Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Hot Springs National Park.

Nearly 5,500 acres of forested hills settle just above historic downtown Hot Springs, Arkansas, protecting 47 thermal water springs. Hot Springs National Park attracts millions of tourists each year with its rich multigenerational legacy of preserving history and conserving natural resources for public health, wellness, and enjoyment.

First named Hot Springs Reservation in 1832, the land was one of the first federally protected parcels of land in the country. Its official National Park designation on March 4, 1921, led to the park quickly becoming a source of national intrigue. Bathhouse Row drew millions of people seeking health remedies in the thermal spring waters. Many of these bathhouses still stand today, offering visitors a glimpse into local history, art, and culture.

I take this time to honor the National Park Service's century of caretaking of one of Arkansas' most valuable natural treasures. I look forward to the next 100 years, and I invite the world to come to experience my home, beautiful Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of a true servant of the City of Hot Springs and Arkansas' Fourth Congressional District, Ms. Millie Patrick. She passed away on Friday, February 12, 2021, after years of hard work and sacrifice for her beloved community.

Described by those closest to her as a wonderful friend, Ms. Patrick worked with the Greater Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce

for over two decades. During this time, she also served as director for Hot Springs Leadership Adult Classes until her retirement in 2020 and as Vice President of Retirement and Relocation.

Born June 28, 1932, in Kansas, Ms. Patrick later made Arkansas home with her husband, Gene Patrick. Together, they had two daughters, three grandchildren, and several nieces and nephews. As a member of Piney Grove United Methodist Church and an avid water-skier until the age of 86, Ms. Patrick was known to be an active woman. Referred to by her friends and colleagues as a ``wonderful soul and a true ambassador for Hot Springs,'' Ms. Patrick shines as a true example of joyful service.

I take this time today to honor the life of service exemplified by Ms. Millie Patrick. I thank her and her family for their dedication to our fellow citizens and our beloved Fourth District.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Mayor of Hamburg, Dane Alan Weindorf. He passed away at the age of 75 on Saturday, February 20, 2021, leaving behind a community of friends and a legacy of hard work, sacrifice, and service.

After opening his first local grocery store in 1972, Mayor Weindorf grew his business to seven grocery stores in what came to be known as Joe and Dane Enterprises, or JADE's chain of stores. Weindorf retired with 30 years of service in the industry, which led to his desire to continue doing great things for his community. He was elected Mayor shortly after his retirement, and he worked on a variety of projects that led Hamburg to further success, such as renovations to city parks, the baseball park, and a new fire station.

Born on September 20, 1946, in Minnesota, Mayor Weindorf was one of six siblings. He and wife, Annette, of 38 years have two sons, two daughters, eight grandchildren, and seven grandchildren. With his passion for his large family and membership at First Baptist Church of Hamburg, Mayor Weindorf was known not just for his service, but also for his emphasis on personal relationships, friendship, and fellowship with his community.

I take this time today to honor the life of service exemplified by Mayor Weindorf. I thank him and his family for their dedication to our fellow citizens and our beloved Fourth District.

Mr. Speaker, it seems like we were just here, debating a COVID relief bill that was not about COVID relief but Democrats' special interests. Now, we are debating the rule for the so-called For the People Act, but it is not for the people but against the people, against our freedom, and against our fundamental right to vote.

H.R. 1, the Democrats' plan to nationalize elections, stack the deck in their favor, and pad their campaign accounts with corporate money laundered through the IRS, is exactly what this country does not need.

What we do need are States carrying out Federal elections with integrity and transparency, as the Constitution dictates. We need American voters to have confidence in the voting process.

That is what my amendment was designed to do. Mr. Speaker, while leaving the details and specifics of elections to the States, my amendment would create two simple standards to promote integrity and transparency. My amendment would provide standards and best practices for postelection audits and would be published online by each State within 30 days after the election. My amendment would require States to attest to the security and accuracy of their voter ID requirements and maintenance of voter registration lists.

While H.R. 1 actually forbids voter ID laws, Mr. Speaker, you have to have an ID to buy tobacco and alcohol in this country. What is the problem with having to identify who you are to vote?

Two simple provisions to promote integrity and transparency, but my colleagues across the aisle must not be here for integrity, transparency, and improving voter confidence in our elections because they wouldn't even make my amendment in order.

Mr. Speaker, since we can't have a debate in committee or here on the floor, I will file the Voter ID Act, and then maybe my friends can explain to the American people why they are opposed to election integrity and transparency and what is wrong with having to verify the identification of voters.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill.

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

I rise today in opposition to this package of en bloc amendments, which is bad for our environment, kills jobs, locks up more lands, and does nothing to reduce our dependence on hostile foreign nations for critical minerals.

One of the amendments in this package is a feasibility study for the Great Dismal Swamp National Heritage Area. Now, the Great Dismal Swamp may technically be located on the Virginia-North Carolina border, but House Democrats attempting to ram through dozens of amendments completely unrelated to the underlying bill, without going through regular order, sure makes it seem like the Great Dismal Swamp is actually located right here in Washington, D.C.

Much like the underlying bill, many of these amendments have not gone through regular order, are not supported by local stakeholders, and do not have the support of the Members whose districts are directly impacted.

One such amendment creates the Ice Age National Scenic Trail as a unit of the National Park Service in Wisconsin. This amendment was offered without the consultation of my colleague on the Natural Resources Committee, Representative Tiffany, and does not have his support. Unlike other trail designation bills that have passed the House by voice vote in previous Congresses, this amendment lacks basic protections to ensure these trails do not have unintended consequences for neighboring communities.

Similarly, the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Boundary Expansion Act ignores the will and voices of local stakeholders. The Arizona State Land Department expressed concerns to the committee regarding the cooperative agreement language of this amendment and shared that they have encountered numerous problems with these types of agreements in the past. These are exactly the types of concerns that should be vetted through the committee process with testimony from local stakeholders and the affected agencies.

I would like to briefly discuss one amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Representative Panetta from California, that would simply reinforce the status quo policy of forest management in wilderness areas.

I have worked with Representative Panetta on forest management policies in the past, particularly on the wildland-urban interface. I know his heart. I know he has the right intent and wants to do the right thing. But I also know that he is greatly restricted by his own conference on forestry management issues.

While I appreciate his intent, over the past 10 years, we have had nearly seven million acres of wilderness and wilderness study areas burn up in catastrophic wildfires. Land managers and wilderness areas must rely on century-old techniques, like handsaws and shovels when millions of acres of forest are in desperate need of treatment.

Mr. Speaker, 1910 called and it wants its forest management policy back.

Clearly, the status quo isn't working and unfortunately, his amendment won't actually allow for proper forest management and won't stop this bill from hurting our environment.

Michael Jordan once wisely advised: ``If you do the work you get rewarded. There are no shortcuts in life.''

House Democrats are looking to take the shortcut with this amendment package and the underlying bill. Unfortunately, our economy and environment will have to bear the consequences of these misguided policy decisions.

I would strongly urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to focus on wilderness areas. I know it sounds great to have a wilderness area. I have enjoyed spending time myself in wilderness areas, and forestry and wilderness areas are very important to me. Mr. Speaker, I have a degree in forestry, and I have actually been licensed to practice forestry, taken exams to do that. I can tell you, Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike, we all, I think, can appreciate a healthy forest because we know that it provides clean air, it provides clean water, it provides wildlife habitat, and it also provides great places for us to do recreation.

There are certain places where we need wilderness areas, but there are certain places where we do not need wilderness areas. Seven million acres of wilderness area went up in wildfire in the last 10 years. I would love to be able to take my colleagues out to the forest. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but I can promise you, actually being in the forest tells a much bigger picture, a much better story.

I would love to go to an area that has been properly managed and then go to a wilderness area that hasn't been managed and be able to make the case that although we can pass these bills and create wilderness areas right now that aren't going to affect us, because it takes a long time for a forest to grow and it takes a long time for a forest to degrade, but our children and our grandchildren are going to suffer the consequences of us locking these lands up and making them subject to catastrophic wildfire in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the sentimental value, the emotional value, in wanting to make more wilderness areas. But I wish we would have a long-term look and think about the impact that this is going to have on the future. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Colorado's love for the outdoors. I appreciate his passion to do what is right.

He mentioned the provisions in the Wilderness Act to address insects, disease, and wildfire. Mr. Speaker, that is a Band-Aid. That is what you do after the fact.

What we are proposing is proactive forest management so that you don't have the insects, the disease, and the wildfires. An ounce of prevention is definitely worth a pound of cure.

I would challenge my colleagues to enjoy those scenes and those vistas. I encourage them to take pictures so they can show their children and grandchildren what they looked like before they locked them away in a wilderness area.

Mr. Speaker, this random assortment of amendments does nothing but make a bad bill three times worse. The only difference is that instead of having a package of eight bills that haven't been through regular order that will harm our environment and that will kill jobs in rural communities, we now have a package of 23 bills that haven't been through regular order, will harm the environment, and will kill jobs in rural communities.

No amendment in this package reduces our dependence on hostile foreign nations or critical minerals, improves our supply chains, or bolsters American energy security. No amendment in this package changes how we currently treat forest and wilderness areas with century-old technology like handsaws and shovels. No amendment in this

package creates new jobs or bolsters our economic growth.

What does this package do? It just adds more wilderness, more wild and scenic river designations, and more provisions that haven't gone through regular order and do not have the support of Members of Congress directly impacted by those amendments.

Needless to say, this isn't how we should be managing our resources, and it isn't how we should be legislating in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this package of en bloc amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for his tireless work on doing what is right for the environment. I use that word ``environment,'' and not the word ``climate,'' because I want people to understand that those two things are different.

Climate is very narrowly focused. Climate is an issue that has made carbon, a necessary element, arch enemy number one. Republicans are about a cleaner, safer, and healthier environment. We are concerned not just about carbon in the atmosphere, but we are concerned about forest health, about air quality, about water quality, about wildlife habitat, about having great places for recreation.

Mr. Speaker, nobody wants to mine inside the Grand Canyon. Nobody is mining inside the Grand Canyon. Nobody ever will mine inside the Grand Canyon. We have already got the Grand Canyon National Park that establishes those boundaries, and these mineral withdrawals are far outside of the actual Grand Canyon.

Mr. Speaker, we want a clean environment. We want a healthy environment. We are all for cleaner technology, but that cleaner technology takes certain things. It takes minerals and elements. It takes research and development. It takes using all of the energy sources that we have.

Why can't we talk about creating more next-generation nuclear power?

It has zero carbon. If your concern is about climate, your concern is about carbon. And nuclear energy doesn't emit carbon.

Why not put hydroelectric plants on existing dams?

We don't have to build new dams. We can add 12,000 megawatts of clean, carbon-free hydropower on existing dams. We can use the natural resources that we have and develop cleaner ways to use them.

As we develop more electrical components and devices that, again, run on carbon-free energy, unless that energy is produced from carbon sources, but we have to have a stable and reliable supply of energy, and we can't have that without developing these resources.

I appreciate the gentleman's concern about not locking up these resources and doing a study to make sure that when we lock them up, we are not locking away our future, we are not taking away the ability for this country to produce our own energy supply, that we are not further relying on a foreign supply chain that is controlled by Communist parties.

Mr. Speaker, we are blessed with a resource-rich country, but we are right now at the mercy of foreign suppliers, especially China, to meet our mineral needs. Resources like lithium, cobalt, gallium, and dozens more will be needed in the billions of pounds to meet the projected growth in electric vehicles and other renewable technologies. Even commodities like copper, which have historically been produced in surplus, are now falling short of demand.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage supporting the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the en bloc amendments that would offer important improvements to the underlying bill.

Unfortunately, this en bloc is only a fraction of the amendments Republicans would have offered if Democrats had held a markup on the bill in the Natural Resources Committee.

It is egregious that House Democrats rejected every single Republican recreation and wildfire amendment offered at the Rules Committee. House Democrats also denied Representative Boebert of Colorado the chance to offer a single amendment to this legislation, despite the fact that one-third of all wilderness designations contained in the entire bill are in her district, and she has never had the chance to even debate it, as a new Member of Congress.

One amendment that I offered is included in this package, and it would rectify the fact that Democrats have arbitrarily included tens of thousands of acres of wilderness designations that have not been recommended for wilderness or do not meet the basic definition of wilderness in the Wilderness Act.

If my Democratic colleagues feel so confident that every single acre in this bill is actually worthy of a wilderness designation, they should have no problem supporting my simple amendment to reaffirm proper wilderness characteristics.

Also included in these amendments is a proposal from one of our freshmen members of the Natural Resources Committee, Representative Moore from Utah. It will protect the rights of counties to have a say in local land use by requiring county approval of wilderness designations.

Representative Stauber also offered a version of this amendment for mineral withdrawals and several amendments that would exclude congressional districts represented by Members of Congress who were not consulted on this legislation and strongly oppose it.

This should not be a difficult hurdle to overcome. In fact, it should be a desirable outcome for the sponsor of these bills. Forcing land management decisions upon local communities without their support is a bad idea.

Another one of our freshman committee members, Representative Herrell of New Mexico, offered an amendment to remove all potential wilderness designations in the bill. This bill designates an amount of area equivalent to the size of President Biden's home State of Delaware, and it includes only one wilderness study area release. We shouldn't be adding potential wilderness to this bill without releasing an equivalent amount of wilderness study area first.

Finally, this package of amendments would improve our American energy security by ensuring continued development of critical energy infrastructure, promoting the responsible utilization of domestic critical minerals, facilitating rights-of-way for utilities, and protecting jobs in the energy sector. In contrast, the underlying bill is just an extension of the Biden ban and will hurt rural jobs and our national security.

Mr. Speaker, I wish that Democrats afforded us more than 10 minutes to consider these amendments that would actually improve our environment and economy through conservation and multiple use.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues to strongly support this en bloc of amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would love to visit the gentleman's district, take some photos so that we could show future generations what it looked like before it was locked away in wilderness, and maybe be able to talk about some of those forest management activities and how it could help improve the area.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time both sides have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), who, again, represents one-third of the area proposed in this wilderness area, to tell the House about how the people there really feel.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce. It says that this bill, if passed, will negatively impact our already fragile economy and jeopardize our economic recovery.

Grand Junction Area,

Chamber of Commerce,

February 24, 2021.

Congresswoman Lauren Boebert,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congresswoman Boebert: On behalf of the 900 small

businesses employing 37,000 people that the Grand Junction

Area Chamber of Commerce represents, I am writing to

encourage you to oppose H.R. 803, a bill that would lock up

public lands in Mesa County and negatively impact our local

economy. Our community's economy is still reliant in part on

the business activity generated by our legacy industries of

agriculture and energy. This bill if passed will negatively

impact our already fragile economy and jeopardize our

economic recovery.

These are lands that are literally in our backyard in Mesa

County yet Congresswoman DeGette continues to ignore us, does

not meet with us, and does not even consider the consequences

of her bill on the hardworking families of our areas.

In addition to opposing H.R. 803 our organization supports

the various amendments you are proposing be added to the bill

that include keeping the BLM Headquarters in Grand Junction

Colorado, requiring that affected counties must approve the

Wilderness Designation and protects grazing and water rights.

We appreciate your efforts to help retain jobs and the

diversity of our local economy by opposing H.R. 803 and

offering amendments to help preserve the livelihood of our

families and our water life.

Sincerely,

Diane Schwenke,

President/CEO.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues that if you want to improve our environment, if you are worried about job losses in your district, if you think we should secure our supply chains and improve American energy independence, if you think our forests need to be properly managed to avoid catastrophic wildfires, and if you enjoy recreating in our public lands, you should vote for this amendment package.

The underlying bill is a feel-good bill that hurts our economy and environment. We won't have to suffer the consequences of that. It will be our children and our grandchildren who have to live with the fact that we don't have forests because we burned them all down and we don't have jobs because we outsourced our domestic mining industry to Russia and China.

It shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that the Democrats didn't want to put a package this disastrous for our economy and environment through regular order. They may be able to limit our ability to debate this package, but there is no hiding the truth: This legislation is a land grab that devastates the very communities and lands it claims to support and protect.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendments and oppose the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time today I have been here speaking against highly partisan Democrat wish list bills that fall under my committee's jurisdiction but never went through a markup.

This so-called rescue plan is to COVID relief what Democrat rhetoric is to actual bipartisanship and transparency. It is disingenuous. It is a headline that doesn't match the contents of the story. It has the credibility of Russian, Chinese, and North Korean virus reporting. It is as germane to its stated purpose as the metal detectors outside this Chamber are to our safety.

This bill contains bad policy concocted through a bad process that will produce bad results. The short-term gratification of Congress spending tomorrow's lunch money on bailout candy today will be the burden of millions of Americans students who are still out of school and being left behind.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``no'' vote and an honest discussion about the real needs of America.

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

I rise today in opposition to H.R. 803, the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act.

Contrary to the name, this bill will damage our environment, while simultaneously killing jobs in rural America.

The proponents of this bill will say it is broadly supported. Listen to the Members who represent the districts most affected by this bill. They don't want it.

Listen to the groups opposed: American Farm Bureau, American Forest Resource Council, or the Grand Junction, Colorado, Chamber of Commerce. They don't want this bill.

This bill creates nearly 1.5 million of acres of new wilderness, withdraws 1.2 million acres from mineral production, and designates over 1,200 miles of wild scenic and recreational rivers. For perspective, the wilderness designated in this bill is the same size as President Biden's home State of Delaware.

This Chamber has bypassed the committee process and circumvented the will of Members who represent districts directly impacted by this legislation. It was scheduled for the floor before the Committee was ever organized.

The consequences of this bill on the four Western States it impacts will be far-reaching. For example, if you live in Colorado and you enjoy recreating on mountain biking and ATV trails like the people pictured here on the Tabeguache Trail, this bill will shut down your ability to recreate on those lands. The same goes for snowmobilers, OHV users, and parents with strollers.

It is very concerning that these wilderness areas will now be off- limits to active forest management. 2020 was sadly another record- breaking fire season. We have a problem on our national forests that is not going to be solved with handsaws and shovels. Now is not the time to rely on century-old management techniques stipulated by wilderness designations when over 80 million acres of U.S. Forest Service land is in desperate need of treatment.

If that wasn't enough, this bill also designates lands as wilderness in the wildland-urban interface. This is a matter of life and death.

Mr. Speaker, I want to clear up some misconceptions about the last title of this bill, the Grand Canyon Protection Act. Nobody is mining in the Grand Canyon; nobody wants to mine in the Grand Canyon; and nobody will mine in the Grand Canyon--ever. Proponents of the bill would have you believe that this is happening right near the Colorado River. In fact, there are already buffer zones in place. It is called the Grand Canyon National Park.

The only saving this bill will do is saving Chinese and Russian uranium mining jobs. In 2019, we only produced 0.5 percent of the domestic uranium needed for commercial reactors. This bill goes far beyond the park's boundaries and the boundaries of the sponsor's home district to simply kill jobs to the direct benefit of our adversaries. This bill will make us more dependent on hostile nations like Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, and Chinese-owned mines in Namibia.

In conclusion, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letters from multiple organizations in opposition to H.R. 803.

Independent Petroleum Association

of America,

Washington, DC, February 23, 2021.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Madam Speaker: The Independent Petroleum Association of

America (IPAA) is opposed to H.R. 803, the ``Protecting

America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act.'' This bill

creates nearly 1.5 million acres of new wilderness and

permanently withdraws 1.2 million acres from mineral

production. It is in direct opposition to the multiple use

mandate given to the Department of the Interior to manage the

federal estate. Many of the local communities impacted by

this measure, including Garfield County in Colorado which has

existing mineral leases and planned for further development,

have raised significant concerns due to the elimination of

multiple use of the land and the overall threat to local

economies and rural jobs.

Further, many of the lands under consideration in H.R. 803

do not meet the basic characteristics for consideration as

wilderness. Instead, the legislation arbitrarily designates

areas as wilderness and wild and scenic rivers despite

official testimony provided by the relevant land management

agencies to previous Congresses that many of these

designations are inappropriate and not recommended. To

declare areas that do not possess these characteristics

undermines the integrity of the Wilderness Act and the Wild

and Scenic Rivers Act.

The process by which H.R 803 is coming to the House floor

is also concerning. The bill did not go through regular

order, receiving no hearings or mark-ups in the 117th

Congress. In fact, the bill was scheduled for floor

consideration before the Natural Resources Committee had even

organized. Local input, especially with regards to managing

active mineral leases which affect jobs, should have been

solicited in an effort to allow the House to better

understand the broad impacts of the bill.

For these reasons, IPAA is strongly opposed to H.R. 803.

Sincerely,

Dan Naatz,

Senior Vice President of Government Relations and

Political Affairs, Independent Producers Association of

America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), the chair of the Western Caucus.

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

Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher), the ranking member on the Public Lands Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), whose district is more affected by this bill than anyone else.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte).

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

Mr. Speaker, if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the Committee on Natural Resources to consider our cancel the Biden ban amendment to H.R. 803.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit.

The amendment is simple. It will nullify Executive Order No. 14008 and Secretarial Order No. 3395 issued during the President's first weeks in office.

The Biden administration wasted no time in imposing their extremist environmental agenda. On day one, political appointees created a nightmare for our energy operators and a never-ending bottleneck for approvals necessary to keep our energy economy running.

Just a few days later, President Biden halted all new energy production on our Federal lands and waters, jeopardizing the livelihoods of thousands of Americans in the middle of a pandemic and economic crisis.

The administration has tried to downplay the impact of these actions, but we are already feeling the consequences of what I like to call the Biden ban. The economic impact of the decisions will be far-reaching, impacting thousands of companies, many of which are small businesses. Recent studies have concluded that a long-term ban on onshore leasing would cost 72,000 jobs annually, and a long-term ban on offshore drilling would cost 145,000 jobs.

Federal energy development represents a sizable portion of State budgets. Can we afford to cut off this crucial source of revenue as our communities are struggling to recover from the pandemic? Our schools need funding to buy PPE that they need to reopen. Yet, the Biden ban would disrupt a critical source of revenue that our K-12 schools rely on.

In addition, these actions will bankrupt programs like the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

The ramifications of these actions by the Biden administration will be devastating to our rural communities. Americans who work hard every day to keep the lights on and our gas prices low deserve better than a pink slip from out-of-touch political appointees.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, recommit H.R. 803 to the Natural Resources Committee, and put Americans back to work.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today we heard concerns from our Members, including Members most affected by this legislation.

Tomorrow, we will debate amendments that include 15 new unrelated matters to make the total amount of bills in this one bill 23. This will make this bill three times worse after we consider amendments.

I believe we have the responsibility to leave our environment better than we found it. We talk about the economy so often that many people think that we forget about the environment. That couldn't be further from the truth, we all breathe the air and drink the water.

H.R. 803 would attempt to preserve our resources, locking them up and throwing away the key. Congress' focus should be on conservation and conserving these resources instead, using them in sustainable, responsible ways that every American can enjoy.

Since we weren't given any opportunity to debate this bill in committee, I would like to remind my colleagues that this bill will harm the environment; it will kill jobs; it will limit access to outdoor recreation; it will hurt State water rights; it will imperil our national security and American energy independence; it will impede necessary forest management; and make us more reliant on hostile foreign nations.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the admission of the late R.R. Reynolds of Crossett and Joe Don Greenwood of Hermitage to the Arkansas Agriculture Hall of Fame. These two Fourth District citizens are listed among those who have exemplified leadership and service to our state's agriculture industry.

As director of the Crossett Experimental Forest until 1969, the late R.R. Reynolds became one of the leading voices in modern, sustainable forest management. He maintained a commitment to proper agriculture education with membership in the Society of American Foresters, and he led the effort to create the forestry degree program at what is now University of Arkansas at Monticello.

Joe Don Greenwood, a 40-year veteran of agriculture education in Arkansas schools, led students to 41 state championships and 8 national championships in Future Farmers of America, 4-H, and Forestry. He also worked in tomato farming and served on various agricultural advisory boards, proving his commitment to agricultural excellence in all areas of life.

As an agricultural engineer and the only professional forester in Congress, I can attest to the significant investments these two men have made in Arkansas agriculture. Not only do their contributions have a positive impact upon our state's economic health, but their commitment to developing innovative agricultural practices has and will continue to have a lasting effect on our future.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Former Jefferson County Sheriff Edward Lewis ``Boe'' Fontaine. Sheriff Fontaine passed away on Sunday, January 17 following a battle with COVID-19, leaving behind a county and Fourth District which mourns the loss of a friend, a helper, and a true servant leader.

Beginning his law enforcement career as a deputy sheriff assigned to the Uniformed Patrol Division in 1980, he was later elected as the 30th Jefferson County Sheriff, serving two terms from 1999 to 2006. Appointed by then Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in 2001, Sheriff Fontaine served as a Commissioner on the Arkansas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Training (CLEST). Prior to his service at home, Sheriff Fontaine served 21 years in the United States Marine Corps, retiring as a gunnery sergeant. For his heroism in action, he became one of the most decorated Arkansan service members in history. Most notable of those awards include four Purple Hearts, the Silver Star, and the Bronze Star with a combat ``V.''

In addition to his life of leadership in the military and in local law enforcement, Sheriff Fontaine was known as a family man and valuable member of the community, along with his wife of 60 years, Maye Winston Fontaine. Together, they raised a daughter, Kim, and worshipped as members of Bethany Missionary Baptist Church.

I take this time today to honor the life of service exemplified by Sheriff ``Boe'' Fontaine. I thank him and his family for their dedication to our fellow citizens and our beloved Fourth District.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th birthday of Charleston, Arkansas native, Mr. Theron ``Doc'' B. McElroy. Born on January 16, 1921, Mr. McElroy is one of seven children and one of our country's last remaining veterans of World War II.

After joining the United States Army on December 26, 1941, he stormed Utah Beach at Normandy on D-Day, joining thousands of other brave young Americans in a testament of truest heroism. Mr. McElroy earned several medals during his time of military service, such as the Bronze Star Medal, Good Conduct Medal, American Campaign Medal, and many others. He earned an honorable discharge from the Army on December 20, 1945.

I take this time today to honor the life of service exemplified by Mr. McElroy and his family. In his 100th year, he continues to represent the very best of our nation's greatest generation, and I thank him for his significant impact upon the advance of freedom and the American Dream.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Sgt. AC Simpson Jr., a committed servant of the Drew County, Arkansas Sheriffs Department for over 35 years. Sgt. Simpson passed away on Sunday, January 31, leaving behind a legacy of joyful service to his beloved home.

Having first started his career as an auxiliary deputy in 1985, Sgt. Simpson worked full-time for the Drew County Sheriffs office since 2001. Noted as an avid bowler and fisherman, he was also an invested family man with three grandsons and one granddaughter. His legacy of law enforcement continued in his grandson, Xavier, who became an auxiliary deputy in Drew County in 2020. Remembered most for his ability to brighten anyone's day, Sgt. Simpson's service made him a friend to all in his community.

I take this time today to honor the life of service exemplified by Sgt. AC Simpson Jr. I thank him and his family for their dedication to our fellow citizens and our beloved Fourth District.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the 100th birthday of Warren, Arkansas native, Mr. David Mclinton Green. Born on February 13, 1921, Mr. Green has lived a life of hard work, perseverance, and service to God and country.

Leaming the value of a work ethic at a young age, his first job was at the Dr. Pepper Bottling Company in Warren. After being drafted into the Army at age 22, Mr. Green served for three years alongside thousands of young men during World War II. This service continued throughout his near 40-year career at local mills and Potlatch Deltic. He and his wife, Lillie Mae Feaster Green, had 7 children, and over their 66 years of marriage, they watched their family grow to include 18 grandchildren, 37 great-grandchildren, and 7 great-great grandchildren.

I take this time today to honor the life of service exemplified by Mr. Green and his family. In his 100th year, he continues to represent the very best of our nation's greatest generation, and I thank him for his significant impact upon the advance of freedom and the American Dream.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of Former Mayor of Pine Bluff, Carolyn Robinson. Mayor Robinson passed away on Thursday, January 14, 2021, leaving behind a legacy of service to her community.

Elected the first female city council member in 1978, Robinson became the first female Mayor of Pine Bluff, serving two terms from 1984 to 1992. She was described by her colleagues in public service as a trailblazer who broke all the barriers to best serve her city.

Born August 6, 1936, in nearby Cornerstone, Mayor Robinson graduated from Altheimer High School. In 1960, she married Fred Robinson, and together, they raised three children, Renee, Tina, and Robbie. With three grandchildren and three great-grandchildren, she was known as a committed family woman.

I take this time today to honor the life of service exemplified by Mayor Carolyn Robinson. I thank her and her family for their dedication to our fellow citizens and our beloved Fourth District.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington and commend him for the great work that he has done with the Western Caucus and also here in Congress to be a voice for rural America and for these areas, like my district, that depend on Natural Resources.

Madam Speaker, our country is at a crossroads on the environment. One road leads to a vibrant, all-of-the-above energy approach, where we combine our state-of-the-art technology with hardworking American ingenuity and work ethic to incentivize smart environmental solutions.

The other road leads to a top-down regulatory approach in which those in power ban, tax, and prohibit energy access resulting in economic ruin and environmental degradation. It is clear which path President Biden has chosen.

With a stroke of a pen, he eliminated thousands of American jobs, put many more into jeopardy, defunded bipartisan conservation programs, and eliminated some of the safest, most reliable forms of energy production and transportation we have.

Let's not confuse action with progress. The data is very clear. America leads the world in environmental standards. If our goal is actually a cleaner, safer, and healthier environment--and I hope it is--then we should continue modeling these standards for the rest of the world to follow, while developing the technology of the future.

However, through his sweeping bans that killed the Keystone pipeline and shut down new energy leases on Federal lands and water, President Biden is merely shifting our current demand for energy overseas.

Let me make that very clear: Much as my Democrat colleagues might pretend otherwise, America's demand for oil and natural gas will not go away overnight. It cannot. Our infrastructure depends on it. So by shutting down one of our main domestic supplies, our supply will shift overseas, where we have no control over their environmental standards.

Put simply, President Biden's orders will hurt our environment in the long run and devastate our economy in the meantime.

So what is our alternative?

How about allowing the free market to work, like it always has. We have an innovative, pragmatic plan in place, unlike the Democrats' haphazard, shooting-from-the-hip approach. It is why I have submitted pro-growth solutions like the Trillion Trees Act.

Madam Speaker, we don't need to make hollow political points with no substance and no hope for success. We need an energy plan that looks to the future while taking care of the needs of today.

Democrats want to make us choose between a healthy environment and a strong economy. I am here to tell you we can have both. Actually, if we want a cleaner, safer, healthier environment, then we must have a strong economy. They go hand-in-hand.

I hope President Biden reverses this ban and puts our environment and America's economy first.