Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore) for organizing this tonight.

As we reflect on 80 years since the invasion of D-Day, it is my honor to get to read an account from Robert Harlan Horr of Illinois. What I am about to share, it says:

The following is my transcription of the D-Day-related

section of my father's, Flight Officer Robert Harlan Horr's,

pilot's log. I am Karen Sue Horr Burton, his only child.

Invasion started. Over 80 holes in my glider. Germans were

shooting many tows. Best pal Buck Jackson was killed just

after releasing over enemy territory. Knocked down three

times in landing. Made it okay. Could feel heat from those

bullets. Mighty lucky to come out alive.

Gave my pal a morphine shot to ease his pain. Stayed by him

in the open field for an hour. Made him as comfortable as

possible until I could get medical aid. German mortars and

machine guns were taking potshots at us.

I was surprised at my own coolness. I had tommy gun ready

for action. Moved up with the 82nd Division. Expecting

counterattack. Dug in. Plenty nervous. Waited all night but

nothing happened. Got one sniper. There were snipers all over

the place. I learned more in 5 minutes than the Army taught

me in 2 years. Recommended for D.F.C. They can have their

medals as far as I am concerned.

Thought of my wife all of the time. Had her picture with

me. Could hear those angels flapping their wings many times.

Kept my pocket Bible with me all the time. God was with me

out there, and I am thankful for it.

Was it hell, I know because I went through the worst part

of it. Thought of mom and dad many times. Often thought that

dad could really have a picnic killing Huns over here. Just

like hunting ``chucks,'' you have to wait for them and then

pick them off. I didn't take any souvenirs. What is the use.

I am no glory grabber. Just end this war and let me come

home. Many times I prayed out there, and I meant every word I

said.

Things were plenty tough, and I needed all the strength I

could get. Buck finally died. If I get decorated, his mother

is going to have that medal. Got to move up now so that is

all for now.

Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted Aye on Roll Call No. 227.

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Captain David Robert Witte for his exceptional service to Arkansas' Fourth Congressional District and to extend my heartfelt congratulations on his upcoming new role with

the Arkansas Air National Guard as Chaplain for the 189th Airlift Wing at Little Rock Air Force Base.

David has been an invaluable member of my team for nearly a decade, demonstrating his dedication and commitment to public service. He currently serves as my deputy district director and military and veterans' affairs representative, as well as the assistant pastor at Grace Lutheran Church in Little Rock and as chaplain for the 777th Aviation Support Battalion for the Arkansas Army National Guard, all roles in which he has excelled.

Since 2015, he has played a crucial role in the service academy nomination process for Arkansas students and assisted thousands of his fellow veterans, helping them navigate complex casework and ensuring they receive the support they deserve. His work has not only benefited those individuals but has also had a significant impact on Arkansas' Fourth Congressional District.

David holds an impressive resume, with an undergraduate degree from Concordia University and master's degrees from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock and Liberty University.

He also shares my love for the great outdoors and loves visiting our national parks, as you can see pictured here, with his lovely wife, Megan, and their four children: Milo, Ike, Ames, and Etta.

It has been a pleasure getting to know David and watching his family grow over the past 10 years. I look forward to many more years of continued friendship.

While his absence from our office will be greatly felt, we wish David well on this next endeavor of service to our country. He will undoubtedly make a positive and faithful impact in his new capacity with the Arkansas Air National Guard.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank our guest chaplain, Pastor David Mason, for his opening prayer on May 10th. I've had the pleasure of knowing David for quite some time, as he serves as Pastor at my home church, Walnut Valley Baptist in Hot Springs, Arkansas.

David and his wife, Aamie, who serves as a family counselor, are dear friends of mine who have a heart for sharing the gospel and ministering not only inside the church building but in the community with individuals wherever there is a need.

David and Aamie have been faithful servants and leaders for many years. It was a pleasure to host them in D.C. this week.

I, along with others in Arkansas' Fourth Congressional District, are grateful to Pastor Mason and his wife Aamie for their servant hearts and their obedience in serving God.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3935, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024. I commend Chairman Sam Graves, Ranking Member Larsen, Subcommittee on Aviation Chairman Garret Graves, and Ranking Member Cohen. Their dedication to bipartisan, bicameral collaboration has been instrumental in shaping this legislation.

In Arkansas' Fourth Congressional District, we are fortunate to have numerous small- and medium-sized airfields that serve Arkansans and visitors from around the world.

We are home to a unique and robust agricultural aviation industry. We have included provisions that specifically address safety in Arkansas aviation, as well as rural communities around the country, like mandating tower marking rules to protect general aviators, improving radio communications at Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport, and improving aviation infrastructure and workforce development in the Natural State.

The FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 is not just about passengers and pilots. It is comprehensive, commonsense legislation that will benefit farmers, businessowners, healthcare providers, and everyday folks. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call up the bill (H.R. 2925) to amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 to provide for security of tenure for use of mining claims for ancillary activities, 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 to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2925.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024.

In May 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower decision revoking an approved mine plan for the Rosemont Copper Mine Project in Arizona. Commonly called the Rosemont decision, this determination upended decades of regulatory precedent and specific U.S. Forest Service regulations that allow approvals of operations on or off a mining claim so long as these operations meet environmental and regulatory standards.

If allowed to stand, the Rosemont decision would require the discovery and determination of a valid mineral deposit, meaning that operators must prove the existence of a commercially developable deposit on a claim before a plan of operations can be approved.

However, operators' plans of operations must include the intended uses of the surface of the mining claim, including those for waste rock placements, mills, offices, and roads. The mining plan of operations is key in determining the economic feasibility of a mining site, which in turn factors into the basis of determining which mineral deposits are commercially developable and, therefore, valid.

In short, the court's ruling puts the cart before the horse and fails to reflect the actual process of how one develops a mine. This bill would restore status quo as it existed before the misguided Rosemont decision and clarify that mine operators can continue to operate on Federal lands as they have for decades.

According to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, ``It is the policy of the United States that . . . the public lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation's need for domestic sources of minerals.'' The Rosemont decision blatantly disregards this statement.

With mineral demand expected to grow exponentially in the coming decades, Congress must safeguard and defend the country's ability to access our own resources.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 2925, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

With all due respect to my friend from New Mexico, I greatly appreciate her passion to protect this administration, to protect an administration that is having an attack on American mining, on American energy that is causing prices to increase, for inflation to go up, and it is causing us to be more dependent on our adversaries like China for minerals and elements, like Russia, OPEC, Venezuela, all of the above, Iran, for our energy. I understand that she is passionate about that, and I respect her passion.

When we talk about an old, archaic mining law that Ulysses S. Grant signed into law in 1872, I am reminded of something our Founders did long before that.

In 1787, they passed or established our Constitution that says that there is separation of powers, that the legislative branch legislates and that the executive branch enforces.

Now, almost 250 years later, we have got an administrative branch, and thanks to the administrative state in the Administrative Powers Act, we have bureaucrats that think their job is to legislate.

We are not changing the law, the mining law. We are pushing back on rules that are being pushed out by an administration that thinks it is their job to legislate.

I will remind my friends across the aisle that 2 years ago, they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. They had an opportunity to change the mining law, and they didn't do it. We are not changing the mining law. We are pushing back on overreaching regulations from the administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

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

As I talked earlier about the Constitution and how it is the legislature that makes the laws, it is not through an administrative rule and it is also not by court decision, not the third branch of government that gets to make the laws. It is Congress that gets to make the laws.

When the Court has stepped in and made a ruling that creates uncertainty, it is causing mines not to be developed in the United States. Mining companies don't know if they can get a permit. If they cannot get a permit, they have to prove that there is material there before they get a chance to develop the permit. We need this legislative fix that only Congress can provide, to provide clarity and certainty so that we can develop these mineral resources here in the United States, which simply isn't happening today.

I will remind my friends across the aisle that under the law that this bill would codify, operators must still, as they have for decades, submit a mine plan of operations to the BLM or Forest Service for approval before building a new mine under the authorities that we would be giving them in this legislation.

The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service both have strict time-bound requirements on what a claimant must do to maintain a claim and what they can do with a claim on Federal land to conduct mining.

If a claim holder does not meet these requirements, BLM or the Forest Service has the power to enforce compliance or immediately suspend the claimant from the area.

Now, while my friends across the aisle are doubling down on this administration's attack on American mining and energy development, while they are cheering on the Ninth Circuit, Republicans are taking action.

Mining is not happening in the United States because of the impediments that my friends across the aisle are causing.

Where is mining taking place? It is happening in China. If you go back just to 1995 and take one mineral that is critical to the lower- carbon energy sector that my friends talk about so much, you can't do that without copper. In 1995, the United States produced over three times more copper than China. If you look at 2020, China is producing about 10 times more copper than we are.

This is one metal. We could repeat this chart for critical elements and for other metals. If you look at it for steel, we produced more steel than China in 1995. They produce 12 times more steel than we do today.

When these renewable energy projects take place, when mandates are put out there to build electric vehicles, where are these materials coming from? We don't have the processing capacity anymore either. We have got two copper smelters. China has got over 50.

China controls 60 percent of global production, an estimated 90 percent of

processing, and over 75 percent of manufacturing of critical minerals. In terms of individual minerals, China refines 72 percent of global- refined cobalt, 98 percent of global gallium, and 85 percent of global- refined rare-earth elements.

China also currently dominates the world's electric battery market, producing about 90 percent of the raw materials and 77 percent of global EV battery manufacturing capacity.

Disallowing domestic mining will only drive both our allies and ourselves into further reliance on China. We are disallowing mining at the same time we are putting mandates out there for people to drive electric vehicles.

By breaking even the first link in the Chinese global supply chain, we will be able to send strong market signals to American companies looking to invest in domestic mining and processing ventures. That is what H.R. 2925 would do.

The Republican ideas are pro-America and pro-American supply chain. They are using the resources that God has blessed us with. If we don't pass this bill, we are just going to be more reliant on China, and we are going to see less development in the U.S.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it very rich that my friends across the aisle are bringing China into the equation now. The simple fact is that, under this administration and under this court ruling, nobody is going to be mining in the United States. They know China is not going to mine anything here under their policies, but also no American companies are going to be able to develop mines under their policies.

At the same time, they are pushing this electrification of everything and electric vehicles. They approved billions and billions of dollars in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. That is hard to say because we all know it drove inflation higher. In that bill, the IRA, they approved billions of dollars to invest in things that require metals and critical minerals.

The question was asked in the opening statement: Who wants this? Who wants mining in the United States?

I think the answer is everybody wants what comes from mining except my friends across the aisle. They don't want it in their backyard. They want their cake, and they want to be able to eat it, too. They want to have all these metals and critical elements that can be used to make and manufacture the things that they think are going to save the planet, but they just don't want it to happen here in the U.S., where we have the strictest mining laws, the strictest labor laws, and the strictest safety laws. We do things right here. We recover mines correctly.

What they want to do is have all their electric cars, solar farms, windmills, and transmission lines and magically get this material from somewhere else.

There are mines. There are still mines all across this country, but the

fact is they are not even coming close to meeting the demands that we have. Even though we have everything we need in the U.S., it is just in the ground.

Reaching net zero emissions by 2050 would require more copper than has been produced over the entire course of human history. That is the challenge we face under Democratic policy: a demand for more copper than we have mined in human history between now and 2050 if we were going to get to net zero emissions.

How are we going to do that if we don't use the elements and minerals that God has blessed us with here in our country? The simple answer is that we are going to have to rely on somebody else to supply that. Guess who the number one supplier of nearly every one of those metals and elements is in the world today? It is China. That is the simple fact.

We can make a decision to either support H.R. 2925 and support American minerals and resources, or we can leave the status quo under the Rosemont court ruling and rely more on China and others, even Russia. We have talked about nuclear power, which could be a great contributor to zero emission energy. Most of our uranium now comes from Russia.

So whom do we want to rely on? Where do we want that wealth to go when Americans spend their money on energy and minerals? I would rather it stay here in America supporting American mining, supporting American jobs, and supporting American processing and manufacturing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there is another side to this story, as well. My colleagues can try to frame it that they are okay with it in their backyard because they have some of it there, but for the future, they don't want any more of it in their backyard.

I am from Arkansas. We have about 10 percent of our landmass as Federal lands, but when you go out West, Federal lands can account for as much as 86 percent of the land area in certain States and can account for 75 percent of our Nation's metals production.

When you look at that, Mr. Speaker, more than one-half of federally owned public lands are already either restricted or banned to mining operations due to withdrawals under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, the Antiquities Act, and specific congressional actions.

If land hasn't been withdrawn from operation under the mining law, such as the land outside the Grand Canyon, then no new mining claims can be staked.

So, I am asking, how much is enough? How much of our land do we have to lock up and say that you can't have access, can't manage it, can't produce energy off of it, and can't mine on it?

It seems as if, as time goes on, the answer is all of it. We want to lock all of it up. We want to be reliant on somebody else who is doing a lot more damage to the environment somewhere on the planet than we do here in the U.S. when we mine in a very environmentally friendly manner and sustainably with the highest levels of standards.

Mr. Speaker, we can try to frame this any way you want to, but when we are having to import so much of our metals and critical minerals when they are right here in the ground in the United States, then that is a ``not in my backyard'' policy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to assert my firm belief that we should not be mining uranium in the Grand Canyon.

Nobody was ever proposing to mine uranium in the Grand Canyon, but a favorite talking point of my colleagues across the aisle is to say that these evil mining companies are going to be mining uranium in the Grand Canyon.

It is as if there is going to be this big excavator reaching over the side, digging out and making the Grand Canyon even more grand. The uranium deposits are well outside the boundaries of Grand Canyon National Park. They are in land north of the Grand Canyon between the boundary of the Grand Canyon National Park and the State of Utah.

It is an easy talking point to say that we are going to ban mining in the Grand Canyon. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? I don't know anybody who wants to mine in the Grand Canyon.

I do want to reiterate and push back on the assertion that the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act is unnecessary and that mining companies should have to prove the existence of a valid claim before beginning any operations.

A 2020 Department of the Interior solicitor's opinion stated: ``As a practical matter, requiring the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit before allowing any reasonably incident mining uses, including the removal of any minerals, puts the cart before the horse, since such uses and removal are necessary to make a discovery. If entering open lands to explore for and develop minerals is considered `unauthorized' unless or until miners have proven a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit, they could not, as a practical matter, ever discover a valuable mineral deposit and all mining would effectively be prohibited. Such an outcome was clearly not the intent of Congress, in no small part because such an interpretation would also leave many, if not most, miners legally in trespass.'' That all came from that solicitor's opinion.

It is clear that H.R. 2925 is a legislative fix that only Congress can provide. It is needed to provide clarity and certainty in the United States' ability to responsibly mine materials essential to our national security and to make us economically competitive.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2925. Contrary to the misconceptions that I have heard regarding the bill, this legislation does not grant mining companies free license to do whatever they want on Federal lands. It does not exempt mining activity from NEPA or any other environmental review. It does not allow companies to subvert governmental authority or oversight. It simply restates over a century of mining law and decades of regulatory practice.

In passing this bill, we will reaffirm American miners' rights to operate under the law, just as they have done for decades, to provide the essential materials we depend on every day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Amodei for his work to bring H.R. 2925 to the floor, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6285.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

giant national park, which literally guarantees us a fate

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

for the future of our people.

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

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

First of all, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my good friend, for his leadership in this area.

Since his first day in Congress, Mr. Stauber has fought tirelessly for his district and has done an excellent job representing the people and the interests of the Iron Range through his work here in Washington.

This bill is the culmination of years of meetings, hearings, and hard work to ensure that the voices of those living in northern Minnesota are heard in Congress and the White House.

I have been to northern Minnesota many times, even with Mr. Stauber's predecessor, Democrat Congressman Rick Nolan, and I have seen how important the mining industry is to the region, as it has been for over a century.

I have also seen American mining companies' dedication to producing essential minerals with exemplary regard for their employees, the environment, and the communities in which they operate. In doing so, U.S. domestic mines set the global gold standard for responsible resource procurement.

The Duluth Complex in northern Minnesota contains one of the largest deposits of minerals in the world, including the world's second largest deposit of copper. According to S&P Global Market Intelligence, global copper demand is expected to be double current production in the next decade, driven primarily by the push to electrification.

In fact, annual copper output from the Twin Metals project alone would support the production of 13,000 megawatts of wind turbine power or 10,000 megawatts of solar power per year. Yet, from 2022 to 2023, U.S. copper production dropped by 11 percent, even as our net import reliance--meaning the amount of copper we have to buy from foreign sources--rose 46 percent. The Duluth Complex also contains world-class reserves of critical minerals such as cobalt and nickel.

The Biden administration's recent actions to restrict access to this treasure trove of vital and increasingly scarce minerals simply does not make sense for our national security, for the people of northern Minnesota, or even for President Biden's own mineral-intensive goals to build out renewable energy production and achieve net-zero emissions.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3195 and reinstate Minnesotans' rights to access their abundant resources.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call up the bill (H.R. 764) to require the Secretary of the Interior to reissue regulations removing the gray wolf from the

list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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. 764.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 764, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert). This bill instructs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue its 2020 final rule delisting the gray wolf from the endangered species list in the lower 48 States.

Defining success under the Endangered Species Act is crucial not only for species but also for landowners. Understanding recovery goals and accurately measuring progress informs management actions needed to improve a species' health and habitat. When a species is recovered and is a candidate to be delisted, the achievement should be celebrated.

Mr. Speaker, by every definition, the gray wolf is a recovered species and should be celebrated as an ESA success story.

Gray wolf populations are healthy and thriving in every region where they are currently found. The Great Lakes region has the largest concentration of gray wolves in the lower 48 States, with approximately 4,200 wolves that inhabit the States of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The recovery plan and criteria for delisting the gray wolf in the Great Lakes is clear. The region must have a stable or increasing population of wolves in Minnesota and at least 200 wolves outside of the Minnesota population.

According to former wildlife biologist at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Nathan Roberts: ``These goals have been met since at least 1994.'' He went on to say: ``It is remarkable to note that given the natural lifespan of wolves, every wolf on the landscape in the Great Lakes region was born long after recovery goals were met.''

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

Backing up this record of success, in February, the Service announced it had denied two petitions related to the gray wolf, one calling for wolves to be relisted in the Northern Rocky Mountains ecosystem and another calling for wolves to be relisted in the entire Western United States. In denying these petitions, the Service stated wolves are ``not at risk of extinction in the Western United States now or in the foreseeable future.''

The Service also stated that wolf populations in the Western United States had a healthy abundance, retained genetic diversity, had the ability to respond to high mortality events, and maintained adaptive capacity.

This announcement, coupled with the fact that most wolves in the Western United States are in States where they have already been delisted, shows that States are responsibly managing their wolf populations.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the House of Representatives debated wolf management. In 2011, Congress directed the Service to reinstate a 2009 rule that delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana and prohibited judicial review.

In fact, delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48 States has bipartisan support. In 2013, the Obama administration proposed delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48 States. The Biden administration is currently appealing the Federal court orders that are preventing the 2020 delisting rule from taking effect. This is a rare occurrence where the Biden administration is actually defending an action taken by the Trump administration.

In 2018, the House of Representatives passed language similar to the bill before us today with the support of nine Democrats, some of whom are still in Congress. Yet, we are here again, pursuing a delisting that should have been accomplished long ago.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to celebrate the recovery of the gray wolf and support its delisting and the legislation that is before us today. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I want to point out that although the accusations have been made that hunting would adversely affect the populations of wolves, that is contrary to proven data that we have from all species that are hunted.

In particular, in each State where wolves have been delisted, there is a State management plan in place that has been proven to be effective in managing wolf populations. Each State recovery plan calls for wolf populations to remain well above recovery goals, and science from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proves that wolf populations remain healthy post-delisting.

While States may vary on population and size management, they all plan for and set policies to have a sustainable and secure population. To be clear, a reduction in population size is not the same as eliminating a population. Each State recovery plan calls for wolf populations to remain well above recovery goals.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert), the sponsor of the legislation.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, the only rule or the only science that this bill would maybe not hold up to is the political science that is being pushed back and forth in this Chamber today.

If you look at real wildlife management, we know that maintaining healthy populations of wolves also affects other species.

I would say if you could talk to an elk or a deer, you might ask them if a wolf is a violent killer or talk to somebody's cattle because they do kill. They are apex predators.

We need them in the ecosystem, but we have to manage those numbers. Just because a species hasn't been recovered in its native range doesn't mean that that species should be on the endangered species list. If that were so, we would have black bear and elk on the endangered species list.

The real science data shows that delisting the wolf and letting States manage the wolf population, and we are not talking about wiping out the wolf population, we are talking about maintaining it at healthy levels, that is what would be best for the wolf and for all others concerned.

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

Mr. Speaker, running down any kind of animal and running over it with a vehicle is not considered hunting in any jurisdiction that I know of.

That is illegal, it should not be tolerated, and it shouldn't be used as an example of why wolves shouldn't be managed using traditional hunting methods and letting States manage those populations.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. The gray wolf is a recovered species. The administration is ignoring the facts. They are derelict in their duties, and it is time for Congress to act.

As we have heard from Members today, the impacts of an unmanaged wolf population are growing and will continue to grow as long as the administration doesn't take action. That is why Congress must take action.

I want to emphasize that passing this bill does not declare open season on wolves, as some would have you believe. Rather, it puts the management of wolves where it should be, with State game and fish departments. They are the ones who are best able to manage the wildlife in their State.

My colleagues across the aisle talk a big game about supporting State fish and wildlife agencies, but as we see here today, when the rubber meets the road, really talk is all that it is.

Today, by passing this bill, Congress would celebrate an ESA success story and confirm what three successive Presidential administrations of both political parties have tried to do. It is time for every Member of this Chamber to reject the political science, examine the facts, trust the facts, and delist the gray wolf.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Boebert for her leadership on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call up the bill (H.R. 615) to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from prohibiting the use of lead ammunition or tackle on certain Federal land or water under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 615.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, September 15, 2023.

Hon. Bruce Westerman,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual

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

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

collaborating with the Committee on Agriculture on the

matters within our jurisdiction.

The Committee on Agriculture will forego any further

consideration of this bill. However, by foregoing

consideration at this time, we do not waive any jurisdiction

over any subject matter contained in this or similar

legislation. The Committee on Agriculture also reserves the

right to seek appointment of an appropriate number of

conferees should it become necessary and ask that you support

such a request.

We would appreciate a response to this letter confirming

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

copy of our letters on this matter be published in the

Congressional Record during Floor consideration.

Sincerely,

Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,

Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 27, 2022.

Cosponsor Request: Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act

Dear Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus Member: The

undersigned organizations, representing millions of hunters,

anglers, wildlife professionals, and outdoor enthusiasts are

writing to express our support for the Protecting Access for

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

Senator Steve Daines with a companion bill from

Representatives Rob Wittman and Bruce Westerman, this

legislation would prohibit the Secretaries of Agriculture and

the Interior from prohibiting the use of lead ammunition or

tackle on certain Federal lands and waters absent field data

delineating a science-based nexus to a wildlife species

population decline. Overly broad and arbitrary ammunition and

tackle bans have severe and unnecessary detrimental impacts

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

wildlife conservation programs and projects. To that end, we

are united in respectfully requesting that you join as a

cosponsor of this important legislation.

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

exceptions, fish and wildlife are successfully managed at the

population level. Additionally, with the exception of Federal

Trust Species and certain other species, fish and wildlife

management decisions are primarily driven by state fish and

wildlife agencies. With those considerations in mind, in the

very rare occurrences that science-based field-data clearly

delineates a causational nexus between traditional ammunition

or tackle and changes in fish or wildlife population health,

state fish and wildlife agencies already have the ability to

regulate the use of those to both achieve conservation

objectives and minimize impacts to anglers and hunters.

That said, we do not believe wildlife management decisions

should be driven or decided by political motivations,

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

applicable fish and wildlife department of the State in which

the specific Federal land or water is located. Furthermore,

we maintain that any restrictions on the use of lead

ammunition and tackle on federal lands and waters by a

federal agency must have the support of the respective state

fish and wildlife agency, which is required by the Protecting

Access for Hunters and Anglers Act. Simply put, this

legislation reaffirms state fish and wildlife management

authority.

In many cases, alternatives to lead ammunition and tackle

that deliver similar performance at a comparable cost simply

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

traditional ammunition and tackle serve as a disincentive to

the recruitment, retention and reactivation of hunters and

anglers and, as a result, have significant negative economic

consequences for sportsmen and women and local and regional

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

excise taxes that hunters and anglers voluntarily imposed on

ammunition and fishing tackle as part of the Pittman-

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

lion's share of funding for state fish and wildlife

conservation, research, public access to natural resources

and other important programs that promote hunting and fishing

and sustainable populations of fish and wildlife species.

Recently, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service

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

to hunting and fishing opportunities at certain wildlife

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

ammunition and fishing tackle. We are disappointed to see the

lack of a science-based justification for the arbitrary

limitation on the use of lead ammunition and tackle. This

rule does not recognize state fish and wildlife as the

primary managers of our nation's fish and wildlife.

Concurrently, litigation initiated by animal rights interests

is pending against a similar, previous rule to expand hunting

and fishing access on national wildlife refuges alleging that

the additional use of lead ammunition and tackle will harm

wildlife species at those refuges. However, those allegations

are not substantiated by science.

The litigation not only lacks scientific justification, but

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

this litigation, we are concerned the USFWS has engaged in

settlement negotiations with the litigants. Despite strong

opposition from many of the undersigned, we believe the USFWS

continues conversations with the plaintiff. Furthermore, we

are concerned that an overly broad, onerous and unnecessary

ban on the use of traditional ammunition and tackle in the

National Wildlife Refuge System could be forthcoming.

For these reasons, we strongly support the Protecting

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

encourage you to serve as a cosponsor of this vital

legislation.

Thank you for your leadership and continued service on

behalf of America's outdoor heritage.

Sincerely,

American Catnshing Association, American Sportfishing

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

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

Association, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional

Sportsmen's Foundation, Council to Advance Hunting and the

Shooting Sports, Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited,

International Game Fish Association, Major League Fishing,

Marine Retailers Association of the Americas, Mule Deer

Foundation, National Professional Anglers Association,

National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports

Foundation, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, Pope

& Young Club, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club

International, The Bass Federation, Inc., The Walleye

Federation, LLC, Whitetails Unlimited, Wildlife Mississippi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Wittman for his leadership on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call up the bill (H.R. 3397) to require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw a rule of the Bureau of Land Management relating to conservation and landscape health, 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. 3397.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Representative Curtis' bill, H.R. 3397, the Western Economic Security Today Act, or WEST Act of 2024.

The WEST Act withdraws the flawed and illegal Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, which was finalized earlier this month by the Bureau of Land Management, or the BLM.

You may be asking, why is a rule focused on conservation and landscape health so bad. Well, it wouldn't be bad if that was what it was really focused on, but the name is very misleading.

This rule is a poorly concealed effort to lock up more lands to advance the Biden administration's radical 30x30 agenda. It has absolutely nothing to do with true conservation or improving the health of our landscapes.

Responsible uses of BLM lands are central to the Western way of life. This rule would fundamentally upend more than 50 years of land management practices across the West that rural communities have relied on for their livelihoods.

Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, the BLM is mandated to manage lands in accordance with multiple use and sustained yield. If responsible use and development of public lands are prohibited, family and small businesses, multigeneration ranches, local communities, and schools will suffer from a lack of economic development, access, and tax revenue.

This is more than just a Western issue. If you ate a hamburger this week or filled your car with gas, this rule affects you. This rule will severely impact the lives and wallets of every single American. Haven't we had enough of that already? Haven't we had enough of inflation and rising prices?

The finalized rule will broadly allow the BLM to lease lands under new and vaguely defined ``restoration and mitigation leases'' and change standards around land use decisions. The rule will elevate conservation as a use of our public lands. This is clearly contradictory with both the plain reading of FLPMA and Congress' intent.

Congress very clearly defined the principal or major uses of BLM lands to ``include, and be limited to, domestic livestock grazing, fish and wildlife development and utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and timber

production.'' Nowhere in the act do the words ``conservation,'' ``restoration,'' or ``mitigation'' appear as a use.

Conservation is not a use. It is a value and an outcome that can be generated by the uses that I just mentioned.

If the administration determines that uses such as grazing, timber production, energy production, mining, or recreation are incompatible with the lease, they would not be allowed and could be prohibited indefinitely from those lands.

At best, the rule is duplicative, unnecessary, and burdensome. Meaningful conservation work is already being done on the 245 million acres of BLM land with multiple stakeholders. Often uses overlap on BLM land and coexist with each other. Meaningful conservation occurs simultaneously with and often for the mutual benefit of other uses, like grazing and recreation.

At worst, restoration and mitigation leases are a guise to restrict any meaningful activity on Federal land, including energy and mineral production, and timber management.

The final rule allows the BLM to issue mitigation leases indefinitely and waives fees on restoration leases. That would take land that could otherwise be creating a return for the American taxpayer and give it away for free to environmental extremists.

What will this rule look like on the ground and mean for Westerners? Specifically, the Biden administration can kick off the multigenerational rancher who has been grazing on the land since before the Bureau of Land Management existed. They can restrict the mining of the minerals we need for phones, computers, cars, and batteries to sustain life. They can limit oil and gas development, creating dependence on hostile foreign nations and threatening our economic prosperity.

In addition to this new convoluted leasing system, the rule would also expedite the designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern by removing public comment periods and allowing the BLM to ``temporarily'' restrict land use without public input. This provides the BLM with virtually unlimited authority to lock up millions of acres without any input from the public or support.

The rule sorely favors types of energy development the administration likes and hurts other responsible energy development they have deemed unworthy.

The rule chooses winners and losers. Wealthy elites who want to protect views from their mansions or extreme environmental groups who want to kick locals off of public lands are the winners.

Guides and outfitters who bring young and old alike to our public lands or the ranching family who works every day to put food on millions of American tables are the losers.

In finalizing this rule, the Biden administration has jeopardized the activities and land used to feed and fuel our country. Make no mistake: This affects every American. This impacts every acre, every user, every lease, and every American.

The finalized rule comes after a year-long effort by Western Governors, communities, stakeholders, and Members of Congress calling for the abandonment of this flawed rule. The concerns fell on deaf ears within the Biden administration. This prompted us to bring this bill to the floor this week, forcing the withdrawal of the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I again thank Representative Curtis for his work on the bill, and I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 3397, the WEST Act of 2024. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

As I was listening to my friend from Colorado's comments, I was reminded of a saying that a graduate school professor who taught statistics used to say: Numbers and people are a lot alike. If you torture them long enough, they will tell you anything you want to know.

This study that my colleagues talk about references a cherry-picked 10,000 comments that were analyzed, and according to the BLM just over 8,000 were actually unique comments. That means that 2,000 of the comments were identical comments. These are comments that get submitted when you put clickbait out there and say, ``Send this comment in,'' and you just hit the button from your favorite radical environmental group, and it goes into the BLM or to the other Federal agency.

Also, you know, I would expect the results to actually be even higher because it is kind of like asking: ``Do you like ice cream?'' or ``Do you like chocolate?'' or ``Do you like candy?'' When you say, are you for conservation and protecting the land, yeah, most people I think are for that. However, when you look at what this rule does, it is anything but that. It locks up land and takes it away from the multiple uses that Congress has designated that this BLM land is for.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis), the sponsor of the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

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

This isn't just a minor rule. This is a major rule that the BLM is pushing out.

When they held their listening sessions, they were located in places that were inconvenient for communities and stakeholders who are most affected by the rule to actually participate in.

Only three of the listening sessions held by the BLM were in person, and they were all three in major cities. They were in Albuquerque, Denver, and Reno.

Two of the five listening sessions were held virtually, affecting rural communities who have limited access to the internet.

The BLM refused to hold listening sessions in the following Western States: Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and Washington.

You would think if they really cared about what the local stakeholders thought, they would have gone out to them and had listening sessions where people could have participated.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries.

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

As my colleague, Mr. Bentz, read from the Federal Register and then my friend from Colorado read from the rule, the summary of the rule, I thought what would be more intellectually honest is if that summary said the proposed law because this goes way beyond a rule.

I also thought, who wrote this? And the answer is: I don't know. It is some nondescript bureaucrat over at the administration that wrote this law.

He is rewriting law, and as Congress, we have to stand up to the administration and say: Congress writes the laws, the administration enforces the law, and we have to put a stop to this administrative state that writes laws that have just as much effect as if Congress had passed a law.

If Congress wanted to add conservation, restoration, or mitigation to multiple use, then Congress should do that.

Right now, the law says: The multiple use is domestic livestock grazing, fish and wildlife development utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and timber production.

That is the law, and it is time that we put a stop to bureaucrats writing laws that are not held responsible by anybody.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the chair of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Ms. Maloy).

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

Mr. Speaker, we really must pass Representative Curtis' WEST Act.

This burdensome and unnecessary law that is being disguised as a rule is not only a threat to the West, but it is also a threat to our national security, to American energy dominance, to our food security, to the environment, and to the separation of powers that are established in our Constitution.

Passing the WEST Act and withdrawing this rule will restore Congress' intent over the multiple uses of BLM land and protect the over 700,000 jobs across the West that rely on access to our public lands.

We can't allow the Biden administration to singlehandedly upend 50 years of congressionally mandated land use policies to the whim of environmental extremists and coastal elites. We can't allow an unelected, unaccountable, and unnamed bureaucrat to write law.

I thank Representative Curtis for his strong leadership on this issue. I know that he has heard many concerns about the rule from his constituents, including as recently as last week at a Federal Lands Subcommittee hearing in southern Utah.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the 2nd Annual National Rendering Day. The burden of responsibility for feeding the world extends beyond the farm. Rendering plays a critical role in ensuring we can meet the growing global demand for food, feed, and fuel, while helping reduce food waste and loss. By recycling unused animal products, renderers create valuable ingredients from resources that would otherwise take up enormous amounts of precious landfill space. Renderers also collect billions of pounds of used cooking oil from restaurants and food manufacturers for upcycling into products and sustainable fuels, like biodiesel.

Rendering not only creates alternative, sustainable fuels to power trucks, trains, water vessels and other vehicles but also feeds our beloved household pets. Rendering is the largest industry involved in prevention of food loss and waste and is an important component of a bio-circular economy.

Renderers play an important role in reducing food loss and waste, sustainably recycling valuable agricultural resources, and positively contributing to local, state, and national and international economies. U.S. renderers contribute $10 billion in annual economic activity

across the country and include many small businesses that help drive the American economy and define the American dream.

I am honored to represent many great rendering companies in the 4th District of Arkansas. I am grateful for the role of rendering in producing America's feed and fuel, and reducing food waste and loss by repurposing products we don't eat for other practical needs. Today on National Rendering Day, please join me in recognizing renderers' countless contributions to strengthening the U.S. economy and protecting the environment.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 112.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6492) to improve recreation opportunities on, and facilitate greater access to, Federal public land, 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. 6492, as amended, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences Act, or EXPLORE Act.

This legislation is a bipartisan effort, cosponsored by Ranking Member Grijalva of the Committee on Natural Resources.

I want to take a moment to thank Ranking Member Grijalva for his commitment to this bill and, most importantly, to wish him well in his fight against cancer. Last week, we were saddened to hear of his recent diagnosis. I know what a fighter Ranking Member Grijalva is, and I have confidence that he will be back in D.C. very soon. Our prayers are with him and his family.

Mr. Speaker, today is the first time in the history of the House that we will be considering a comprehensive outdoor recreation package aimed at getting more Americans outdoors and supporting the $1.1 trillion and growing outdoor recreation economy.

This bipartisan, bicameral bill is the culmination of more than a year's worth of hearings and markups in the House, and it builds off years of work in both the House and the Senate.

This legislation is cosponsored by more than 50 of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. It is also supported by over 100 organizations representing outdoor recreation, small businesses, conservation groups, and sportsmen and -women from across the country.

I grew up and still spend as much time as I can recreating on and around Arkansas' beautiful public lands, which, in my humble opinion, are the best the country has to offer. Arkansas is known as the Natural State because of our plentiful and well-managed forests, rugged mountains, pristine lakes and rivers, and abundant wildlife. Arkansas offers truly unmatched places to recreate, hunt, fish, spend time with loved ones, and simply enjoy God's wonderful creation. We are known for our world-class mountain biking, duck hunting, trout fishing, and rock climbing. Outdoor recreation is a part of our heritage and a tradition we pass on from generation to generation.

That is why I am proud to offer the EXPLORE Act. It includes great ideas from my colleagues from around the country, ideas which will improve access and opportunities for outdoor recreation across all of our public lands and waters. This will ensure that more Americans can enjoy our great outdoors in the present while leaving them in better condition for generations to come.

Specifically, the EXPLORE Act will create new long-distance bike trails, ensure rock climbing continues in wilderness areas, and reduce the bureaucratic burdens on small business. The bill also helps encourage the next generation of sportsmen and -women by creating new target shooting ranges, cutting red tape for filming on public lands, and addressing invasive species that harm recreational fishing opportunities.

The EXPLORE Act recognizes that outdoor recreation extends beyond our public lands and into nearby communities that host millions of visitors annually. In Arkansas, visits to public lands support an average of $362 million in economic output. The legislation addresses the challenges gateway communities face by alleviating overcrowding at national parks, addressing housing shortages, and modernizing technology to improve visitor experiences.

I am especially proud that the EXPLORE Act also includes provisions to tackle many of the barriers that prevent members of our military, wounded warriors, people with disabilities, and young folks from fully accessing our public lands. The legislation does this by building new, accessible trails, directing land managers to prioritize recreational visits among our military servicemembers, and reauthorizing the successful Every Kid Outdoors program.

I also highlight the important benefits this legislation provides for Arkansans. Importantly, this legislation directs the U.S. Forest Service to reopen closed campgrounds at the popular Albert Pike Recreation Area in the Ouachita National Forest.

The legislation also creates public-private partnerships to improve parking opportunities and the availability and cleanliness of restrooms on public lands, two of the top concerns that I hear from my constituents.

Finally, this legislation encourages the creation of new off-highway vehicle recreation opportunities and updates maps for OHV users so they know what trails are open.

I acknowledge Arkansas Governor Sarah Sanders and First Gentleman Brian Sanders for their work on the Natural State Initiative, which is aimed at promoting the beauty and recreation opportunities found in Arkansas. I also thank Katherine Andrews, the director of the Arkansas Office of Outdoor Recreation, who testified in support of this legislation last year. Their work has been instrumental in supporting the formulation of this legislation and growing Arkansas' outdoor recreation economy.

Mr. Speaker, I also recognize just a few of the Arkansas organizations that have lent their support to this bill, including the Arkansas Climbers Coalition, the Arkansas Canoe Club, and the

Arkansas chapter of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers.

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

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, March 26, 2024.

Hon. Bruce Westerman,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 6492, the ``Expanding Public

Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences Act'' or the ``EXPLORE

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. 6492 and request a

copy of our letters on this matter be published in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration.

Sincerely,

Glenn ``GT'' Thompson,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for her passion which is evident on this bill, and I thank the minority for working with us to come up with a bill about something that truly is nonpartisan--and it is our public lands and our enjoyment of the outdoors and the wonderful opportunities that we have in this country.

As I mentioned earlier, I get to put my name on this bill as the chairman of the committee, but this isn't all my idea. There are ideas that came from both sides of the aisle. As was mentioned, Senators are working on this legislation, and I do encourage them to take up our legislation and pass it.

One of the very important provisions in the bill is the Military and Veterans in Parks component that is in it.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Kiggans) who authored the language in this section of the bill and is a veteran herself.

Mr. Speaker, I, again, want to show my appreciation to the other gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury) for her work on this bill and for the great bipartisan support that we have had. I know every speaker that comes up will talk about the beautiful recreation opportunities in their particular area, but one thing I know is from sea to shining sea, America has beautiful areas for outdoor recreation.

The next gentleman represents the district that includes his hometown of Mobile and some excellent offshore fishing as well as inshore fishing.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Carl).

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago I had an opportunity to go to northern Minnesota and actually drive a vehicle out onto a lake and fish through a little hole on the ice when it was minus 22 degrees. There are all kinds of unique outdoor recreation opportunities across our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Speaker, when you think of the great State of Montana, we think of Yellowstone and Glacier and all the beautiful places

there. I also think of the gentleman from Montana, who was not only the Secretary of the Interior, but also represents the great State of Montana and knows a thing or two about outdoor recreation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).

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

Mr. Speaker, we talk a lot about access. There is access for people with limited mobility. There is access for older folks who can't get around as well. But when we think about access in the form of public access to public lands, it is about all Americans being able to enjoy the great lands that we have, the great ideas that our founders had to set this land aside for the enjoyment of all Americans.

It is not something we should just stand back and look at. We should actually get out into our public lands and enjoy them.

I know firsthand the importance of access to our public lands and waters, both for Americans who enjoy them and the communities that surround them.

From camping and mountain biking to rock climbing and fishing, the EXPLORE Act has something for everybody who enjoys outdoor activities. The EXPLORE Act would not have been possible without the tireless work and contributions of the many stakeholder organizations that have advocated for comprehensive outdoor recreation policy.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter dated April 8, 2024, signed by more than 30 of these organizations, which states: ``This transformative legislation is a win-win-win for businesses, our cherished lands and waters, and Democrats and Republicans alike, all while supporting rural economies, communities, and our American quality of life.''

Outdoor Recreation Roundtable,

April 8, 2024.

Hon. Bruce Westerman,

Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, Washington,

Mr. Speaker, in particular, I would recognize Jess Turner from the Outdoor Recreation Roundtable, Matt Wade from the American Mountain Guides Association, and Aaron Bannon from America Outdoors for their tireless efforts on this bill.

I would also recognize Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Manchin and Ranking Member Barasso, who are leading the Senate companion legislation to the EXPLORE Act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this first-of-its-kind legislation that will unleash the full potential of the outdoor recreation economy and encourage millions of Americans in Arkansas and across our great country to get out and explore the unparalleled recreational opportunities our Federal lands and waters have to offer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6233) to amend the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 to authorize partnerships between States and nongovernmental entities for the purpose of reclaiming and restoring land and water resources adversely affected by coal mining activities before August 3, 1977, and for other purposes.

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. 6233, 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. 6233, the Community Reclamation Partnerships Act.

H.R. 6233, introduced by Congressman LaHood, would allow States to partner with nongovernmental entities to reclaim and restore land and water resources from abandoned mines.

There are still thousands of abandoned mines in the U.S., deserted before modern regulations required mine owners and operators to adhere to strict environmental standards and implement holistic land restoration when operations cease. Many of these sites pose health risks, safety hazards, and environmental concerns for their surrounding communities.

While fees collected from current mining operations combined with Federal dollars fund States' abandoned mine cleanup efforts, third- party nongovernmental organizations, or NGOs, have volunteered their resources to assist in abandoned mine restoration.

However, should a site deteriorate in the future after an NGO has implemented restoration efforts, that NGO could be liable for the site. H.R. 6233 aims to shield third-party nongovernmental organizations from frivolous litigation.

The Community Reclamation Partnerships Act will expedite abandoned mine reclamation efforts and improve environmental hazards, all without using taxpayer funds.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 6233, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the author of the legislation,

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

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6233. This commonsense legislation streamlines abandoned mine recovery efforts and provides an alternative pathway to abandoned mine restoration without the use of government funds or the imposition of additional fees on an industry that is operating today with the highest environmental standards.

Further, this bill has bipartisan support and passed unanimously out of the Committee on Natural Resources in December of 2023. As Mr. LaHood mentioned, it previously passed out of committee in the 116th and 117th Congress and was passed by the House in the 115th Congress.

I urge my colleagues to come together again today to support smart, efficient legislation that is good for the taxpayers' bottom line, the environment, our States, and our communities.

I thank Congressman LaHood for his work to bring H.R. 6233 to the floor, and I yield back the balance of my time.