Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of renowned Arkansas Democrat-Gazette sports reporter Bob Holt, who passed away December 4 after collapsing following the Arkansas football game against the Missouri Tigers, his alma mater.

Since 1981, Bob covered the Razorbacks and sports across Arkansas, bringing every game to life in a unique way that only Bob Holt could.

He was a titan of the media industry, revered for his ability to get an answer to any question, all while maintaining the utmost respect from coaches, players, and his fellow reporters.

Bob leaves a resounding legacy in his wake, and his mark in the Arkansas sports community will go down in history. Not only was Bob an unparalleled reporter, he was a faithful and loyal friend.

Matt Jones, a friend and colleague of Bob's for many years, said that if the world was full of Bob Holts, it would be a lot better world, a lot kinder world, a lot more peaceful world. It would be a world that laughs a lot more, and it would be a much, much better place.

My prayers go out to his family, friends, and all Arkansans mourning our loss.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8413) to provide for the conveyance of certain Federal land at Swanson Reservoir and Hugh Butler Reservoir in the State of Nebraska, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 8413, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Representative Smith's legislation, which would initiate a transfer of Federal lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation to the Counties of Frontier and Hitchcock in southern Nebraska.

This legislation was introduced at the counties' request with the hopes of gaining local control after disagreements arose between local stakeholders and the Bureau of Reclamation.

The disagreement stemmed from the Bureau of Reclamation's decision to require the removal of mobile homes surrounding the reservoirs, an action that would significantly impact the local economy.

The cost of this transfer has not yet been determined. However, an appraisal will be conducted, and the counties will be responsible for providing fair market value compensation for these lands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith), the bill sponsor.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 8413 provides a solution to a dispute between Frontier and Hitchcock Counties and the Bureau of Reclamation. These reservoirs, among other benefits, provide valuable recreational access to over 57,000 acres available for public hunting and fishing.

I thank Representative Smith and all of Nebraska's congressional delegation members for their leadership on this issue. I encourage all Members to support this commonsense, bipartisan legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7872) to amend the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act to modify certain requirements applicable to salinity control units, 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. 7872, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7872, the Colorado River Salinity Control Fix Act. The Colorado River is a critical resource for the basin's seven States.

Since the 1970s, the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program has operated salinity control projects to reduce salinity levels in the river, which helps to improve crop yields for farmers. This effort is crucial since agriculture is the most significant component of the basin's economy.

Historically, this program has been funded through both appropriations and power revenues. However, the Colorado River has experienced historic ongoing multidecade drought conditions that have reduced hydropower generation and created an imbalance between the program's obligations and the costs payable through hydropower.

The Colorado River Salinity Control Fix Act would address this challenge by reducing the cost-share percentages from hydropower revenues and increasing the Federal nonreimbursable costs for the salinity programs across the Colorado River Basin.

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

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

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

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

Again, H.R. 7872 builds on important efforts undertaken by all seven States in the Colorado River Basin to ensure that salinity control projects are funded.

These projects support farmers and ranchers across the region and lead to better environmental outcomes. The importance of this work cannot be overstated.

Lastly, I thank Congressman John Curtis for his work in moving this legislation forward. While we will miss him on our committee next year, I know we will continue to find ways to work with him in his new role at the other end of the Capitol.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6395) to amend the Energy Act of 2020 to require the Secretary of the Interior to include the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultations regarding designations of critical minerals, elements, substances, and materials.

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 H.R. 6395, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill brings together two agencies that don't usually interact, the United States Geological Survey, USGS, and the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS.

H.R. 6395, the Recognizing the Importance of Critical Minerals in Healthcare Act of 2023, would add HHS as a consulting agency for the development of USGS' critical minerals list.

USGS publishes and updates this list every 3 years and, as directed by the Energy Act of 2020, consults with the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, Agriculture, and Energy and the United States Trade Representative in crafting each iteration.

Why is it important to include HHS as a consulting agency? The critical minerals list constitutes a collection of minerals deemed necessary for economic and national security and whose supply chains are vulnerable to disruption.

There are many mineral applications in the healthcare industry. For example, radioisotopes derived from low-enriched uranium are used in over 40,000 imaging procedures in the U.S. daily, enabling diagnoses of cancer and heart disease, and liquid helium is frequently used as a coolant in MRI machines.

By requiring DOI to consult with HHS, H.R. 6395 would ensure that medical uses of these minerals and the ramifications that any supply disruption could have on the healthcare economy are adequately considered when evaluating critical minerals list designations.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis) for his hard work in bringing this bill to the floor today, and I thank my friends on the other side of the aisle for recognizing the importance of passing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6395, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Without the necessary tools, healthcare professionals cannot administer lifesaving care to their patients. While it may not be immediately obvious, these tools include minerals and materials.

From the copper, gold, lithium, titanium, silver, and platinum used in antimicrobial touch surfaces, heart stents, pacemakers, surgical tools, antibiotics, and chemotherapy to the uranium byproducts and liquid helium used in cancer treatments and MRI scans that I mentioned earlier, our healthcare system is only as reliable as our supply chains.

The Energy Act of 2020 was crafted explicitly so USGS would consult with multiple agencies, each providing expertise within their prospective jurisdictions.

Adding HHS as one of these agencies, as H.R. 6395 aims to do, would ensure the mineral needs of the healthcare sector are fully considered as USGS crafts the critical minerals list going forward.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support 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. 5103) to require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to approve or deny spend plans within a certain amount of time, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 H.R. 5103, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5103, the Fishery Improvement to Streamline untimely regulatory Hurdles post Emergency Situation, or the FISHES, Act.

This legislation, sponsored by the gentleman from Florida, Congressman Byron Donalds, will protect States and fishing communities from unnecessary delays in the disaster recovery process.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, States and communities affected by fishery disasters can petition for funding to assist in response and recovery efforts. However, affected States and communities have experienced delays in obtaining the approvals needed to access these funds. H.R. 5103 requires the Secretary of Commerce to review disaster spending plans submitted by requesters within 10 days.

Additionally, while the legislation allows the Office of Management and Budget to review spending plans, it makes it clear that they may not, and I repeat may not, delay the statutory timelines. This will ensure accountability and consistency in the fishery disaster response process, providing certainty to States and fishing communities in times of recovery.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Donalds), who is the lead sponsor of the bill.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, many times in recent years this body has taken steps to help communities recover in the wake of natural disasters. Programs designed to help communities recover from these disasters must work effectively and help communities to recover in a timely manner. Too often government bureaucracy can act as an impediment to recovery efforts.

We can improve this process by ensuring the Office of Management and Budget does not unnecessarily delay it.

Once again, I thank Congressman Byron Donalds for his work on this issue and the many Members and stakeholders who have supported this effort.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7332) to require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain Federal land to the State of Utah for inclusion in certain State parks, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 H.R. 7332, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of Representative Maloy's bill, the Utah State Parks Adjustment Act.

This legislation would transfer several parcels, totaling approximately 782 acres of Federal land, to the State of Utah for inclusion in the Utah State Parks system. The parcels included in this conveyance are currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management or the U.S. Forest Service and are either adjacent to or comprise inholdings within the boundaries of the Utah State Parks system.

Specifically, H.R. 7332 would convey approximately 280 acres of Federal land to Antelope Island State Park to modernize an existing campground and 502 acres of Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service land to Wasatch Mountain State Park and Fremont Indian State Park to expand and enhance existing trail networks.

This legislation is a win-win for Utahns and the American taxpayer. Utah's State parks are renowned for their striking beauty and plentiful attractions and for being well managed and popular. Bolstering these State parks would help produce more evenly distributed tourism and visitation patterns, preventing overcrowding at Utah's more famous national parks. This legislation will improve recreation infrastructure and public access for all local Utahns and visitors alike, helping grow Utah's outdoor recreation economy.

Federal land managers will also reap benefits from these transfers. In its statement supporting H.R. 7332, the BLM testified that the bill ``would improve manageability and dispose of isolated Federal parcels that are difficult to manage.''

I, again, commend Representative Maloy for her leadership on this important issue. Over 60 percent of Utah's land is federally owned, and conveying these properties from the Federal estate to the Utah State Parks system will improve land and natural resource management. Those changes will benefit the people of Utah and our public lands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Ms. Maloy), who is the sponsor of the bill.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, this commonsense bill will benefit Utah State Parks and alleviate some clear land management inefficiencies on the Federal side. At its core, H.R. 7332 is an example of effective collaboration between Federal agencies, local stakeholders, and Congress.

I commend Representative Maloy for her efforts to bring these stakeholders together, and I thank her for introducing this meaningful legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6826) to designate the visitor and education center at Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine as the Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor and Education Center.

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. 6826, 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 Mfume's bill, H.R. 6826. This legislation will name the visitor and education center at Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine in Baltimore, Maryland, as the Paul S. Sarbanes Visitor and Education Center.

Fort McHenry is famously the site of an 1814 attack by British troops against 1,000 American soldiers, which inspired Francis Scott Key to write ``The Star-Spangled Banner.''

Paul Sarbanes honorably served the State of Maryland for 6 years in the House of Representatives and three decades in the U.S. Senate. During his tenure, Senator Sarbanes helped secure funding to construct the new visitor center at Fort McHenry, which increased its capacity and improved visitor access.

After a long life of distinguished public service, Senator Sarbanes sadly passed away in 2020.

I commend Representative Mfume for leading this effort. Naming the visitor and education center at Fort McHenry after Senator Sarbanes would honor his long history of service to Maryland and his special connection with Fort McHenry's site.

Fittingly, this legislation has drawn bipartisan support and is cosponsored by Maryland's entire congressional delegation.

Mr. Speaker, I support the bill and 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 bill that would honor the work and legacy of a devoted public servant. I urge the adoption of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 3791) to reauthorize the America's Conservation Enhancement Act, and for other purposes, as amended.

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 S. 3791, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3791, the America's Conservation Enhancement Reauthorization Act, or the ACE Act.

This bill seeks to improve and codify a series of collaborative conservation efforts between the Federal Government, States, and wildlife and sportsmen organizations that have resulted in positive results for numerous species.

S. 3791 would first reauthorize a series of successful conservation programs, such as the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Chesapeake Bay Program.

The North American Wetlands Conservation Act, or NAWCA, is particularly important to my home State of Arkansas. As the only Federal grant program solely dedicated to wetlands conservation, NAWCA has conserved over 31 million acres of wetland habitat for waterfowl.

This is critical for my State, as over 100,000 people each year visit Arkansas for the best waterfowl hunting in the country and to hunt in the pristine flooded timber and rice fields of the Natural State.

Title II of the bill makes important technical changes to the National Fish Habitat Partnership program. These changes include ensuring that Tribes, regional fishery management councils, and marine fisheries commissions are

represented on the National Fish Habitat Board and can contribute to reviewing project proposals and allocating grant dollars.

I also commend the work of the sponsor of the House companion of this bill, Congressman Rob Wittman of Virginia, who is a true champion of our country's wildlife and sportsmen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

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

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 an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

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

By passing S. 3791, Congress will ensure that vital conservation work that has benefited countless at-risk species can be improved and continue on into the future.

When we think about conservation, the word ``conservation'' denotes that it is usage of our resources, it is good stewardship, and these programs promote good stewardship. They not only promote good stewardship, it gets a lot of skin in the game, not just from the Federal Government and the general public, but from all of these conservation organizations and private funds that go into true conservation work to create the wildlife habitat that benefits so many species.

We know that it not only benefits species that we like to hunt and fish for, but it also benefits us because clean air and clean water and a healthy, safe environment benefits everyone. That is what these programs promote.

This bill has brought together a diverse group of sportsmen and conservation organizations who see the benefit of the programs included in this bill, as my friend from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) has already stated. These organizations are groups we have all heard of like Ducks Unlimited, Delta Waterfowl, and the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. Many of us are members of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the American Sportfishing Association, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

Again, I encourage my colleagues to support the bill, and I 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. 8219) to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to assess the suitability and feasibility of designating certain land as the Lahaina National Heritage Area, and for other purposes, as amended.

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. 8219, the bill now under consideration.

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

I rise to support Representative Tokuda's bill, the Lahaina National Heritage Area Study Act.

The town of Lahaina, located on the Hawaiian island of Maui, has an incredibly rich history. As the capital of the Hawaiian Kingdom from 1820 to 1845, it remains a center of commerce, tourism, and local pride. Until recently, Lahaina's historic district featured many impressive cultural sites, including a historic hotel, church, and courthouse.

Tragically, on August 8, 2023, a wildfire caused catastrophic destruction in Lahaina, becoming the deadliest wildfire in over a century. The fire destroyed over 2,200 structures and caused approximately $5.5 billion in damages. Many lost structures dated back centuries and held immeasurable value to Lahaina's people and culture.

Just one week after this devastating fire, a bipartisan congressional delegation I was leading joined the members of the Hawaii congressional delegation, including Representative Tokuda, to see the damage for ourselves firsthand. We were all stunned by the utter devastation that we witnessed there.

As Lahaina continues to recover from the trauma of that brutal natural disaster, local leaders have been exploring options that would allow the community to honor its past while promoting the natural and cultural resources it still retains.

H.R. 8219 takes a strong step in the right direction. This bill would require the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with State and local partners, to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the town of Lahaina as a national heritage area. A feasibility study is generally the first step in considering a national heritage area designation because it helps ensure that the studied area meets all appropriate criteria.

I commend Representative Tokuda for leading this effort that will empower local decisionmaking with respect to resource conservation and economic development. In the aftermath of a tragic event like the Lahaina wildfire, this emphasis on local concerns strikes me now as more critical than ever.

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill and 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 bill that will help a hard-hit community and provide it with options for how it can best bounce back.

I thank Representative Tokuda for advancing this important legislation on behalf of her constituents. I strongly support the legislation, and I 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. 6843), to expand the boundaries of the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area to include Lafourche Parish, Louisiana.

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. 6843, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Leader Scalise's bill, H.R. 6843, which will modestly expand an existing national heritage area located in his district.

Currently encompassing 14 parishes in southern Louisiana's Atchafalaya Basin, this national heritage area promotes the region's unique traditions, language, culture, and landscape.

The Atchafalaya is the Nation's largest river swamp, boasting abundant natural resources such as ancient live oaks, towering cypress, sugarcane, and cotton. The region is also home to residents of European, African, Caribbean, and Native-American descent who all contribute to the area's famous Cajun culture.

By promoting heritage development and tourism, the Atchafalaya National Heritage Area protects the region's very cultural and physical resources, while contributing to the local economy.

H.R. 6843 will build on that success by expanding the boundaries of the national heritage area to include nearby Lafourche Parish. This humble expansion will help create jobs and safeguard the region's natural and cultural resources.

I want to commend Leader Scalise for leading this effort to help promote local natural and cultural resources without Federal management or ownership and empower local approaches and do not hinder economic development.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the lead sponsor of this bill and the majority leader,

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, this straightforward bill will help strengthen the economic development, resource protection, and cultural heritage of a unique part of the country, while keeping Federal involvement to a minimum.

I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise) for leading this important effort and for his tireless work on behalf his constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 390) to amend the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333; 54 U.S.C. 320101 note) to include all of Saratoga and Washington Counties in the boundaries of the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area, 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. 390, 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, the Maurice D. Hinchey Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area Enhancement Act. Established in 1996, the Maurice D. Hinchey Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area was among the earliest national heritage areas designated by Congress.

It follows the Hudson River for roughly 150 miles through New York State covering 10 counties, 250 communities, and 107 distinct heritage sites.

These sites reflect the Hudson River Valley's natural, historic, and cultural contributions to the Nation. Many of these sites, for example, have important ties to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and the Underground Railroad.

Recognizing this region's importance to American history, this legislation will direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study assessing the suitability and feasibility of expanding the boundaries of the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area to include all of Saratoga and Washington Counties.

This change would bring the Federal boundaries of the national heritage area in line with the State's boundaries. Such an expansion could increase opportunities for Saratoga and Washington Counties to attract more tourism and support local economic development without adding to the Federal estate.

I praise Representative Stefanik for her leadership on this issue and for her work this Congress advocating on behalf of her constituents. The Committee on Natural Resources has passed three pieces of her legislation this year by unanimous consent, no small feat, and each of these bills directly benefit her constituents.

We will all certainly miss Representative Stefanik next year, but in the meantime, I look forward to working with her to advance this bill in Congress. I support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a simple, bipartisan bill that will assess promising opportunities to empower local voices, bolster economic development, and protect cultural resources in a very important region.

Once again, Representative Stefanik has worked hard to deliver sound policies for her constituents. I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 1449.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 1449, the Committing Leases for Energy Access Now Act, or the CLEAN Act.

First, I thank my friend and colleague Representative Russ Fulcher for being a leader on geothermal energy and for his dedication to this issue.

Geothermal energy is poised to be an important part of America's energy portfolio. Some predictions indicate that geothermal energy can provide up to 90 gigawatts of electricity by 2050. These are great metrics and goals to strive for, but we will never reach this goal if we keep the status quo for permitting and leasing geothermal energy.

Current law requires multiple layers of environmental review for geothermal projects, which leads to higher costs and longer development timelines compared to our power production efforts.

H.R. 1449, the CLEAN Act, would streamline the Federal leasing and permitting process for geothermal energy and spur the development of this renewable energy source in the United States.

California is a prime example of a Western State with huge geothermal potential, but a lease sale has not been held by the DOI in that State since 2016.

H.R. 1449 would fix lapses like this by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to hold annual geothermal lease sales rather than once every 2 years. It will also force the Secretary to hold a replacement lease sale if one is missed.

In addition, this bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to notify an applicant whether or not its geothermal drilling permit application is complete within 30 days of receiving the application. If Interior determines that the application is complete, then it must issue a final decision on the applications within 30 days.

Some may argue that these deadlines are too fast and don't allow adequate time for the bureaucracy to complete reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws, but this simply is not the case.

The bill itself does not waive the agency's responsibilities under current environmental laws. We all know from experience that agencies will not issue permits until they meet the necessary legal requirements.

The potential for geothermal energy in this country cannot be understated. There are myriad hot spots in the West that are prime for developing this kind of energy. We must do all we can to ensure that bureaucratic red tape does not hamper this resource moving forward.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher), who is the author of the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I again urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 1449.

As has been said, geothermal energy in the U.S. has potential to generate 90

gigawatts of power. To put that in perspective, that would be like 150 to 200 large power-producing plants.

It is energy, electricity, coming from non-carbon-emitting sources and from a renewable resource.

This should be a no-brainer for both sides of the aisle as we face challenges with as much as an increased rate of three times per year more electricity demand than what we have seen in the past. We know we need energy from anywhere we can get it in greater volumes than we have had before.

Just this last week, we passed a bill that would streamline the permitting process for geothermal plants on State and private lands. This bill is another commonsense solution that will help bring our lagging geothermal industry online.

It is time we build more geothermal plants to reach our full geothermal potential in this country and unleash America's energy resources for our citizens and allies around the world.

It is imperative that we increase the rate of leasing geothermal plants so that American citizens can enjoy the low-cost, reliable, and renewable energy that comes from these plants.

Again, Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 1449, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is good to see my colleague, Mr. Grijalva, here in the Chamber today. Although it is good to see him presenting his amendment, I oppose the amendment.

This amendment attempts to mirror the language in the Mineral Leasing Act for oil and gas production on Federal lands, but, unfortunately, there are some key differences. If my colleagues look at it in its whole, the amendment would make it more difficult to lease geothermal resources than to lease oil and gas.

In fact, this amendment would triple the timeline for an agency to respond to a project applicant on whether their geothermal drilling permit application is complete or deficient.

This is not a timeline for permit approval. It is a timeline for simply letting someone know if they submitted a complete application.

Under current law, the BLM is already required to provide similar affirmation on oil and gas permit applications within 10 days. This amendment

would create a timeline for geothermal permit applicants nine times longer than those BLM is already held to for oil and gas.

The amendment also states that the NEPA review must be complete before final permit approval. This language is unnecessary. The bill does nothing to waive NEPA requirements.

Additionally, the amendment would create a new option for the BLM to deny geothermal permits, effectively pulling the rug out from under energy projects at the last step in the permitting process.

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, again, the bill does nothing to waive NEPA requirements. It just simply speeds up the timeline.

It shouldn't take an agency 90 days to notify an applicant if an application is complete or not. We need more of this clean, renewable energy. To get more of it, we need to get a permitting process that works.

Unfortunately, this amendment would slow down the process even more. That is why I am opposed to the amendment. I encourage others to vote against it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment. It would gut the bill by conditioning enactment on a determination by the Secretary of the Interior that the Bureau of Land Management and other relevant Federal permitting agencies have received adequate funding to resolve permitting staff shortages.

If Members felt the urge to laugh when I stated that, they are probably not too far off because this amendment doesn't really pass the laugh test.

I have never heard of a Federal agency admitting to having enough funding or enough staff, and this amendment simply is a poison pill because the action it is conditioned on simply will never happen.

The issue is not DOI staff capacity but burdensome permitting processes that take years, produce duplicative reviews, and consume thousands of hours for regulators and project proponents alike.

Actually, we passed a bill just last week that will help resolve any issue that may be there. H.R. 7409 would decrease the administrative load on staff and field offices by not requiring a Federal permit for geothermal energy produced on State and private lands. That bill would rapidly streamline the approval process by relying on the States' permitting procedures rather than the duplicative Federal process.

My friends on the other side of the aisle had a chance last week to free agency staffers from their redundant work, but many opposed the bill.

Let's not forget that last Congress, as the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) stated, the Democrats rammed through a reconciliation package with a billion dollars for permitting. DOI had $150 million, and from that bill, it was to provide for the hiring and training of personnel, the development of programmatic environmental documents, the procurement of technical or scientific services for environmental reviews, the development of

environmental data or information systems, stakeholder and community engagement.

In fact, the Department has grown by 4,000 full-time equivalents from fiscal year 2020 to fiscal year 2023.

More funding and bureaucrats aren't what is needed now. What is needed is for DOI to recognize energy permitting as a priority and create a plan for meeting the required timelines.

We must continue working here to pass more permitting reform measures to help alleviate the permitting burden on important energy projects. These measures will also reduce the redundant permitting tasks performed by the Federal workforce.

H.R. 1449 will hold the Department's feet to the fire by forcing them to act on geothermal leasing and permitting in a timely manner. For those reasons, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I think we have to ask ourselves, do we want environmental growth in this country to be based on growing the bureaucracy and spending more money on permits, or do we actually want to make things? Do we want to produce energy? Do we want to use the resources that we have?

Geothermal operators are often required to complete six separate NEPA reviews to get a Federal permit: one for exploration, another if there is a subsurface anomaly, a third for drilling a slim confirmation hole, a fourth to develop the well field, a fifth for the power plant itself, and a sixth if the project is speculative exploration on lands not previously leased.

The status quo is a duplicative and wasteful process and prevents the United States from developing this very clean energy source. Performing NEPA six times does not provide six times the environmental benefit, rather less duplicative NEPA reviews will actually increase the rate at which these clean energy resources come online.

This bill is an attempt to put more clean energy resources on the grid at a faster pace. This amendment would undermine that goal. I oppose it, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

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

Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1568, I call up the bill (H.R. 8446) to amend the Energy Act of 2020 to include critical materials in the definition of critical mineral, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 8446.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8446, the Critical Mineral Consistency Act of 2024.

H.R. 8446 introduced by Representative Ciscomani would amend the Energy Act of 2020 to add critical materials from the Department of Energy Critical Materials List to the United States Geological Survey's critical minerals list.

Currently, each agency uses different metrics when constructing their respective lists.

DOE's methodology for critical material determination is forward- looking. It accounts for international demand scenarios and growth trajectories specifically for energy technologies.

On the other hand, currently USGS' process only uses historic data to determine supply risk to the U.S. economy and national security.

By law, all the minerals on USGS' list are automatically included in DOE's Critical Materials List. H.R. 8446 would enable the process to work in the other direction by placing critical materials on the critical minerals list.

The Critical Mineral Consistency Act is a straightforward solution that enables each agency to retain responsibility for reviewing minerals under their respective purviews while clarifying persistent confusion over critical minerals versus critical materials. As you can see, even speaking about it on the floor, it is easy to get the two confused.

The bill cuts across jurisdictional red tape while preserving each agency's discretion and expertise in adding items to its list.

Both critical minerals and critical materials are just that, critical. Without reliable access to essential materials such as cobalt and lithium for batteries and copper and aluminum for transmission lines, the U.S. risks failing to meet future economic and energy demands. Such a situation would lead to increased dependence on the market decisions of adversarial nations for critical minerals and materials.

H.R. 8446 passed out of the Natural Resources Committee on a bipartisan vote because both sides of the aisle understand the importance of critical minerals and materials.

I encourage my colleagues to once again come together to support this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There were a lot of claims made from my friends across the aisle about what this bill does or what its intent and purpose are. I think I need to clarify some of this.

First off, I heard the claim that this bill would cost billions and billions of dollars to the taxpayer. I am not going to ask to submit that for the record because it is already part of the record. It is the CBO score for this bill that says, at most, it is a $2 million cost to administer the program, which actually seems high to me, but it is far from billions of dollars of handouts to anyone. That is what the Congressional Budget Office said. That is what I am repeating here.

Also, a claim was made that we are exporting copper. I include in the Record the link from the U.S. Geological Survey's ``Mineral Commodity Summaries 2024,'' which shows that we import 46 percent of the copper that comes into the country. That is on page 64 of that report. https:/ /pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2024/mcs2024.pdf

Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned about the demand for copper, and I do agree with that. We have an insatiable demand for copper. A lot of that is created by some of the massive spending programs that our friends across the aisle passed a few years ago.

There are estimates that say we need to mine more copper than we have mined in the history of the world in the next 20 to 30 years. There is a big demand for copper, and we are blessed in the United States because we have that copper here that we can use to create jobs, grow our economy, and help national security.

This bill is not about copper, but if we want to talk about copper, I think we have a very strong position on our side of the aisle on how we see copper and how copper can play an important role in the economy going forward.

Also, there was talk about DOE's list and USGS' list. I want to clarify that the critical minerals on USGS' list automatically go into DOE's Critical Materials List. This bill would take DOE's Critical Materials List and make it synonymous with USGS' critical minerals list.

By the way, USGS supports this legislation. You would think if this administration's USGS had a problem with doing that, they wouldn't have supported the bill.

I know there were a lot of claims made, but I think it is important that we get the facts out here in the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Ciscomani), the author of this bill.

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

Again, we are talking about copper. So let's talk about copper a little bit. This chart shows that in 1995, we produced 2.3 million tons of copper, and China produced 0.7 million tons. That is about three times more copper that we produced in the United States in 1995.

In 2020, China was up to 9.8 million tons a year, and we were at 0.9 million tons. You can see our overall production actually went down; China's skyrocketed. In 2020, they were producing 11 times more copper than we produced here in the United States. It is not because we don't have copper deposits in the United States, it is because people don't want copper mining and production in their backyard. However, if you are building a copper mine, you don't get to choose where the copper is located. It has long ago been determined that the copper in these places, sometimes it is on Federal lands, sometimes it is on private land.

The reason our production has gone down is because we can't permit new copper mines. We also can't permit copper refineries. The other side of this story is we have 2 copper refineries in the United States today and China has over 50.

With estimates that we need to produce more copper going forward in the next couple of decades than has been produced in the history of the world, you can see where that production is going to come from unless we

decide to mine the copper in our country, unless we decide to build responsible mines where there aren't human rights violations, where there aren't environmental violations, where we do things better, safer, and more efficient than anyplace else in the world.

Someone who knows how critical these minerals are to our defense and to our way of life here in America is the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read directly from USGS's testimony on this bill in committee: ``As a possible way to manage the two lists, the USGS supports this bill.''

That is verbatim from their testimony in committee.

Also, we can talk about copper for a long time because it is the poster child of misguided principles and misguided regulations in our country. However, there is more on the list than just copper.

Let's talk about electrical steel. Electrical steel goes into transformers.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to build new transmission lines and transmission systems, then you have to have transformers. You can't build transformers without electrical steel. It is not on the critical minerals list, but it is on the Critical Materials List.

What about fluorine?

Nuclear reactors and electronics depend on fluorine. It is on the Critical Materials List. It is not on the critical minerals list.

Here is a good one: silicon carbide. Congress passed this massive bill to subsidize semiconductor companies to build chips factories here in the United States. Actually it was called the CHIPS bill. We are going to build chips facilities in the United States, but we can't produce the silicon carbide needed to put into those chips facilities.

It is about a lot more than copper, but copper is the big material that is out there that should be obvious to everyone that if we are going to have a more electrified economy, if we are going to build more electronics, and if we are going to have more renewable energy systems and transmission lines, then copper is absolutely critical to it, and that is why there is such a large projected demand for copper.

Fortunately, we actually have copper in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) who has I believe the largest copper deposit and largest cobalt and nickel deposits in the world located in his district, but decades of permitting and we are still not producing copper, cobalt, or nickel from those mines. Also I believe they have platinum and palladium.

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 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, I go back to this idea of what mining in America could mean to America. We know that it has national security implications. We know that it has critical implications on being able to grow our energy sector, to grow our economy.

I want to look at just strictly the mining and manufacturing component from mining. I have already submitted this report for the record, page 4, which USGS, along with Commerce, puts out every year. It shows how much material we mine in the U.S., how much we export, and how much we import. The net value last year was $129.7 billion. Of all the ore that we mined and the exports and imports, it was worth $129.7 billion.

That is a lot of wealth, but it pales in comparison to the amount of wealth that is generated when that raw material is converted into a metal. That material was worth $890 billion when it was refined into metal.

When we talk about generating wealth, we are generating income for local communities and American workers not just by mining that ore but by processing it into metal, where we can increase it by eight or nine times the value, which means income for rural Americans.

This same report shows us that $890 billion worth of value created from this material, along with another $102 billion worth of material that we had to import, created an impact on our economy of $3.9 trillion. Think about that.

When we use the resources that we have, it creates jobs in extracting those resources and in processing and refining those resources, and it creates jobs throughout our economy on manufacturing the goods and products that come from those resources.

I don't want it to be lost on anyone that, historically, and this year is no exception, the U.S. Treasury receives about 16.5 percent of the GDP in tax revenue. When we look at budget issues in America, for every trillion dollars we grow our economy, we are creating another $165 billion going to the side of the ledger that we want it to go to, the income side, to help out with our budget.

At the same time, when we are promoting things that create high- paying jobs, we are taking money off of the other side of the ledger through social welfare programs. President Reagan said it best: The greatest social welfare program ever invented was a job.

It is time that we have these jobs in America, using American resources, refining those resources, and manufacturing products from them.

That takes me back to H.R. 8446. Both lists aim to identify vital minerals susceptible to supply shocks. With this bill, each agency will continue to review minerals and materials for redesignation regularly, just as Congress intended.

It was mentioned that there is no science behind this. We are trusting these agencies, USGS and DOE, to go through the same processes they have always gone through, but to put these lists together to have a comprehensive list.

These lists were not meant to be static snapshots of siloed industries. They are meant to be flexible tools that foster collaboration between sectors and agencies to promote the well-being of our ever-changing supply chain.

H.R. 8446 allows each agency the latitude to perform its own independent analysis. For example, DOE's most recent iteration of the Critical Materials List contains copper, electrical steel flooring, silicon, and silicon carbide. USGS' critical mineral list does not contain those. These materials are used in power generation, electrical wiring, semiconductors, solar panels, transformers, defense applications, really all over and all throughout our society.

We must continue to find ways to release China's stranglehold on our critical mineral supply chain. They have exploited their position on multiple occasions by instigating commodity dumping to make U.S. and our allied nations' critical mineral production uneconomical.

H.R. 8446 will provide the Federal Government with a clearer and more holistic snapshot of the materials we need to safeguard our economy, energy, and national security.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank Mr. Ciscomani for all of his work on this

legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters of support from the following organizations: the National Association of Manufacturers, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Mint Innovation, and the Copper Development Association.

National Association

of Manufacturers,

Washington, DC, November 13, 2024.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Association

of Manufacturers, the largest manufacturing trade association

in the United States, representing manufacturers in every

industrial sector and in all 50 states, I respectfully urge

you to vote ``yes'' on H.R. #8446, the Critical Minerals

Consistency Act.

Manufacturers need robust, secure and reliable access to

critical minerals and materials (including lithium, cobalt,

copper, nickel and silicon) to make innovative products that

power modern life, such as computer electronics and cell

phones, batteries for storage, solar panels and household

appliances. The U.S. has enormous mineral wealth, including

some of the world's largest deposits of lithium and copper,

and this legislation will help America remain a natural

resources superpower.

Under the Energy Act of 2020, Congress directed the

Department of the Interior (DOI) to identify and maintain a

list of critical minerals to be routinely updated by the U.S.

Geological Service (USGC) Unfortunately, the items that

appeared on this list did not align with a separate critical

materials list that was established under the same law to be

maintained by the Department of Energy (DOE). This is causing

confusion among producers because eligibility for certain

grant programs, tax credits, loan guarantees or improved

permitting processes are only granted to items on the DOI

list.

This legislation is a priority for manufacturers to shore

up supply chains of key minerals and materials by adding

copper, electrical steel, silicone and silicone carbide to

the national critical minerals list These are materials that

are irreplaceable in crucial energy, technology and national

security applications from electrical equipment and batteries

to grid transformers and semiconductors American

manufacturing is too often reliant on foreign sources of raw

and refined inputs of these materials, when we can and must

be doing more to produce them domestically.

H R. 8446 provides necessary clarity by creating parity

between the DOE critical materials list and the DOI critical

minerals list and ensures that key minerals to America's

national and energy security, like copper, electrical steel

and silicone, are not left out.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Chris Netram,

Managing Vice President, Policy.

Mr. Speaker, I also note for the record the support of the following organizations: the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, the National Electrical Manufacturing Association, the Zero Emission Transportation Association, the Transformer Manufacturing Association of America, and the National Mining Association.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1568, I call up the bill (H.R. 7409) to amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to waive the requirement for a Federal drilling permit for certain activities, to exempt certain activities from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 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. 7409.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7409, the Harnessing Energy At Thermal Sources Act, or the HEATS Act.

First, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim), my friend, for being a leader on this issue and working with my staff and me to bring this bipartisan bill to the floor.

H.R. 7409, the HEATS Act, is a commonsense bill that would expedite the development of geothermal energy on non-Federal lands containing Federal minerals.

Currently, geothermal operators on non-Federal land producing any amount of Federal resources must abide by all Federal laws and permitting processes, even if the share of Federal minerals is minuscule.

Under this bill, such projects would still undergo a rigorous State permitting process but would not be bogged down by duplicative and burdensome Federal permitting processes.

H.R. 7409 stipulates that geothermal wells on non-Federal lands are not subject to NEPA, ESA, or NHPA if the United States holds an ownership interest of less than 50 percent of the geothermal estate and the operator receives a drilling permit from the respective State.

Notably, the bill would not impact the royalty paid to the Federal Government. Therefore, it would not reduce the Federal revenues generated by geothermal production. In fact, it would actually increase Federal revenues by reducing the administrative responsibilities of Federal agencies and expediting the permitting process for geothermal development.

Enhanced geothermal systems, or EGS, are created by injecting fluid deep underground in carefully controlled conditions to create new fractures and causing preexisting fractures to open, increasing permeability below the surface. The process employs established technology already commonly utilized in the energy sector, and the DOE estimates that EGS could generate 60 gigawatts of electricity by 2050, which represents 8.5 percent of the U.S. generation capacity.

The best geothermal reservoirs suitable for EGS are located in States with Federal minerals, including Colorado, California, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico, and Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, Federal streamlining efforts like this bill will be necessary to realize EGS' full potential. Federal minerals, however, come with red tape.

This bill provides a rational approach to streamlining the development of a proven renewable energy source. This commonsense bill will help spur geothermal energy development and promote American energy independence as part of an all-of-the-above energy strategy. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if we lived in a place called Utopia, a lot of this might be possible. I come from an engineering background. Some of the things I remember from those classes long ago, laws like energy can't be created or destroyed, it just changes form.

It would be nice if we could get electricity in the wire without a geothermal plant or to mine coal or to mine gas or to build the solar farm. We haven't figured out how to do that yet.

If we want energy, we are going to have to use the sources that we have got where they are. If we want minerals, we are going to have to get them out of the ground. That can be a good thing because that can create jobs, that can create economic growth. We can do it in a responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not remove all permitting. It requires landowners to still get permits from States. It has protections built in for the environment. It gives States and local communities a bigger seat at the table than to rely on some permit coming out of Washington, D.C., to develop a project that has a slight interest in Federal minerals.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim) and commend her for bringing this bill forward.

Mr. Speaker, I guess things depend on the perspective from which you look at them. They took the geothermal plant picture down that was up on the other side of the aisle, but I will point out that if that plant were to be built on Federal lands, it would go fully under Federal permitting process.

We are talking about facilities that are built on State or private lands that are close to Federal lands. What we are really talking about is not what is on the surface; it is what is below the surface.

If the geothermal energy that is going to this facility, if 50 percent or less of that is coming off of the Federal estate, then the developer would not have to go through the Federal permitting process but would go through the State permitting process.

They would still pay the Federal Government the royalty for the geothermal energy that is coming off of the Federal estate, but they just wouldn't have to go through the Federal permitting process.

You can look at that and say, oh, they are being exempted from the Federal permitting process, but if you look at it from the other perspective, why should a State or private landowner be subject to the Federal permitting process on their private or State land just because less than half of the energy that is going into this facility is coming off of the Federal Government?

Should the Federal Government be dictating to States and private businesses and private landowners what gets developed on their land?

Again, I guess it is just the perspective of how you look at it, but the one thing we know is, you can't harvest and harness this renewable geothermal energy that could make up 8\1/2\ percent of our electricity generation without getting it out of the ground and having a facility to utilize that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentlewoman pointing out the language on page 3 of the bill. I will point that out too because it says, ``The Secretary shall not require an operator to obtain a Federal drilling permit for geothermal exploration and production activities conducted on a non-Federal surface estate. . . .''

I think most people would agree that we don't want the Federal Government telling States and private landowners that they have to obtain a Federal permit to extract energy off of their land. That is exactly why we are proposing this bill, and it is not coming from the standpoint that the government knows best, that somebody sitting here in D.C. in a nondescript cubicle should be telling somebody thousands of miles away how to develop their land. No.

We shouldn't require Federal permitting on State and private land, which is what we are talking about. That is what this bill would do. It is only in the case where when you get below the surface, if more than 50 percent of the geothermal energy is coming off of Federal land, then you still have to go through the Federal permitting.

If it is less than 50 percent, then the State permitting would rule. It is a commonsense bill. It would promote economic development. It would promote renewable energy development. It is a bill that needs to be passed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Duarte), who also worked closely on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and 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.

In closing, I would like to urge my colleagues to vote in support of H.R. 7409. The HEATS Act would expedite geothermal energy production by removing the requirement that geothermal operators receive a Federal drilling permit for wells on State and private lands where the subsurface geothermal estate is less than 50 percent Federal.

Operators would still be required to receive State permits and approval but would be exempt from Federal permitting regulations like NEPA, the ESA, and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. That is a mouthful of words, but let's look at in practicality.

We are talking about a geothermal production facility that is going to have a footprint on the surface of the land. It is going to be on the surface of State or private land. Then we are going drill a hole thousands of feet into the ground, an 8- to 12-inch in diameter hole that is going to go a mile or so deeper, maybe 2 miles deep into the ground. Then it is going to turn horizontal, and it is going to start picking up geothermal energy from a large area.

What my friends across the aisle seem to want to do is to invoke a NEPA permit on a hole in the ground 2 miles deep. They want to be able to implement the ESA because of a hole in the ground 2 miles deep. They want to do a National Historic Preservation assessment because of a hole in the ground 2 miles deep.

What they really want to do is be able to link this private facility on State or private land back to the Federal Government so they can use these laws that are well-intentioned, well-meaning laws to stop that facility from being built on State or private land.

There is no environmental benefit of doing an ESA analysis on a hole in the ground 2 miles deep. There is no historical preservation that is going to be improved by permitting a hole 2 miles deep, not when this has already been through a robust State permitting process and these States have requirements and regulations for developing energy resources within their borders. What this does is it eliminates duplicative bureaucracy at the Federal level that has no intent or purpose other than to impede geothermal energy development.

This bill will lower emissions and energy costs for American families and strengthen U.S. energy independence. Accelerating renewable geothermal production and deployment is a win for our economy, our national security, and the environment.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 8790.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8790, the Fix Our Forests Act, a bipartisan forestry package that I am proud to lead with my good friend and colleague from California (Mr. Peters) and which passed out of the Natural Resources Committee earlier this year by voice vote.

This comprehensive package is the product of many months of hard work and bipartisan collaboration. This bill was not formulated in Washington, D.C. From field hearings in the shadow of Half Dome in Yosemite National Park to site visits to Tribal reservations in New Mexico, we have traveled the country to hear from experts and find consensus on the best approaches to improve the management of our Nation's forests.

I may be the only licensed forester in Congress, but you don't need a forestry degree to understand that our Nation's dire forest health crisis demands our immediate attention. This year alone, wildfires have burned more than 7.3 million acres nationally. In the past 10 years, wildfires in the U.S. have burned over 73 million acres, roughly the same area as the State of Arizona.

Catastrophic wildfires are much more than just statistics. They destroy lives. They destroy property. They degrade our air and water quality, turn abundant wildlife habitat into moonscapes, and create billions of dollars in economic damage.

One of the most tragic consequences of the wildfire crisis is seeing entire communities in the path of uncontrollable megafires leveled year after year.

The 2018 Camp fire in California destroyed the towns of Paradise and Concow, burning over 18,000 structures and killing 85 people. In 2020, the North Complex fire completely engulfed and demolished the towns of Berry Creek and Feather Falls, wiping out over 2,300 structures. Just last year, I saw firsthand the immediate aftermath of the devastating wildfire in Maui that destroyed the historic town of Lahaina, causing untold damages.

Behind these examples are real people who are left to pick up the pieces and communities that will never be the same again. With over 1 billion acres at risk for wildfire across the country, we sadly know these tragedies will persist without intervention. In fact, the Forest Service has identified more than 70,000 communities and 44 million homes that are at risk of experiencing a catastrophic wildfire in the wildland-urban interface.

The good news is that we know what needs to be done. We must increase the pace and scale of scientifically proven forest management to restore health and resiliency to our Nation's forests.

The Fix Our Forests Act will restore forest health, increase resiliency to catastrophic wildfires, and protect vulnerable communities. Right now, it takes 3 to 5 years to begin work on a forest management program. This bill simplifies and streamlines cumbersome and costly environmental reviews so that, if enacted, land managers could go into our forests the next day and begin the work we know needs to happen.

H.R. 8790 empowers States, Tribal, local, and private partners to get more work done on the ground by strengthening the Good Neighbor Authority and Stewardship Contracting.

This bill also creates a framework for prioritizing treatments in our most at-risk areas. By encouraging the adoption of innovative science and technology, we can improve wildfire suppression capabilities, lower costs, and protect communities.

The best part is that we will save a pound in cure by investing a penny in prevention. The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that reducing the risk of wildfires will lower wildfire suppression costs, allowing us to invest more in proactive, preventative forest management. If you believe that money is the only thing that will fix this problem, then you should vote for the Fix Our Forests Act because the bill will free up financial resources to

invest in critical forest management work.

This is a good bill that will help us finally turn the tide against the historic forest health crisis. I thank Members on both sides of the aisle who have contributed their input and ideas to this bipartisan product. I am proud to support even more bipartisan amendments offered by my colleagues on both sides of the aisle today.

They say the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The next best time is today. While we can't reverse the decades of inadequate forest management that have led us to this dire juncture, we can take a positive step today that will ensure healthier forests and communities for our children far into the future.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, September 3, 2024.

Hon. Bruce Westerman,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 8790, the ``Fix Our Forests

Act''. 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. 8790 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. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, as I stated earlier, if forest health was about spending more money, then we would have the healthiest forests we have ever had, as my friends across the aisle interjected $12 billion into the Forest Service budget through the IRA and the IIJA, but their own goal of managing 6 million acres a year is going down--not going up but going down. It shows us that money is not the problem.

On the subject of firefighter pay, I think we can agree that our firefighters need higher pay. That is why, in the appropriations bill on the Interior, we had an increase in firefighter pay. There was only one Democrat who voted for that bill on the House floor.

Republicans have voted to increase the pay for firefighters, but again, it is not about money. If it was about money, then my colleagues would support this bill because the CBO has said this bill would actually save money. If we are not spending all this money fighting forest fires, we will be saving money coming out of the Treasury that we can spend on proactive things, like management.

Again, it is about the policy. This is good policy. It is bipartisan policy. We have worked hard to try to make it that.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), the chairman of the Western Caucus.

Mr. Chair, you know, I hate to spend time in debate laying out how the procedures of the House work, but, number one, the majority doesn't determine what is germane. The Parliamentarian determines what is germane.

Number two, wildland firefighters actually support our bill. We gave our friends across the aisle an opportunity to vote for a pay increase for wildland firefighters that is in an appropriations bill. This is an authorization bill. It is not an appropriations bill. They chose to vote against the increased pay in the appropriations bill, but again, we are working on an authorization bill, and it does meet House floor protocol.

There is not a CutGo because we are not cutting. Actually, the only thing we are cutting are expenses to the Federal Government.

I just wanted to clarify those few things.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Duarte).

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

Again, I sincerely thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Peters) for his remarks and for his partnership on this legislation. As he mentioned, due to some procedural issues, we were not able to consider an amendment he was offering to make improvements to the bill's Fireshed Center. This is an effort that I support, and I regret we were unable to get this amendment made in order.

I do look forward to working with the gentleman on incorporating the amendment in the future discussions with the Senate.

I also thank Matt Weiner and the entire team at Megafire Action for working with us tirelessly on this important amendment and for their support of this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany), the subcommittee chair on Federal Lands.

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

I thank the gentleman for his leadership on the subcommittee and for his work going into this bill to make the bill better and to add some of the things that he mentioned.

When we talk about taking timber off of the forests, we are not talking about clear-cutting. It always gets misconstrued that we want to clear-cut the forests. I challenge anyone to show me where the U.S. Forest Service is clear-cutting because you won't find that. I have asked them: Is there any place you still clear-cut? And they said: No.

What we are talking about is forest management, where we go in and we thin out, we create growing space, we allow these trees to be healthier, more vibrant. We allow them to have access to sunlight, access to soil moisture and nutrients, and it gives them an opportunity to grow. It also creates space when the fire comes through it can drop down to the forest floor where it can easily be put out if it needs to be put out.

Some fire is beneficial to the forest, but certainly not fire that gets up in the crown of the trees and destroys everything in its path.

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

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

Mr. Chair, if the minority truly were concerned about carbon in the atmosphere, their number one priority would be to keep forests healthy, to keep massive amounts of carbon dioxide from going up in wildfires, and to keep dead and decaying wood from being digested by microorganisms and being released as methane into the atmosphere.

If we want to make less carbon in the atmosphere and if we want to keep it in the trees, then we should utilize the greatest carbon capture and sequestration device ever known to man, and that is a tree. It is on a wide scale a low-cost and economical way to capture and sequester carbon. However, when we let our forests become subject to bug and infestation attacks and to catastrophic wildfire, then we are going in the opposite direction.

If somebody wants to make the argument that we need healthy forests for a better climate, then they should vote for this bill because that is what this bill would do.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta), who is a cosponsor of the bill and has been a tireless advocate on improving forest health.

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

Mr. Chair, it was insinuated earlier that my good friend, Mr. Peters, did not work with The Nature Conservancy.

It begins by saying that: ``TNC, which has decades of experience in wildfire mitigation and resilience work, was at the table with Representatives Peters and Westerman to improve this bill from its initial draft form.''

They go on to say that they are not endorsing the bill because of some issues they have, but they also list several things that they approve of in the bill.

Mr. Chair, I include in the Record the Nature Conservancy statement.

TNC New Statement

TNC's position: TNC, which has decades of experience in

wildfire mitigation and resilience work, was at the table

with Reps. Peters and Westerman to improve this bill from its

initial draft form, and while it has certainly improved since

that point due in part to our advocacy, we are not endorsing

the bill due to a remaining problematic provision in the

litigation reform section that TNC believes could damagingly

limit community engagement.

However, we also believe there are beneficial provisions in

the bill, such as the Good Neighbor Authority provisions, the

inclusion of Tribal priorities in the fireshed management

section, the Community Wildfire Risk Reduction Program, and

the Seeds of Success cross agency coordination.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Kim).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her efforts in helping make this a better bill. She knows all too well the devastation of catastrophic wildfires like what are happening in her district.

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, what we are doing is not working. Our forests are not getting healthier. Our environment is not getting better. The climate is not getting better. Wildlife habitats are not getting better. Water quality is not getting better. It is all getting worse from the things that we have been doing the last 30 years.

If that is not enough evidence to say it is time for a change, I don't know what is. The time to fix our forests is now. This is a good, commonsense, bipartisan bill for our forest health and our Nation's benefit. The Fix Our Forests Act will end the status quo of overgrown, fire-prone tinderboxes.

Mr. Chair, again, this bill will make our forests healthier and more resilient. It will protect our communities, save taxpayer money, and cut red tape. I urge the adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment offered by my colleague from New York (Mr. Molinaro), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Harder).

This amendment ensures that each fireshed assessment required by the bill also includes consideration of a strategy to reduce the threat that wildfires pose to wildfire firefighters' health and safety.

Specifically, the amendment requires that fireshed assessments analyze the effectiveness of fuel treatments that would improve both the efficacy of wildland firefighting and the safety of wildland firefighters.

Fireshed assessments are a strategic tool for gauging or reducing the risk of wildfire in high-risk areas. By targeting treatments in the right areas, we can protect communities and put firefighters into winnable situations where they can effectively battle wildfires.

This amendment focuses on a crucial dimension of the wildfire crisis; namely, the safety of the brave men and women who regularly put themselves in danger to combat raging wildfires.

The amendment correctly identifies fuel treatments as a meaningful way to accomplish this goal, as proactively treated areas can slow the advancing wildfires and give firefighters precious time to safely combat an approaching blaze.

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the bipartisan collaboration reflected in this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, 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 amendment offered by Mr. Valadao of California.

This amendment does require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct an evaluation of the container aerial firefighting system to assess the use of such a system to mitigate and suppress wildfires. The Secretaries must conduct this evaluation in consultation with the National Interagency Aviation Committee and the Interagency Airtanker Board.

As we attempt to combat the devastating wildfire crisis, it is essential that agencies like the U.S. Forest Service are utilizing all available technologies to suppress wildfires. The technology supported by this amendment involves disposable containers that are dropped with water or fire retardant, which could potentially decrease the response time to fires and increase the number of aircraft available for firefighting duties.

While the technology is not new, the wildland firefighting agencies have not actively studied it. This amendment, therefore, would ensure that our wildland firefighting agencies are fully informed about both the effectiveness and potential cost savings of this important technology.

Mr. Chair, again, I thank Representative Valadao for his work on this amendment. Throughout the drafting process, he has continually advocated for the interests of those in his district and correctly emphasized the importance of leveraging all available technology and resources to better protect vulnerable communities.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman from California, Representative Garamendi, and the gentleman from Texas, Representative Fallon.

This is a thoughtful amendment that will enable special districts to participate in the biochar research and development program established in section 301 of the bill. This amendment would also make special districts eligible to participate in the Good Neighbor Authority.

Across the Nation, there are over 39,000 special districts and political subdivisions within States, such as resource conservation districts or water districts.

Both the biochar and Good Neighbor Authority sections of this bill already allow participation from States, Tribes, and local governments.

Providing eligibility for special districts is a commonsense change to ensure more non-Federal partners can participate in these vitally important programs that promote forest health.

I particularly support expanding access for special districts to the biochar projects authorized by section 301 of the bill.

Biochar is an emerging technology that has shown enormous potential as an additive to improve soil health and as a significant carbon sequestration tool, and it also helps the water retention ability of soil.

A key barrier to expanding active forest management is a lack of market access for low-value hazardous fuels that must be removed from overgrown Federal forests.

Biochar is an innovative solution that could create new markets for these low-value materials, thus increasing the pace and scale of forest management. I also support adding special districts to the Good Neighbor Authority.

Since 2014, there have been 490 Good Neighbor projects in 34 States, and every year, over 273 million board feet of timber is being sold.

Adding special districts to this program creates new opportunities for even more forest management projects that could further increase Good Neighbor Authority for forest management activities.

I thank Representatives Garamendi and Fallon for their efforts to improve this legislation by thoughtfully including special districts.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the bipartisan amendment offered by Representatives Obernolte of California and Pettersen of Colorado, which supports the use of thermal, midwave, infrared-equipped, low-Earth orbit satellites.

It is a mouthful, but it is a good addition to the Fix Our Forests Act, and it shows that we are trying to incorporate the latest technology. We are trying to incorporate AI technology and more remote sensing technology so that we can be on the cutting edge of the fight against wildland fire.

Again, I commend my colleagues for their dedication and willingness to work together to ensure that the best solutions can be brought to bear on addressing the wildfire crisis.

I urge everyone to support the amendment and the underlying bill.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I join my colleague, Mr. Peters, rising in support today of Representative Harder's amendment, which does authorize the Department of the Interior to create a Casualty Assistance Program to provide support for wildland firefighters and the families of the firefighters who have been critically injured or killed in the line of duty.

As was mentioned, the Forest Service already has a Casualty Assistance Program, which provides travel expenses for next of kin to visit a wildland firefighter hospitalized due to a line-of-duty injury, or worse, killed in action.

It also provides directions for short- and long-term case management procedures for casualty assistance. This commonsense amendment will make the same services available to wildland firefighters at the Department of the Interior, providing critical support to the families of these firefighters.

As wildfire seasons have grown in both length and severity, the job of wildland firefighter has become increasingly dangerous.

Between 2013 and 2022, 96 wildland firefighter fatalities occurred. While Congress works to address the forest conditions that are putting wildland firefighters into increasingly dire situations, we must also ensure that we are providing adequate support to them and their families.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of his amendment.

This amendment will add to the underlying legislation key pieces of Representative Barr's bipartisan White Oak Resilience Act, which passed out of the Natural Resources Committee unanimously this year.

While the Fix Our Forests Act primarily addresses the dire state of our overgrown and fire-prone forests in the West, this amendment addresses an urgent challenge confronting our Eastern forests.

At current trends, we face an imminent shortage of white oak trees throughout their native range of the Eastern United States. Because of a lack of necessary forest management practices and shifts in the forest environment, we have created a situation where white oak seedlings and saplings are not growing at a sustainable rate. Presently, roughly 75 percent of white oaks in the U.S. are classified as mature. The lack of younger trees is very troubling. Without intervention, the white oak population will drastically decline in the next 10 to 15 years. White oaks are a keystone species that provide immense ecosystem benefits to the many forests within the species' 104- million-acre range. This iconic American tree is especially important for wildlife that is both a preferred food source and habitat for many species.

As Representative Barr mentioned, there are many uses for white oak, many uses that are especially important to the great State of Kentucky. This is a good amendment that will help restore the long-term viability of this beautiful and important tree. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment, which seeks to expand nursery and seed capacity, support reforestation efforts by State, Tribal, and local governments, as well as institutions of higher education on lands managed by the Department of the Interior.

I thank the amendment's sponsor for her engagement on this important issue. I greatly appreciate her and her staff's willingness to work with us on some revisions to the amendment. This amendment will help improve badly needed reforestation and restoration activities across the Nation by engaging non-Federal partners, including Tribes, who are critical partners as we seek to improve the health of our Nation's forests.

The magnitude of our wildfire and forest health crisis demands an all-hands-on-deck approach. I am encouraged that this amendment will empower non-Federal partners to assist in vital work.

The Department of the Interior has identified a reforestation backlog of roughly 2.4 million acres across their land management agencies. This total is likely to grow considering the massive numbers of acres lost to wildfires

in recent years. This is a good amendment and will help tackle the enormous reforestation and restoration backlog affecting Department of the Interior lands. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment, which would clarify that the Fireshed Center created by this legislation can use artificial intelligence and other decision support tools to assess fire risk to communities and landscapes.

The Fix Our Forests Act establishes a new Fireshed Center for relevant land management and science-focused agencies to comprehensively assess and predict fire across the landscape and in the wildland-urban interface. This will reduce fragmentation and create a one-stop shop for predictive services that can help inform suppression and management decisions across jurisdictional landscapes.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of this bipartisan amendment being offered by Representatives Costa and Valadao of California.

The Committee on Natural Resources held a field hearing this Congress in Representative Valadao's district on the importance of water, and this amendment is a bipartisan, good faith effort to help address concerns raised at that hearing.

This bipartisan amendment would expand public and private forestry and watershed management partnerships and reduce redundancies under the existing Water Source Protection Program.

Representatives Costa and Valadao's amendment includes good governance changes to the Water Source Protection Program. It expands the number of eligible lands and entities under the program and reduces duplicative application materials and red tape for existing watershed restoration action plans.

Finally, this amendment establishes clear program priorities that help align the program to its core mission.

These changes align with the spirit of the Fix Our Forests Act. Oftentimes, we hear calls for more funding to solve a problem. However, oftentimes, by focusing on a program's priorities and reducing red tape, the cost goes down and funding can be shifted away from bureaucracy and toward getting work done on the ground.

Again, I commend Representatives Valadao and Costa for reaching across the aisle to work together on this amendment. I have had the pleasure of working with both of these gentlemen on the Save Our Sequoias Act.

Mr. Chair, I encourage support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, this is a good amendment that allows for good use of our resources.

It allows Tribes and local communities to take care of the roads that are necessary to access, to be able to do these forest management projects, and also to be able to fight fires when they break out and stop them before they get too big.

Mr. Chair, I support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment, and I appreciate the hard work that Representative Boebert has put into this thoughtful amendment, which does include Fire Regimes IV and V, and as we have these very dry, fire-prone areas out West, it is important to include these two fire regimes.

Again, I support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment being offered by Representative Boebert.

This amendment ensures that livestock grazing activities are considered as hazardous fuels reduction work when Federal land management agencies calculate the number of acres treated to reduce hazardous fuels.

Section 302 of the Fix Our Forests Act requires land management agencies to submit a yearly hazardous fuels reduction report to Congress based on the actual number of acres the respective agencies treated over the past year. The goal is to improve transparency and accountability.

Livestock grazing is beneficial for land. Just last month, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released research showing livestock grazing can lower wildfire risk and limit invasive grasses. The rangeland scientists who published this report include researchers from Representative Boebert's home State of Colorado.

I, again, thank her for her leadership and for supporting our ranching and farming families.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I thank her for bringing this amendment, which is important. I support the amendment.

Unfortunately, our forests out West are overstocked. They compete with each other. They get weak. They invite disease and insect infestation. These insects and diseases kill the trees, and then you have dry kindling for a lightning strike or a wildfire that gets out, and it creates the perfect storm for catastrophic wildfires.

Again, I thank Representative Boebert for her efforts to improve the health of our western forests, and I support the amendment.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and for her amendment.

Mr. Chair, I note that over 2.3 million households rely on firewood to heat

their homes. I didn't say they enjoy a nice evening by the fire. They rely on firewood to heat their homes. It is even more common in western, rural communities near Federal lands, especially in counties with significant Native American communities.

The Forest Service has made some positive efforts with programs like Wood For Life, which provides firewood from forest restoration projects in northern Arizona to local Tribal communities that otherwise could not afford to heat their homes.

Providing ample firewood sources to these communities is an essential and cost-effective service the Forest Service should be helping to provide.

Also, for as little as $5, more than 300,000 American families receive a Christmas tree permit from Forest Service properties each year. This not only helps Americans celebrate the Christmas season, but it also helps manage our forests through the removal of forest products that may otherwise fuel the next wildland fire.

I commend Representative Boebert for her work on this creative and thoughtful amendment that can make a big difference in the lives of rural Americans, and I urge its support.

Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

Mr. Chair, I thank my friend, Representative LaLota, for filing this amendment which seeks to address the serious threat to forests in the American northeast. The amendment does require the Forest Service to conduct a study on the causes and effects of the infestation of pine beetles in the northeastern region of the U.S. and offer solutions to the pressing problem.

The southern pine beetle is an invasive species that has been expanding into northeastern forests in recent years. As a southerner, I wish all the southern pine beetles would leave the South, but I don't wish them on my friends in the North.

It is an invasive species that poses a serious threat to the health of pine forests in the North.

Concerning tree mortality has been documented in recent years in pitch pine stands in several northeastern States, including New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut.

The expansion of this invasive species into northern forests is concerning and warrants our attention.

This is a good amendment that addresses a very real threat to forests in the northeast. Examining this threat further and developing solutions to prevent, treat, and detect insect infestations is an important endeavor.

I, again, applaud Representative LaLota for his leadership in this effort, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.