issue through legislation.

H.R. 952 would resolve this conflict by requiring the Bureau of Land Management to convey the reversionary interest to the private landowners for fair market value. This bill will free up the land for economic development and prevent further Federal interference. It is a good governance bill that supports the local community, encourages economic development, and reduces the burden on the Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Matsui for this effort on behalf of her constituents. I support this bill and reserve the balance of my time.

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

This is straightforward legislation that will help private property owners develop their land without interference from the Federal Government. I support this bill and note that it unanimously passed the House last Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2492) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to permit removal of trees around electrical lines on National Forest System lands and Bureau of Land Management lands, respectively, without conducting a timber sale, and for other purposes.

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. 2492, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2492, the Fire Safe Electrical Corridors Act of 2025, led by Representatives Carbajal and Valadao.

This legislation would allow the U.S. Forest Service to permit utility companies to fully remove hazard trees and other vegetation near power lines without requiring a separate timber sale. The legislation also includes provisions ensuring a fair return to the Federal Government when the timber is sold.

Currently, utility companies are allowed to fell hazard trees in their rights-of-way but are not permitted to remove them without going through the timber sale process. This unnecessary bureaucratic step leaves timber piled up in the rights-of-way for long periods, creating a significant wildfire risk, especially near communities in the wildland-urban interface.

Hazard trees near power lines have proven to be a serious fire threat. In fact, the largest single wildfire in California history, the Dixie fire, ignited when a tree fell onto electrical lines. As we enter into what is predicted to be another devastating fire year, it is more imperative than ever that we take every step to manage our forests and reduce wildfire risk.

In January, the world watched as communities in southern California were virtually leveled by catastrophic wildfires. In the wake of that tragedy, the House came together to pass the Fix Our Forests Act on an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis. The legislation we are considering today was included as part of the Fix Our Forests Act. Today is another opportunity for Congress to meet the moment and pass commonsense forest management policy.

I commend Representatives Carbajal and Valadao for their bipartisan collaboration on this legislation and on the Fix Our Forests Act. I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, April 28, 2025.

Hon. Bruce Westerman,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 2492, the ``Fire Safe Electrical

Corridors Act of 2025.'' 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. 2492 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 have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close and reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, passing H.R. 2492 would be an essential step toward reducing the urgent threat that wildfire poses to communities nationwide. Once again, I thank Representatives Carbajal and Valadao for their leadership on this vital issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2215) to redesignate the Salem Maritime National Historic Site as the ``Salem Maritime National Historical Park'', and for other purposes.

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. 2215, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Representative Moulton's bill, the Salem

Maritime National Historical Park Redesignation and Boundary Study Act. This legislation would redesignate the Salem Maritime National Historic Site in Salem, Massachusetts, as the Salem Maritime National Historical Park.

Known for its rich history dating back to the colonial era, this area was the first historic site to be included in the National Park System in 1938. Today, the historical park includes 12 historic structures, a downtown visitors center, and a replica of a famous sailing ship, the Friendship of Salem. The site attracts over 800,000 visitors annually and showcases over 600 years of New England's maritime history.

Since most historical sites focus on a singular historical feature, designating Salem Maritime as a national historic park would align with the naming conventions of other National Park System units around the country. Community leaders in the area also hope the redesignation will lead to more visitors by highlighting the various attractions.

In addition to the redesignation, this legislation also requires the National Park Service to conduct a boundary study of related sites to assess their feasibility for future inclusion in the historical park.

I support this bill, and 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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will more appropriately reflect the varied and unique history of the timeless landmarks in Salem, Massachusetts.

I thank my friend and acknowledge Representative Moulton for his work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and acknowledge Representative Moulton for his work on this bill, and I urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this Sunday across America families will gather to honor our mothers. I rise today to honor a mother and a dedicated member of my staff as she closes out her time on Capitol Hill.

Rebekah Hoshiko joined my staff in 2019 and has been a vital member of my team serving in various capacities and currently serves as communications director at the Committee on Natural Resources. We are grateful for her exemplary service, and she will be missed.

Rebekah is departing Capitol Hill to embrace the noble job of full- time mom to her two young boys, Judah and James. Wishing her and her family all the best, I hope to encourage Rebekah and all mothers with the lyrics of a Fourth District Arkansan, Glen Campbell's song:

There ought to be a hall of fame for mamas

Creation's most unique and precious pearls

And Heaven help us always to remember

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 377, I call up the bill (H.R. 276) to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the ``Gulf of America'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 276.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 276, sponsored by Congresswoman Greene of Georgia.

Throughout the history of the United States, the executive branch has renamed our public lands and waters. This legislation codifies a portion of President Trump's Executive Order No. 14172, which directed the Board on Geographic Names to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. President Trump signed this executive order on his first day in office.

Enacting this legislation will help make President Trump's historic action permanent and ensure consistency in references to laws, maps, regulations, and records of the United States.

The Gulf of America is critical to the United States because of its energy resources and ecological significance. This renaming symbolizes Republicans' commitment to putting America first, and honors the Gulf of America's important role in unleashing American energy and our Nation's return to greatness.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene), the lead sponsor of this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, just earlier this week, this very committee spent 14 hours in a markup on our reconciliation plans that are part of the big, beautiful bill; 14 hours to make America energy dominant, 14 hours to unleash American resources and American jobs. Those 14 hours were mainly spent hearing 121 Democratic amendments to undermine that bill. They wanted to undermine America's energy. They wanted to undermine America's ability to mine our own products. They wanted to undermine America's ability to manage our forests and our resources and take care of this country.

Now, there are a lot of bills that come to this floor to rename things. They might not be the most important bills, but usually they go on a suspension vote because both sides agree we can do renaming, but this one got elevated to a much higher level, so here we are under a rule bill debating whether or not we call the current Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America or if we leave it as it is.

Our friends across the aisle have one objective: to undermine everything we want to do to make America first, and this is no exception.

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

Mr. Speaker, our friends across the aisle want to talk about being serious, but when we marked up this legislation in committee, here are some of the serious amendments that they put out.

Number one, they wanted to rename it not the Gulf of America, but the gulf of Helene, after a hurricane. That wasn't good enough, so they decided to file an amendment to name it the Gulf of America if we rejoin the Paris climate accord. That is real serious. As my friend already mentioned, they wanted to take this bill, it was obviously not germane, they wanted to rename the planet, planet Trump. That is how serious they are in their debate.

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

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

I left out one of the other amendments my colleagues across the aisle filed. They wanted to rename the Gulf the gulf of ignorance. Now, I don't know where they came up with that one. I know they oppose offshore oil and gas production. I know they oppose American energy independence. I know they have a special affinity for fish that aren't in the Gulf and attack recreational fishermen in their endeavor to go out and spend time with their family and catch fish. I don't know what part of the Gulf that they think is so ignorant that they wanted to rename the Gulf the gulf of ignorance, but you can look it up. They filed that amendment. We obviously voted it down.

They had no problem renaming the Cannon Caucus Room the Nancy Pelosi Caucus Room. It is not like this is the first thing that has ever been renamed in this Congress, but we will go ahead and have our debate, and they can vent their frustration on the Republicans and really on our country as they continue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).

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

Mr. Speaker, a lot of accusations have been made about serious legislation, about working, about the things that have happened since this new administration has come into office. I would like to recap some of the things that have happened since this new administration has come into office.

Number one, they spent a lot of time reversing a lot of bad executive orders that the previous administration put in place. There were executive orders that did put America last. We have an administration now that is working every day to put America first.

We saw Congress take many actions on Congressional Review Acts to undo bad rules that the previous administration put in place.

Don't believe the accusation that Republicans aren't working. We have 11 committees that have reconciliation instructions, and 8 of those committees have marked up those instructions already. There are instructions on a big, beautiful bill to put America first and to create national security. We will use our resources at home to allow people in America to have a job and a career where they can raise families and grow communities. We are working on policies to avoid a $4 trillion to $5 trillion tax increase on every American.

Mr. Speaker, I believe my friends across the aisle are concerned about a piece of legislation that is going to make a huge difference.

It is a piece of legislation that is going to reverse the destructive policies that their party has put in place over many years. It is a piece of legislation that is going to focus on getting our fiscal house in order and letting Americans keep more of their hard-earned income.

We will develop our resources here at home and become less dependent on China, less dependent on Middle Eastern oil, and all those things that over the years have been eroded away from our American economy and from Americans.

Mr. Speaker, if they want to complain about renaming the Gulf the Gulf of America, they can complain about

that all day. It gives them something to do other than to talk to Americans about the real policies that Republicans are looking at putting in place. It gives them something to do other than make up scare tactics, which is their normal playbook, and to take anything that happens and say, oh, they are going to cut Social Security or they are going to cut Medicare.

We can't even touch Social Security in budget reconciliation. Democrats know that can't happen in budget reconciliation. Yet, they still put those scare tactics out. They talk about what bills are going to do before bill text has been released.

It is because Democrats are on the defensive to protect the Big Government that they have created over time, while Republicans want to put government closer to the people, take power out of Washington, D.C., and truly put America first.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Greene).

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

Mr. Speaker, as we wrap up this so-called debate today, I want to remind everyone of something that they are not seeing on the news every day like they were several months ago, and that is hordes coming across our southern border.

I want to remind people of how much the illegal drugs and human trafficking have stopped on our southern border.

I remind people of that because it was just a few weeks ago that President Trump stood in this Chamber. He addressed the joint session of Congress, and he said something that I think was the most important thing he said that night. He said that we have come to find out we didn't really need different laws. We just needed different leadership.

This debate, as my friends will maybe want to call it a debate, has been really nothing but an attack on President Trump. They are using this piece of legislation to go at President Trump.

I want to remind everybody of something President Trump has said many times. He said: ``They are coming after me because I am standing up for you.''

That is exactly what is happening today. They are coming after this piece of legislation and equating it to President Trump because he is standing up for the American people.

This legislation before us simply follows through on a day one executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I thank Congresswoman Greene for advancing it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 78) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service relating to ``Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment of the Longfin Smelt'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 78.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 78 offered by Representative LaMalfa of California, which would undo the listing of the longfin smelt in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Distinct Population Segment under the Endangered Species Act.

The listing was based on flawed science in response to an ESA-related lawsuit and adds yet another piece of regulatory red tape preventing water from reaching California's Central Valley and communities further south.

California's Central Valley is one of the most prolific agricultural regions in the world, growing hundreds of crops that feed millions of people. However, this region faces continual water uncertainty due to drought and ESA-related regulations.

The Central Valley Project, or CVP, transports water from wetter areas in northern California to drier areas further south, including the Central Valley. It is subject to ESA biological opinions that mandate water that would otherwise go to communities and farms be diverted to the San Francisco Bay.

The effects of this can be seen at this very moment in California where Federal reservoirs are almost full, yet many farmers are only receiving half of their water allocations. This is in large part due to restrictions imposed by the ESA, which will only be exacerbated by the listing of the longfin smelt.

Unfortunately, the rush to judgment that ensued from the lawsuit resulted in a listing based on flawed assumptions and bad science.

First, by solely focusing on the bay-delta rather than the longfin smelt's entire range, the service ignores the fact that the species has been found in dozens of locations, including in and around every tributary of the San Francisco Bay. Meaning the longfin smelt is not at risk of extinction and does not meet the statutory definition of an endangered species.

Instead of being based on science, this listing comes from the common radical environmental playbook of suing for a predetermined outcome.

Radical groups have litigated for years trying to get the longfin smelt listed under the ESA, with a 2024 lawsuit compelling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to make a listing decision being the latest example.

Unfortunately, as with many ESA-related lawsuits, the species is rarely the true motivation. The leader of the organization that filed the lawsuit in question said the not-so-quiet part out loud when he said that protecting the longfin smelt going forward would require taking more water away from farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this CRA and roll back this misguided listing, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), the sponsor of the CRA.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa) for all of his efforts on this. He is a farmer. He knows about agriculture. He knows about the water issues in California.

This is an issue that is important to our whole country. It is not just important to California because most of the fruits, nuts, and vegetables grown in this country are in the Central Valley of California. Without water, you can't grow any of them.

If we are taking water away from the Central Valley for unnecessary reasons, that means that the rest of the country is going to suffer when we go to the grocery market.

Mr. Speaker, I think, if truth be known, there is one reason why the longfin smelt got listed. It is because it would divert water away from the Central Valley, and I don't understand that. I don't understand why groups would be so adamant to be taking water away from the breadbasket of our country and shifting it to a purpose that is not accomplishing anything.

There are a lot of myths about the longfin smelt. There is a myth that, if they are listed, it will have no effect on the farmers in the Central Valley. I will read a quote from the science director who was involved from the San Francisco Baykeepers when the listing was finalized:

``Preventing further decline and extinction of longfin smelt will require reducing California's diversion of fresh water from the Bay's watershed to supply unsustainable industrial agriculture. . . .''

If water is taken away from agriculture in the Central Valley, it is unsustainable. You can't grow anything without water.

We need to get back to the science, as Mr. LaMalfa stated, and it is unfortunate that we have to do a CRA on an

endangered species listing, but that is what happens when administrations make bad decisions.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I acknowledge and agree with my friends from across the aisle. Mark Twain was correct. The more I learn about water, the further west you go, the more it is for fighting. We can agree on that.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to try to help them solve the issue about parallel universes from an outsider's perspective. I would say that most people who live in States that are east of California, maybe some that are north and west of California, if you go to California, you realize it is a very beautiful State, a very blessed State, wonderful resources, beautiful beaches, beautiful forests, the most productive farmland in the country, some of the most unique trees in the world, wonderful weather, good fishing. Everything nice, it seems like California has it.

I think we all love California, but we all realize somehow it is kind of a different universe than the rest of the country that we live in. Maybe they embrace that and like that, the good people of California.

When we look at this legislation, H.J. Res. 78, it is a serious thing. The ESA listing in question was based on incomplete and bad science and will further complicate the delivery of water in California communities. It is already complicating the delivery of water.

Passing this resolution will further the priorities of President Trump, who has signed two executive orders aimed at removing unnecessary regulations that prevent water from being delivered to southern California.

The current paradigm of having full reservoirs in California while many farmers are only receiving half of the water they are supposed to be getting is unacceptable, and it is unsustainable. It takes away the myth that this is all due to drought conditions. It is not drought conditions in California right now, yet farmers are still only getting half the amount of water they were promised to get.

This resolution is cosponsored by the entire California Republican delegation. I thank each Member for standing up for their constituents and tirelessly fighting for additional water resources in the face of Federal and State government overreach and radical decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 354, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 60) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Park Service relating to ``Glen Canyon National Recreation Area: Motor Vehicles'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 60.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 60, led by Representative Maloy. This is an important effort that will overturn an onerous and unnecessary regulation designed to restrict off-highway vehicle access and recreational use of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.

House Republicans are committed to pursuing a comprehensive approach to restoring multiple use and public access to our Federal lands, one that favors commonsense land management and prioritizes community buy- in over preservationist policies that are cooked up here in Washington,

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

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that the idea that passing this Congressional Review Act would restrict all off-road vehicle access is just not right. That is not going to happen. There was a rule in place before the Biden administration put the new rule in place. We vetted this with the Congressional Research Service. We would simply go back to the rule that was in place that was working fine before the Biden administration came in and put this onerous rule in place.

Also, the argument has been made that only 24 out of 388 miles have been restricted to off-road vehicle use, but as we all know, roads are networks. For instance, there is a half-mile section in this ruling under the Biden administration that blocks off access to over a million acres. You block off a half-mile of road, and you restrict the use to a million acres. I don't think that is what most people would call public access or would agree that it is the way that we should be managing our Federal lands, especially in an area that when it was established, part of its goal was to be able to provide off-road vehicles a place to recreate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Ms. Maloy), the lead sponsor of this legislation.

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

I appreciate the gentlewoman for her efforts on this legislation and for being a voice for her constituents. She talked about the county governments there that didn't have a voice when this rule was made. This is hurting their economy. It doesn't make sense, and it is kind of a bad example of having that distant landlord with an alternative agenda that lives many miles away managing the land where you live. I thank her for her efforts on behalf of her constituents and on all Americans who enjoy outdoor recreation.

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

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

I just want to say that it is unfortunate that we are having to use a Congressional Review Act, but it is unfortunate that a former administration tried to legislate from the administrative branch.

That is the purpose of the Congressional Review Act. When bureaucrats overstep their bounds, we have this tool to rein them back in. It would not allow them to make this rule again. A clear reading of the Congressional Review Act, it is easy to see that the rule would go back to the rule that was in place before the Biden administration put the rule in place that we are doing the Congressional Review Act on. It is also common sense that that would happen, and it is clearly the intent of Congress, should this get signed into law, that it would go back to the original rule.

I again applaud Representative Maloy for her exceptional leadership in this effort and for looking out for her constituents. This is a necessary resolution that will allow for more recreation opportunities, greater public access, and growth within Utah's outdoor recreation economy. Whether it is hunting, fishing, hiking, or recreating on off- highway vehicles, our public lands were meant to be enjoyed by all Americans, and this CRA allows just that.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the joint resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Senate amendment. The American people gave Congress a clear mandate to lower costs, reduce burdensome regulations, and unlock American resources.

Passing the resolution before us will allow committees to thoughtfully craft and debate legislation to extend the 2017 Trump tax cuts, averting a $4 trillion to $5 trillion tax increase on the American people, and to use our resources to generate more revenue and to cut wasteful spending.

The resolution in itself is not the solution, but it unleashes committees to put pen to paper and craft reconciliation legislation that fully delivers on the promises the President and House Republicans have made the American people.

Mr. Speaker, if we look in this beautiful Chamber, I have only located one quote from our past that is displayed here, and it is up above you up close to the ceiling. We are getting close to celebrating the 200-year anniversary of those words that Daniel Webster spoke in 1825 when he said: ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth our powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform something worthy to be remembered.''

Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on Natural Resources looks forward to taking action to develop our Nation's resources and to do that responsibly. Our resources are among our Nation's greatest assets and revenue generators.

This resolution starts the process to do something worthy to be remembered in our day and generation, a process to keep taxes low for working Americans, to unlock the full potential of our natural resources, and to deliver on Speaker Johnson's directive to have the resolution on the President's desk by Memorial Day.

Mr. Speaker, I support it, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 177, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 11) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management relating to ``Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 11.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 11, a resolution to express disapproval of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's misguided protection of the ``Protection of Marine Archaeological Resources'' rule.

First, I thank my colleagues, Senator Kennedy and Representative Ezell, for championing this effort and collaborating with my team to bring this resolution to the floor today. Additionally, I acknowledge Democratic Senators Hickenlooper, Cortez Masto, and Rosen for supporting this resolution in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, S.J. Res. 11 is a commonsense measure that would repeal a burdensome and unnecessary Biden administration rule that forces offshore energy operators to conduct costly archeological surveys and submit reports for every exploration and development plan on the Outer Continental Shelf.

Under the rule in question, operators must comply with this blanket mandate, even in areas with no known archeological risks, adding millions in unnecessary costs and delays despite existing State and Federal protections under the National Historic Preservation Act.

Eliminating this one-size-fits-all rulemaking will ensure that energy production isn't bogged down by duplicative red tape. S.J. Res. 11 uses the Congressional Review Act to nullify a rule which BOEM acknowledges places ``100 percent of the increased Gulf of Mexico compliance cost for survey[s]'' on operators that are small entities.

This resolution would end the Biden administration's needless overreach and return the regulatory regime to a targeted, evidence- based approach.

Notably, this repeal preserves America's ability to tap its offshore resources efficiently. It will not weaken genuine historic preservation but will stop a pointless cash grab that inflates administrative burdens. In fact, this resolution could boost Federal revenues by speeding up leasing and production timelines that are critical to U.S. energy security.

Offshore oil and gas from the Outer Continental Shelf accounts for 15 percent of U.S. production, supporting jobs, powering homes, fueling transportation, paying for conservation, and lowering costs for goods we all need. Yet, this rule, part of a broader pattern of Biden-era restrictions, threatens that stability with added costs of more than 500 additional labor hours per year across operators.

Federal regulators shouldn't stifle energy development. This resolution offers a rational fix by eliminating a rule which was intended to add burdens to a vital industry. S.J. Res. 11 will protect American energy security and keep energy costs down for families as part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not about repealing anything that is going to add any protections or viability to anything that is happening on offshore exploration. The rule was not even about wearing a suspender with a belt.

This rule was put in place to hamper offshore energy production. Under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, protections already exist for offshore operators, and it requires them to identify and avoid marine archeological sites, making this rule totally redundant.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Biden-era rule wasn't just for redundancy. It was to put shackles on offshore energy production and to put higher costs on American consumers, who are already struggling with inflation that has resulted from the policies of the previous administration.

Good governance doesn't have redundancy and duplicative rules in place that hamper Americans from building and producing.

What we are doing is releasing the shackles off of energy production so that we can provide the things that our country and our economy need.

That is why I really appreciate the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell) for bringing this bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell).

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

Mr. Speaker, our country is at a point where we need more energy and every form of energy when we look at the demands for data processing, when we look at transportation demands, when we look at demands for energy to grow our economy and to produce more things here. I don't think anybody on either side of the aisle would question the fact that we need more energy and our energy consumption is on an exponential increase.

This rule that the Biden administration made is not about an all-of- the-above energy approach. It is not about producing more energy, more clean reliable energy that comes from America. It is about attacking an industry.

If you don't believe that, just look at the rule itself. We produce more than one kind of energy offshore. We produce oil and gas. We also produce wind, but magically wind farms don't trigger an archeological review, I guess, because they are not included in this analysis, this redundant process that the Biden administration put in place.

The reason they are not is the same reason that oil and gas should not be included; because there is already a process to do the National Historical Preservation Act section 106 requirements when you are getting a permit.

This rule was added by the Biden administration just to create another level of bureaucracy, another level of regulatory hurdles to stop offshore oil and gas exploration and production. That is the only purpose they could have put this rule in place for. Otherwise, they would have said, if they really cared about archeological features and artifacts in the Gulf and offshore, they would have included the wind farms in this, but it is only targeted at oil and gas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on the Natural Resources Committee.

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

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

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of S.J. Res. 11. I thank my colleagues across the aisle for actually making our point on why this regulation that was put in place by the Biden administration is totally unnecessary.

We made the point that it is targeted specifically for oil and gas and that wind is exempted. They tried to say that wind is exempted because they are already doing the analysis under the National Historic Preservation Act, section 106.

Guess what? Oil and gas is doing the same thing. They are already making these archaeological assessments under existing rules.

This is redundant, but it is not just redundant. It is punitive. It was a rule put in place to attack what our colleagues like to refer to as the Big Oil bogeyman. Apparently, because they have been successful and they can actually turn a profit because there is a demand for their product, they should be attacked by the Federal Government; they should have more regulations put on them. We should do anything we can to stop producing more energy offshore if you are in the mindset of the previous administration.

That is not helping America. That is not helping the American consumers. That is not helping the American economy, and it is certainly not helping America on the world stage. It is ridiculous that we are having to come here and do Congressional Review Acts on horrible policies that were put in place by the previous administration, but thank goodness we have the tool to do that. Thank goodness the Senate has already done it, and we have bipartisan support in the Senate to do the CRA on this rule.

State and Federal laws, as has already been mentioned, provide robust oversight for marine historic resources, again making this added layer of Federal bureaucracy pointless and wasteful. The repeal will lower energy costs for American families, strengthen U.S. energy independence, and support an industry critical to our economy and our security, all while maintaining responsible stewardship of historic resources.

One thing that BOEM failed to analyze that often gets overlooked, it is not just Big Oil in the Outer Continental Shelf, it is also small producers, family-owned businesses, and thousands and thousands of people who make a living working in the Outer Continental Shelf.

This burdensome regulation will be detrimental to those small businesses. I urge my colleagues to support the resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the fiscal year 2025 budget resolution.

My constituents know firsthand how the failed policies of the left resulted in increased grocery and energy bills, opened our borders, imperiled our national security, accelerated our debt, and made it next to impossible to build and use our natural resources here at home, making us dependent on our adversaries.

This budget creates a blueprint to deliver on the promises we made to the American people: righting the wrongs of the past, unleashing America's energy potential, and implementing the full America First agenda.

Advancing the budget resolution opens the door for the budget reconciliation process. It will allow committees to begin our work on the nuts and bolts of budget reconciliation, implementing savings across government and harnessing our biggest revenue generators, such as domestic energy production.

By unlocking access to our energy and mineral reserves, actively managing our forests, streamlining burdensome permitting processes, and repealing wasteful IRA spending, we will deliver a responsible reconciliation bill that builds the wealth of our Nation.

As a former member of the House Budget Committee, I appreciate the budget process and have great respect for Chairman Arrington and his staff in getting this budget resolution to the House floor.

Mr. Chair, while our colleagues across the aisle are using made-up numbers that have no basis or substance as a scare tactic on the American people, I can say, as a former State legislator, and I am happy to remind my colleagues across the aisle that Medicaid is a State and Federal program. Not a single person will lose Medicaid coverage unless their State makes that choice.

Mr. Chair, this resolution has my full support, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for it.