Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1945) to designate the America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1945.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 1945, the America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark Act, sponsored by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder).

This bill recognizes a place of global consequence in the heart of small-town America: America's National Churchill Museum at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri.

On March 6, 1946, on the heels of a devastating world war, Sir Winston

Churchill traveled to Fulton to deliver an address that foreshadowed the next stage of America's global conflict against evil. In his now- famous speech, ``Sinews of Peace,'' Churchill warned that an Iron Curtain had descended across Europe and urged a new Western alliance against the aggression of the totalitarian Soviet Union.

For five decades, the museum in Fulton has conserved the speech's history and allowed the public to experience that pivotal moment. It is also home to a remarkable structure, the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Aldermanbury, a 12th century church which was transported from London to Fulton in the 1960s to commemorate Churchill's speech. Today, the entire site serves as a civic center of engagement and educational programming that brings to life the story of Winston Churchill.

H.R. 1945 builds on that historic legacy. Representative Onder's bill would designate America's National Churchill Museum as a national historic landmark. In doing so, the museum would be able to enter into cooperative agreements with the National Park Service to protect historic resources and support public programming. This is a simple bill that strengthens stewardship of a unique historical site without adding to the Federal estate.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1945, the America's National Churchill Museum National Historic Landmark Act, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder), the lead sponsor of this bill, a gentleman who cannot only pronounce the Aldermanbury Church correctly but has been to the Aldermanbury Church.

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

H.R. 1945 does ensure that America's National Churchill Museum receives recognition equal to its educational impact and importance to 20th century history.

Designating the site as a national historic landmark will bring further prominence to the special place and allow future generations of Americans to learn about the moment that marked the start of the Cold War and the legacy of Sir Winston Churchill. I commend Representative Onder for his leadership on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this very important bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 681) to amend the Act of August 9, 1955 (commonly known as the ``Long-Term Leasing Act''), to authorize leases of up to 99 years for land held

in trust for the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah), and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material to H.R. 681, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 681, introduced by Representative Keating, would authorize the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, both of Massachusetts, to lease lands held in trust for up to 99 years, subject to approval by the Secretary of the Interior.

Congress has long recognized that Tribes need the ability to lease their lands to support housing, commercial activity, and community development. While the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act allows leasing of trust lands, longer lease terms have often required Tribe-specific legislation. Over time, Congress has granted 99-year leasing authority to a number of Tribes to accommodate long-term planning and investment.

H.R. 681 simply extends that same authority to these two Tribes in Massachusetts. The bill ensures these Tribes are treated consistently with others that have already received 99-year leasing authority.

By providing parity and leasing authority, H.R. 681 supports local economic planning and development and promotes fairness and opportunity for these Tribal communities while maintaining Federal oversight through secretarial approval.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 681, again, provides equal leasing authority to the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, aligning them with the other Tribes that have already received 99-year leasing authority from Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 681, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3692) to reauthorize the Young Fishermen's Development Act, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3692, 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. 3692, the Captain Accursio ``Gus'' Sanfilippo Young Fishermen's Development Act, sponsored by Representative Moulton from Massachusetts.

This bill is named after the captain of the Lily Jean, who tragically lost his life, along with six others, when the fishing vessel sank off the coast of Massachusetts in January.

Our thoughts are with his family and the families of those who lost their lives in this terrible accident.

The Young Fishermen's national competitive grant program supports the training and education of the Nation's next generation of commercial fishermen. This legislation would reauthorize the program through fiscal year 2031, supporting the education of America's future fishermen and a competitive and sustainable American seafood economy.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3692, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, this bill promotes continued investment in both the next generation of American fishermen and the American seafood industry as a whole. I commend my friend, Mr. Moulton, for bringing this forward, and I support this bill, H.R. 3692.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 723) to require the Bureau of Indian Affairs to process and complete all mortgage packages associated with residential and business mortgages on Indian land by certain deadlines, 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 S. 723, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 723, the Tribal Trust Land Homeownership Act of 2025, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Thune, would establish firm timelines for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to review and approve residential and business mortgage applications on Tribal trust land. This bill also increases transparency and accountability in the mortgage review process and modernizes outdated systems that have contributed to delays.

Since trust land is held by the United States on behalf of Tribes and Tribal members, mortgages on that land require approval from the Bureau of Indian Affairs before they can close. While current law provides review timelines for certain leaseholds and rights-of-way mortgages, there is no statutory deadline for trust land mortgages.

As a result, applicants and lenders have faced prolonged uncertainty. Reports have highlighted cases in which borrowers waited more than 1 year for their required title status reports, creating significant barriers to homeownership and business development in Indian Country. These delays can discourage lenders and limit access to capital in communities that already face housing shortages and economic challenges.

S. 723 addresses these concerns by setting enforceable timelines for BIA review, requiring notice to lenders and a report to Congress, supporting the digitization of records, improving access to information, and creating a realty ombudsman to help resolve issues. By reducing delay and uncertainty, this bill makes it easier for Tribes and Tribal members to secure financing for homes and businesses.

I commend Senator Thune and Representative Dusty Johnson for their leadership on this issue and for working to improve housing and economic opportunity in Indian Country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), the lead sponsor of the House companion to this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, S. 723 promotes certainty, accountability, and transparency in the trust land mortgage process.

By establishing clear timelines and modernizing mortgage administration, the bill removes unnecessary barriers to homeownership and business development for Tribal communities.

I thank my colleague from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) for leading the House companion to this legislation and the entire South Dakota delegation for their coordinated effort on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of S. 723, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4386) to amend the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to clarify entrance privileges for vehicles with respect to the America the Beautiful interagency pass, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4386, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Chairman Walberg's America the Beautiful Motorcycle Fairness Act, a commonsense bill that restores fairness and clarity for the millions of Americans who travel to our national parks and public lands every year by motorcycle.

For years, annual entrance passes to our national parks allowed entry for one vehicle and its passengers or, for motorcycles, two bikes traveling together. This arrangement was practical, predictable, and reflected how riders actually experience our Federal lands.

Yet in 2024, the Biden administration unilaterally reversed that longstanding policy and restricted coverage to just one motorcycle per pass. This placed unnecessary financial burdens on riders, discouraging motorcyclists from recreating on public lands, while offering no benefit to park operations. This change also hurt gateway communities, as motorcycle tourism is a key driver of many small, rural economies.

Last year, President Trump and Secretary Burgum overturned this decision, restoring access to two motorcycles per entrance pass ahead of our Nation's 250th anniversary celebrations this year. This bill simply codifies that decision and restores what worked.

By permanently codifying the traditional two-motorcycles-per-pass standard, the legislation ensures parity for motorcyclists and restores long-term affordable access to our Nation's most iconic landscapes. In doing so, this bill directly supports the goals of President Trump's executive orders on celebrating America's 250th birthday and making America beautiful again by improving our national parks.

Keeping our parks welcoming and accessible while improving the visitor experience should be a goal that we all strive for.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Walberg for his hard work on this America the Beautiful Motorcycle Fairness Act. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Agriculture,

Washington, DC, December 5, 2025.

Hon. Bruce Westerman,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter confirms our mutual

understanding regarding H.R. 4386, ``To amend the Federal

Lands Recreation Enhancement Act to clarify entrance

privileges for vehicles with respect to the America the

Beautiful interagency pass.'' 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. 4386 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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), the chairman and lead sponsor of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I again thank Chairman Walberg for his leadership on behalf of millions of motorcyclists who will benefit from the America the Beautiful Motorcycle Fairness Act. Whether people choose to access our public lands by car, bicycle, motorcycle, or on foot, the price you pay at the gate should not be a barrier to entry. Chairman Walberg's bill makes our national parks and public lands more affordable, encourages greater motorcycle tourism, and restores commonsense parity for millions of motorcycle enthusiasts.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 4386, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1057, I call up the bill (H.R. 261) to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit requiring an authorization for the installation, continued presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber optic cables in a national marine sanctuary if such activities have previously been authorized by a Federal or State agency, 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. 261.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 261 sponsored by Congressman Buddy Carter of Georgia.

Undersea cables play a crucial role in the global economy. These cables are roughly 1 to 2 inches in diameter. Yet they crisscross the globe and carry approximately 95 percent of global internet traffic, facilitating trillions of dollars in global financial transactions.

The Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025 eliminates the requirement for undersea cables to obtain a special use permit under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act as a condition to route these projects through a national marine sanctuary.

Undersea cables are and will continue to be subject to numerous environmental statutes including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. These are just statutes in the Committee on Natural Resources' jurisdiction.

Many of these laws are implemented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. We will hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that this bill hinders NOAA's ability to conduct an environmental review of these projects. That is simply not true.

What is true, however, is that the specific use permit, which under current law only lasts 5 years, has caused national marine sanctuaries to effectively become no-go zones for undersea cables. This means reduced routes of diversity, consolidation of cable landing zones, and an increased threat to our national security.

Notably, this dynamic does not just cause stress on the physical infrastructure of these projects. Many of us are aware of the stories from around the world of undersea cables being severed with recent examples of this occurring in both Taiwan and the Baltic.

In the United States, as these cables have a limited number of landing areas, our adversaries would have the ability to cut off an increasing portion of communications, internet activity, and financial transactions by attacking just a few points.

Combine this looming threat with the increasing number of cables required in the coming years to keep pace with demand, and their growing role as critical infrastructure in our daily lives, and failure to support the continued development of these projects could pose a grave national security risk.

Removing the requirement for a special use permit advances the objectives of House Republicans and the administration to reduce regulatory burdens and encourage American competitiveness, an objective that President Trump emphasized when he signed Executive Order 14267, Reducing Anticompetitive Regulatory Barriers.

Advancing this legislation will allow for the deployment of undersea cables while providing appropriate protection of our marine resources. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we understand exactly what is going on here. If you look at this map, this is an example along the California coast. These pink areas are national marine sanctuaries. You have this one zone down here by Morro Bay and Grover Beach, where cables can actually leave the shore. You can see the concentration of all of the existing cables in this area.

Mr. Speaker, it is possible to put a cable across a marine sanctuary right now. There was a law or a rule passed in 2002, I believe, that set up this special use permit. The problem is that it gave a 5-year special use permit, and these are 25-year-plus projects when you put one of these cables in.

Mr. Speaker, NOAA had the assignment to come up with what the lease cost would be to put these cables across a marine sanctuary. In all of NOAA's infinite wisdom, they came up with a price tag of $40,000 to $100,000 per mile, subject to inflation.

Nobody has gotten one of these permits. Nobody has put a cable across because this rule by the Federal Government has disincentivized all of these companies from being able to run cables. It seems that the purpose of the rule in the first place was just to keep cables out of the marine sanctuaries.

Mr. Speaker, if somebody were to put a cable through a marine sanctuary, they would still have to go through the NEPA process. They would have to go through the entire regulatory process to get a permit to put the cable across the sanctuary. It is not like you are throwing away all environmental oversight and all environmental guidelines to be able to bury one of these cables, or not bury but run it along the ocean floor.

Again, they are 1 inch to 2 inches in diameter. If you just looked at 1 mile at, say, 4 inches in diameter, that strip of land at a rate of $40,000 per mile would be the equivalent of a yearly rent of about $1 million per acre every year.

The whole rule and the law was stacked against doing anything, and that is exactly what has happened. We want to open this up where American companies can invest in American fiber cables so that we can communicate across the ocean and we can get away from all of this consolidation in one area where it is easy to target.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), the lead sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller).

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

Mr. Speaker, the article featured behind me found that adversaries like Russia and China are taking disruptive action against undersea cables on a more frequent basis around the world. Here is an article just from yesterday talking about a Chinese cargo ship captain who has been charged with severing a natural gas pipeline and a communication cable in the Baltic Sea.

If we stick to the status quo, we are leaving ourselves more vulnerable to similar threats at our doorstep. Our adversaries are taking an increasingly aggressive posture in targeting critical infrastructure.

Congressman Carter's legislation promotes route diversity, reduces threats to global communication systems, and ensures that the United States wins this global technology race. That is why it is important that we pass this legislation and that we give companies the certainty that they can build these communication lines and diversify where they are locating them so that we can protect our economic security and also our national security.

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

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

This legislation before us today accomplishes two objectives:

First, it eliminates the requirement for undersea cables to obtain a special use permit for operating within national marine sanctuaries. Again, undersea cable projects would still need to undergo review under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. None of that permitting is waived in this bill, and I would dare say anybody wanting to run one of these cables would say they are getting to do it and to avoid all environmental laws and protections. I don't think people running these cables want to do that.

Second, it removes the 5-year timeline for any special use permit

within any national marine sanctuary. Together, these reforms reduce regulatory burdens. They protect our national security, and they ensure that America can lead the way in deploying undersea cables while protecting our marine environments.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Carter for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1032, I call up the bill (H.R. 4090) to codify certain provisions of certain Executive Orders relating to domestic mining and hardrock mineral resources, 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. 4090.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4090, the Critical Mineral Dominance Act.

This legislation addresses one of the most urgent challenges facing our Nation today: our growing and unnecessary dependence on other nations for the critical minerals that drive our economy and sustain our national defense.

The United States has never been more reliant on hard rock minerals than it is today. Copper is the backbone of our electricity grid. Nickel, cobalt, and lithium go into the batteries that power our communications devices and back up critical infrastructure such as hospitals and data centers. Rare earth elements make possible the cutting-edge technologies that enable our economy to innovate and our military to keep us safe.

The global mineral race is not optional. Over the next 15 years, demand for copper and rare earth elements is expected to rise by 50 percent; cobalt, 150 percent; and lithium, up to 500 percent. Shortages of all the above could be upon us within a decade.

Yet these minerals are right here under our feet. We have the safest, most sophisticated, efficient, and environmentally friendly mining technology and workforce anywhere in the world. The United States should be the world's mineral supply chain. The only reason we are not is because of our outdated, shortsighted Federal policy that hinders domestic mining.

President Trump recognized the dangerous gap between America's mineral needs and mineral production. Upon returning to office a year ago, he signed three executive orders to help close that gap.

The first directed Federal agencies to correct or rescind regulations that unduly burden domestic mining and instructed the Secretary of the Interior to accelerate geologic mapping.

A second executive order required Federal agencies to prioritize mineral development on viable Federal lands.

The third directed Federal agencies to assess the economic costs and national security risks of our dependence on foreign minerals.

H.R. 4090, sponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), would codify the natural resources-related provisions of these EOs and require additional reporting from the Department of the Interior.

The reports will, for the first time, reveal the true costs that mineral dependence imposes on the U.S. economy. They will clarify the scope and location of America's vast mineral deposits.

During markup, the Natural Resources Committee worked in a bipartisan manner to strengthen the bill, adopting two minority amendments that required DOI to report to Congress on barriers to byproduct mineral production on Federal lands and to examine projects with the potential to produce hard rock minerals from coal ash and coal byproducts.

Mr. Speaker, the alternative to American mineral dominance is buying foreign minerals from supply chains controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. That is where we are now: mineral dependence. Mineral dependence benefits no one except the CCP. Mineral dependence does not help the environment. It does not drive economic growth. It doesn't make us or our allies safer.

American mineral dominance will create thousands of new mining and mineral-related jobs. It will establish the United States as the hub of the world's mineral market. It will secure critical mineral access for the U.S. military and for our allies.

Mr. Speaker, we need these minerals to build a better future. Our choice is whether to lead the world in meeting that need as only we can or to cede that responsibility to corrupt regimes, systems, and foreign enemies we know will abuse it. The American people have made their choice. It is time for us to honor it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Stauber for his work on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4090, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a lot of agreement on this issue. There is the fact that we need more critical minerals in the United States, and the demand for that is not going away. We need it for economic security. We need it for national security. The rub seems to be where these critical minerals and elements are going to come from. What we are promoting is that they come from America.

The other argument seems to be that we need them but not in our backyard. That has been the position of our country for far too long.

Mr. Speaker, instead of not in our backyard, it is much better in our backyard because we have better labor standards, better environmental standards, and better health and safety standards.

God has blessed our country with these deposits of minerals really from sea to shining sea. We just need to be getting them out of the ground here, creating American jobs while doing that, creating more American jobs and more wealth while we refine those ores into metals and then manufacturing from that.

That is what our vision is. We want to see Americans use American resources to promote American security and American economic growth. I wish we could all agree on that, but that is what this bill will help to promote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

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

Mr. Speaker, if you read the bill, there is absolutely nothing in the bill

about allowing foreign mining companies to come into the U.S. and exploit our Federal lands, to bypass all Federal regulations, and create scenarios like may have happened in some other country. Those are just scare tactics to continue this idea of not in my backyard.

We all want these things. We all recognize that we need these things. We have to have these critical minerals. We have to have these rare earth elements, but the mindset is that we will just get them from somewhere else. We will ship off our environmental issues to some other country and let them deal with it instead of dealing with them here in America, where we, again, have the most stringent rules, have the highest expectations, protect human rights, protect the environment, and promote occupational health and safety.

Show me some place in the world that does that better than we do. It is certainly not Communist China, where all of these rare earths and critical minerals are coming from right now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

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

Mr. Speaker, in preparing for this floor debate, I should have asked my staff to bring posters of smoke and mirrors because it would be fitting for the arguments that we are hearing that seem to try to distract us from everything but the real issue. That issue is that we are not producing the minerals and elements here in our country that we need for our economy and our defense, and China is dominating those markets.

Now, I agree with the gentlewoman from New Mexico: We should be processing these mined materials here in the United States. We have to ask ourselves the question: Why aren't we processing more minerals in the United States? Number one is that we can't get new mines. Why do we need a processing facility if we can't get the material we need to go through the processing facility?

The other one is that we can't permit a new processing facility in a timely manner and build it in a cost-competitive manner because of our overburdensome permitting and regulatory processes and laws that we have here in the United States.

This is the argument why we need permitting reform, why we need to speed up the process, and why we need to give certainty to investors that we can build here in America again.

When we talk about refining metals, let's talk about copper. In 1995, we produced three times more copper than China. Today, they are producing 10 times more copper than we are. We have two copper smelters. They have 50. It is not because we don't know how to build copper smelters, don't have copper deposits, or don't want to produce copper in the U.S. It is the fact that there have been so many obstacles and barriers put in place that it has driven that industry overseas to other places.

It is time we bring it back here and do it in a more environmentally responsible manner--again, with human rights protections, health and safety protections, environmental protections, and the standards of the United States. It is time we start doing this in our backyard and not exporting our issues to other countries while we turn a blind eye to it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

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

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the issue at hand here. I want to address the policy issue and the weakness in the argument that we could restrict mining companies to 10 percent Chinese ownership. That is a bad policy decision.

It is a bad policy decision, Mr. Speaker, because if you are the Chinese Communist Party and see a mine is getting ready to happen in the United States, and it is going to be done by a company that is traded publicly, you could go buy 10.1 percent and stop the project. We don't need that kind of policy.

Plus, that policy doesn't apply to the jurisdiction of this bill. If a policy like that needs to be designed, then it needs to go through the Financial Services Committee.

Also, don't think, Mr. Speaker, that our opposition on this--being China, for the most part--will not play dirty. What they do is when they see any kind of mining project or processing facility considered in the United States, they dump product onto the global market, driving the price down to make the economics such that nobody would invest in that project.

Fortunately, that is being addressed. Just this week, the administration announced something called the vault, which will be a repository for critical minerals. It will be similar to our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We will have strategic critical mineral reserves.

We need to be able to produce those critical minerals here in the United States to put in that reserve, which will insulate against foreign bad actors dumping in our markets to drive the prices down to make projects not economically viable.

Again, the real issue here is that we need this material in America, sourced by American mining companies, processed in America, and going into American manufacturing. We can partner with our allies around the world to help make this happen, but when we look at where the deposits are, they are here in America. We have to produce oil and gas where the oil and gas deposits are. We have to mine copper where the copper deposits are.

Again, we are blessed to have all of those things here in our country, but we are not utilizing them. Because we are not utilizing them, we are allowing our adversaries to control the markets.

It is not just an economic issue. It is a national security issue. That is why we need legislation like this legislation. That is why we need permitting reform.

We talk about building processing facilities in America. We passed the bipartisan permitting reform bill, but, unfortunately, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against that.

The Senate is considering that now. Hopefully, the Senate will pass that bill in a bipartisan manner, like we did in the House, but with a larger bipartisan group. We can get it to the President's desk so we can create certainty, so we can start building more processing and manufacturing here in our country, and so we can utilize these abundant resources that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for speakers. 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, in closing, I will reiterate the fundamental fact of this debate. In the 21st century, America's economy, military, healthcare, communications systems, and transportation infrastructure depend on hardrock minerals.

There is no scenario where the United States and the rest of the world aren't competing to purchase these critical minerals. The only question is whether we are all competing for minerals mined here in the United States or in mines controlled by our foreign adversaries.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, in 2024, the United States was 100 percent net import reliant for 15 nonfuel mineral commodities. Additionally, of the 60 minerals identified as critical by USGS, the United States was 100 percent net import reliant for 12, and at least 50 percent net import reliant for an additional 30.

Mining them here is better for our economy, our national security, our allies, and the environment. H.R. 4090 will help close America's mineral production gap and begin to end our dependence on foreign minerals.

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

Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Richard Taylor ``Dick'' Schulze, a distinguished public servant, conservation advocate, and a true champion for America's outdoor legacy. Today, along with my Co-Chair, Congressman Jimmy Panetta, and our Vice Chairs, Congressman August Pfluger and Congressman Troy A. Carter, Sr., we are proud to carry on the legacy of Congressman Schulze as bipartisan leaders of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus.

Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1929 to John L. and Grace (Taylor) Schulze, Mr. Schulze pursued his education at the University of Houston, Villanova University, and Temple University. A veteran and patriot, he also served this country in both the U.S. Merchant Marines and the United States Army. Beyond his military service, he was a successful businessman and devoted public servant.

His commitment to service extended into a remarkable political career, where he was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1975 and served for 18 years. During his tenure, he rose to the position of Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee, a further demonstration of his leadership. Throughout his distinguished career, Congressman Schulze maintained a deep and abiding passion for conservation.

He also served on the Natural Resources Committee and was a member of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, where he championed the protection and management of America's fish and wildlife resources. Recognizing his expertise and dedication, President George H.W. Bush appointed Schulze to serve on the board of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, further cementing his lifelong commitment to conservation and the outdoors.

Among his most enduring legacies, Schulze co-founded the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation in 1989, working in bipartisan fashion alongside former Congressman Robert Lindsay Thomas to bring together Members of Congress who shared a passion for hunting, fishing, and wildlife conservation. Through the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Mr. Schulze helped establish the largest and most effective bipartisan platform in Congress to advance policies that benefit sportsmen and women, America's incredible outdoor heritage, and a Caucus that we are proud to lead today.

Congressman Schulze died peacefully at his home on December 23, 2025, at the age of 96, with his wife of 33 years, Nancy Schulze, at his side. He was an avid outdoorsman whose life was defined by service to his country, his community, and the natural world.

Today, we remember and celebrate Richard T. Schulze, not only for his service in Congress but for his visionary leadership in the conservation community. His work exemplified a rare combination of policy acumen, practical conservation knowledge, and an enduring commitment to bipartisan cooperation. His legacy will continue to guide and inspire Members of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, and countless individuals who value our Nation's outdoor traditions.

We extend our deepest condolences to his family, friends, and colleagues, and we join the Nation in honoring a life well lived and a legacy that will endure for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1009, I call up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 140) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to Public Land Order No. 7917 for Withdrawal of Federal Lands; Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, MN, 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.J. Res. 140.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Congressional Review Act resolution, which would overturn the Biden administration's reckless withdrawal of more than 225,000 acres in the Superior National Forest from mineral exploration and development.

Mr. Speaker, at issue is the Duluth Complex in northern Minnesota, one of the largest mineral deposits on the planet, including the world's largest copper-nickel deposit.

The Federal Government routinely granted and renewed mineral leases to these deposits beginning in the 1960s. Decades of planning, exploration, investment, and environmental reviews have gone into the region, and with good reason.

The minerals in the Duluth Complex include copper, nickel, and cobalt. They are the ones that make up the 21st century economy and help it run. They are the essential inputs for telecommunications devices, cutting-edge defense systems, and much more.

As we are all keenly aware, the Chinese Communist Party has a stranglehold on far too many mineral supply chains. Mining in the Duluth Complex was poised to change that. It was going to help usher in a new era of American mineral dominance and create and support thousands of American jobs. It was going to help end our dependence on foreign adversaries and reorder the entire global mineral market, positioning the United States at the center and driving our rivals to the margins.

When President Biden abruptly closed off 225,000 acres of Federal land in the Duluth Complex for mineral development, he threw a future of American abundance, security, and global leadership into chaos. The decision undermined America's economic, military, and strategic interests and those of our allies.

The minerals in the Duluth Complex are called ``critical'' for a reason. We need them. The whole world needs them. Nations, businesses, militaries, and individual consumers are going to acquire these minerals. The only question is whether they will be mined here in the United States by American workers, protected by American labor laws, and with the strongest environmental standards and most advanced mining techniques, or not.

The Duluth Complex is also home to a world-class helium reserve, which has attracted investment from investors. Specifically, the withdrawal itself locks up roughly 11,000 acres for helium exploration, blocking development of one of the largest and most concentrated helium deposits in the entire world.

Don't let the rhetoric around this issue confuse what is at stake here. The resolution before us today is about more than just one project. There are two options, Mr. Speaker: mineral dominance or mineral dependence. There isn't a third option, and it is long past time for the Federal Government to act like it.

Our global allies rely on America's leadership. If we are to remain a leader in the global economy, then domestic mineral abundance is a strategic necessity, not a political football.

The resolution before us does not mandate projects, mining sites, firms, or schedules. It simply reverses the Biden administration's unilateral short-circuiting of the normal permitting process.

This resolution is a step toward balance and the rule of law. It is a step toward the mineral abundance that the American people deserve and that Washington has denied them for too long.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) for introducing this resolution and for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents.

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

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

Facts can be stubborn things. There are some things that we all can agree on. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area is a wonderful place, but the Boundary Waters Canoe Area has been protected, is currently protected, and will be protected even after this CRA is passed.

The Congresses that came long before us made sure this was the case, long before the Obama administration ever did a lease withdrawal in the area. They established the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Then, they set a buffer zone around the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, and they said this other part of the Superior National Forest could be used to develop mining and also used for forestry purposes.

Any deposits that we are talking about are not inside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. They are not inside the buffer zone to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. They are out in the forest that the Biden administration said can't be developed anymore, even after Congress had already said this was the case.

I think what we are doing today is we are exercising our Article I power where an administration abused it and tried to make rules. The Government Accountability Office said this bill or this rule is subject to the Congressional Review Act, so here we are, to right the wrong.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).

Mr. Speaker, again, I can't emphasize this enough: There is not going to be any mining in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. There is not going to be any mining in the boundary area around the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. If there is ever a project approved, it would be in the land set aside by Congress in the Superior National Forest for mining and timber harvesting.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

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

Again, Mr. Stauber said it, I have said it, and others have said it. This CRA simply reverses the withdrawal that the Biden administration put out. It takes us back to Congress' original intent to allow somebody to propose to develop a project. It doesn't change any of the permitting laws. They still have to go through every permitting law.

There seems to be a lot of scare tactics on what this mine, which hasn't even been permitted or approved yet, is going to do, but we know one thing. It will have to stand up to all the rigorous permitting requirements that the U.S. has to offer. It will also have to stand up to the labor, health, and safety requirements that we have here in the U.S., unlike many of the places around the world where these critical minerals are mined.

This gives somebody a chance to develop a project to provide the things that we need here in America, to provide jobs for northern Minnesota, and to provide a stronger sense of national security, as we all saw the equipment that these critical minerals go into that Representative Zinke showed in the poster.

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.

I include in the Record a coalition letter from over 140 organizations in support of H.J. Res. 140. These groups include the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Minnesota Power, MiningMinnesota, Minnesota State Building and Construction Trades Council, Ely Public School District, Jobs for Minnesotans, Laborers' International Union of North America, and more.

January 20, 2026.

Hon. Mike Johnson,

Speaker, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,

Minority Leader, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John Thune,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Charles Schumer,

Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Johnson, Majority Leader Thune, Minority

Leader Jeffries, and Minority Leader Schumer: Our

organizations represent a broad range of Americans who care

deeply about advancing opportunities for individuals and

families across the country and fostering a stronger nation.

We represent vital industries such as mining, manufacturing,

transportation and energy; we represent hundreds of thousands

of union workers; we include economic development

associations; we are business leaders and much more.

We are writing to express our strong support for Congress'

efforts to utilize the Congressional Review Act to disapprove

of the mineral withdrawal that was enacted in northeast

Minnesota by the Department of the Interior (DOI) in January

of 2023 on more than 225,000 acres of federal lands.

Minerals are fundamental to everything in our modern world,

from wiring in homes, to energy technologies and

infrastructure, medical technologies, transportation, defense

capabilities, smartphones and laptops and more. Simply put,

critical minerals are vital for a safe, secure and prosperous

America.

Currently, China and other adversarial nations dominate the

globe in critical mineral production and processing, while

U.S. dependence on foreign sources for these materials has

recently reached an all-time high. The ban on mining across a

significant portion of Minnesota only set us further behind

as a nation.

As a result, this mineral withdrawal, an administrative

action which forbids any mining or exploration activity on

these lands for 20 years, was enacted in an area of the

United States that contains enormous amounts of the critical

minerals our nation needs to achieve its goals of energy

independence, stronger domestic supply chains and American

job creation. These are goals our organizations collectively

work to advance.

Northeast Minnesota is home to the world's largest known

undeveloped deposits of copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum

group metals and more. The area contains 95 percent of

domestic nickel resources, almost 90 percent of domestic

cobalt and about a third of our nation's copper. Industries

pursuing the responsible development of these resources, from

the mining companies who have invested in the region to the

suppliers to the high-skilled workers seeking employment,

have been negatively impacted by the enactment of the mineral

withdrawal, as have the communities in the region that want

to see mining projects move forward for the betterment of the

local and statewide economy.

Congress now has the opportunity to correct a detrimental

action that ran contrary to our national interest, and to do

so assures that these minerals will be produced domestically

according to some of the world's most rigorous environmental

standards.

Minnesota and the federal government have already put in

place comprehensive rules and a framework to ensure the

environment is protected and that any proposed industrial

activity in the area meets stringent regulatory standards.

The U.S. also has some of the most robust safety standards

for workers. To ignore the opportunity to produce

domestically for materials we use in our everyday lives means

that we are relying upon nations with low-to-non-existent

worker protections.

Disapproving the withdrawal in Minnesota will undo an

unnecessary and damaging action. It will also correct a

course in which industries seeking to generate jobs and

revenue for generations to come, were simply no longer

allowed to propose mining projects in the area and forbidden

to go through the law and science-based environmental review

process to prove they can meet the high standards in place

before earning permits to construct a mine.

We collectively support the use of the Congressional Review

Act to overturn the mineral withdrawal currently under

consideration in Congress, as it is an essential step forward

in unlocking the resources that our nation needs to reduce

our dangerous reliance on China and other adversarial

nations.

Signed,

Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA);

Minnesota State Building and Construction Trades Council; The

National Association of Manufacturers; International

Brotherhood of Teamsters; MichAuto; Indigenous Business

Advisors; Better in Our Back Yard; Iron Range Building

Trades; Minnesota Pipe Trades Association; LIUNA Minnesota

and North Dakota; Northern Midwest Regional Council of

Carpenters; Minnesota Power; Whitebird Services Inc.; Duluth

Seaway Port Authority; Citizens for Responsible Energy

Solutions; Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; Women's Mining

Coalition; ClearPath Action; International Union of

Operating Engineers Local 49; Plumbers and Pipefitters

Local 589; Area Partnership for Economic Expansion (APEX).

Range Association of Municipalities and Schools (RAMS);

Mining Minnesota; Jobs for Minnesotans; American Exploration

and Mining Association; Society for Mining, Metallurgy &

Exploration; National Mining Association; United Way of

Northeastern Minnesota; American Chemistry Council; Teamsters

Joint Council 32; Teamsters Local 346; Laborers Local 1097

``Iron Range''; Sprinkler Fitters Local 417; UA Plumbers

Local 15; Local 6 Plumbers and Pipefitters; International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Minnesota State Council;

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 242;

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union

110; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local

31; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local

Union 1426; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

Local 160.

Up North Jobs Inc.; Minnesota Conservative Energy Forum;

Green Bridge Metals; City of Babbitt, MN--Mayor Andrea

Zupancich; Duluth Area Chamber of Commerce; Laurentian

Chamber of Commerce; Hermantown Area Chamber of Commerce;

Copper Development Association; Mt. Iron-Buhl School Board,

MN--Lisa Kvas; Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce;

American Coal Council; Industrial Township, St. Louis County,

MN--Don Carlson; Northeast Technical Services; Grand Itasca

Clinic and Hospital; Lakehead Constructors; Ely Public School

District--Anne Oelke; Fight for Mining Minnesota; Road

Machinery & Supplies Co.; Feeley Township, Itasca County,

MN--Deb Langanki; Lake Country Power; Encampment Minerals,

Inc.

Giant; B.R. Clark Consulting LLC; RMS Tritec; Global

Minerals Engineering; Wyoming Mining Association; American

Peat Technology; Millcreek Engineering Company; Mine

Development Management LLC; Borell Consulting Services LLC;

StarPoint Resources, LLC; Geobrugg North America; Clementine

Exploration; Idaho Mining Association; Agnico Eagle; Pebble

Limited Partnership; Archkey--Parsons Electric; Superior Rock

Bit; Innate North; GEOTEMPS/GEOPROS, Inc.; Superior Marine

Charters.

American Peat Technology; Wescom Inc; Furin & Shea Welding

& Fabricating, Inc.; Sandvik Mining and Rock Processing; City

of Hibbing, MN--Mayor Pete Hyduke; City of Kinney, MN--Mayor

Patrick E. Haley; APi Group Inc.; ME Global Inc; A Martin

Consulting, LLC; Malton Electric Co.; Quick Supply Co.; North

Star Manganese Inc & Electric Metals (USA) Limited; GR

Engineering Services; Amvest Capital Securities; Twin Metals

Minnesota; Kalenborn Abresist Corporation; Larkin Hoffman

Attorneys; ME Elecmetal; City of Biwabik, MN--Mayor Steven

Biondich; Solenis LLC.

Kirscher Transport; General Equipment & Supplies Inc; JBW

Consulting Engineers; PX4 Software; Gerdau Amersiteel US Inc;

QT Environmental; Wolverine Fuels; Alaska Miners Association;

Furin & Shea Welding & Fabricating, Inc.; Universal Polymer

And Rubber; TJR Technical Services, Inc.; Beaver Bay, Inc.;

AMIGOS; Hayday; Tidal Health; Northeast Title; Marshall Area

Chamber of Commerce; Timberline Drilling; Ziegler Cat;

Kalenborn Canada Inc.

Superior Fuel Company; Baldwin Supply Company; Dodge

Industrial; Baldwin Supply; Avivid Global Water; Vics Crane &

Heavy Haul; Hamilton Monroe & Co; Electric Power Door; Duncan

Co.; Victaulic; General Equipment and Supplies, Inc.; LRL

Construction; Contour Inc.; Borealis Fuels & Logistics;

Cenovus Energy Superior Refinery; Hibbing Taconite Co.;

Snowbird Willies Boat Canvas; Hamilton Monroe; MHE

Consulting; Salem Republic Rubber; Enbridge.

Mr. Speaker, the letter states: ``Disapproving the withdrawal in Minnesota will undo an unnecessary and damaging action. It will also correct a course in which industries seeking to generate jobs and revenue for generations to come were simply no longer allowed to propose mining projects in the area and forbidden to go through the law and science-based environmental review process.''

Mr. Speaker, I will just say that I actually have taken hydrology courses. I am a professional engineer. It has been a long time ago, but I remember something very distinct from those hydrology and hydraulic engineering courses, and that is that water flows downhill. If it doesn't, you can get a pump. That is an engineering joke. It is probably not very funny.

The thing about these mines in Minnesota is, they are below-grade mines. They are not pit mines. They are actually digging tunnels down into the earth to pull this ore out to take it to the top to refine it. If there are tailings, these tailings will be placed in a secure area where there is no way they can be leached back into the watershed.

Don't let the scare tactics influence the way you vote on this legislation because the inputs we need to sustain our fast-growing electricity grid are right under our feet. We should be leading the world in technological innovation and AI infrastructure.

The only reason we are mired in mineral dependence today and not enjoying or sharing the benefits of American mineral dominance is because of outdated or misguided policies like the one we are overturning today.

The resolution before us would correct these policies by reopening mineral-rich land to exploration and reducing our reliance on China for minerals.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) for his leadership on the issue. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

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 the veto message of the President of the United States to H.R. 131.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 131, the Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act, facilitates the construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, or AVC, by easing the repayment requirements for project beneficiaries.

The AVC is designed to provide potable water from Pueblo Reservoir to 39 communities in southeastern Colorado, many of which are dependent on groundwater supplies that contain unacceptable levels of naturally- occurring heavy metals and radionuclides. According to the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, 18 of those communities are currently failing to meet Federal drinking water standards due to these contaminants.

H.R. 131 passed the House Committee on Natural Resources and then the House of Representatives in July 2025. However, President Trump has returned H.R. 131 to the House without his approval. I respect the administration's views on this legislation and its commitment to fiscal responsibility. President Trump's record demonstrates a commitment to prioritizing unleashing abundant water supplies across the West.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert), the lead sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hurd).

Mr. Speaker, I respect the administration's views on this legislation, and I respect my colleagues from Colorado's passion for their districts and for their State.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

General Leave

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 the veto message of the President of the United States to the bill H.R. 504.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are here today as President Trump has returned H.R. 504, the Miccosukee Reserved Area Amendments Act, to the House of Representatives without his approval.

H.R. 504, sponsored by Representative Gimenez, would amend the Miccosukee Reserved Area Act, or MRAA, to include the Osceola Camp, a Tribal village within the Everglades, as part of the Miccosukee Reserved Area. It also directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Tribe, to safeguard structures within the Osceola Camp from flooding events.

The Miccosukee Tribe is currently located in the Greater Everglades in southern Florida. Following Federal recognition of the Tribe in 1962, the Miccosukee's northernmost villages within what became Everglades National Park were managed under a special use permit until 1998, when Congress placed that permit framework with the MRAA, authorizing the Tribe's use of the area and noting it as Indian Country.

The original law did not include Osceola Camp. H.R. 504 would include the Osceola Camp in the Miccosukee Reserved Area and formalize a partnership between the Tribe and the Federal Government to address flooding risk in the area.

H.R. 504 passed the House Committee on Natural Resources in June 2025 and the House of Representatives in July 2025.

However, I respect the President's views on this legislation and his commitment to fiscal responsibility, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I respect the administration's views on this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question.

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. 4776.

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

Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 4776, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development Act.

The SPEED Act is a focused, bipartisan effort to restore common sense and accountability to Federal permitting by reforming the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

When Congress passed NEPA in 1969, it did so with the best of intentions. It directed Federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of major Federal actions.

Unfortunately, what was meant to facilitate responsible development has been twisted into a bureaucratic bottleneck that delays investments in the infrastructure and technologies that make our country run.

The first Trump administration found that the average NEPA environmental impact statement between 2013 and 2018 totaled 575 pages and took 4.7 years to complete. A quarter of them took 6 years or more, a glacial pace that costs the economy more than $100 billion a year.

Madam Chair, what reward do project sponsors get for persevering through this slog? Too often, a gauntlet of premeditated, predatory lawsuits. Nationally, NEPA is the most litigated environmental statute. According to the Breakthrough Institute, just 10 environmental organizations are responsible for 35 percent of all NEPA lawsuits. On average, it takes over 4 years to resolve NEPA-related litigation on environmental impact statements. I doubt there is a single Member of the House who has not heard of a NEPA horror story from a family construction company or a local official back home. Today, the word ``NEPA'' is more synonymous with red tape and waste than genuine environmental protection. The SPEED Act would restore

NEPA to its original aim of intentional, sustainable economic development.

The legislation fixes three major problems that, over the decades, have turned NEPA into a bureaucratic black hole.

First, it restricts NEPA lawsuits to parties who are actually impacted by a project, aligning judicial remedies with the procedural nature of NEPA, while establishing reasonable filing deadlines to prevent litigation from being used as an indefinite delay tactic.

Second, it clarifies what projects must go through NEPA, ensuring that only projects with significant Federal involvement trigger review.

Third, it codifies and strengthens key aspects of the Supreme Court's Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County decision from this past May, clarifying the scope of environmental review under NEPA.

The SPEED Act is project neutral. Its reforms will ensure a fair, predictable process and a level playing field for Federal projects across all agencies and industries.

It is also timely. The United States' energy demand is projected to rise by 35 to 50 percent by 2040. Data centers alone could see their energy consumption triple in the next 5 years. The electricity that we will need to power AI computing for civilian and military use is a national imperative. Every day, NEPA red tape is becoming more and more of an obstacle to American security and prosperity.

By restoring NEPA to its original intent, the SPEED Act will expedite infrastructure projects, bring down prices, and help Americans realize the energy dominance and mineral abundance that our natural resources promise.

That is why a coalition of more than 300 industry associations, businesses, and trade groups from all 50 States and Puerto Rico support this legislation. They know the SPEED Act means jobs, fairness, growth, and a safer, more affordable future.

Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Golden) for his partnership in this effort. I also thank the many Members from across the aisle who have engaged in a productive manner to develop and improve this legislation.

Madam Chair, the SPEED Act will deliver the energy and infrastructure that Americans need. I urge my colleagues to support the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I am glad my colleague across the aisle is so good at reading the mind of the Senate, but I know this legislation has bipartisan support in the House and the Senate. We have over 375 organizations from all industries in all 50 States that support this legislation.

Also, I think my friend made the case for why we need the SPEED Act. If we want to stop administrative ping-pong, then Congress has to act. The SPEED Act is the bill to give us permit certainty so that we can build all across our country in all different segments.

One area of the country that has been adversely affected by bad permitting is in northern Minnesota, the home of my friend, Mr. Stauber, whose district has a lot of mining resources that can't be tapped because of permitting restraints and administrative ping-pong.

Mr. Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), who is the chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the majority leader.

Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), who is on the Natural Resources Committee and is also the chair of the Education and Workforce Committee.

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hurd).

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

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crank).

Mr. Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. Chair, if we want to talk about projects that have been killed by an administration, let's go back to the Biden administration and the Obama administration. Let's

look at projects like the Resolution Copper mine in Superior, Arizona, where they got a permit. They spent $2 billion, and they have yet to mine an ounce of copper because of NEPA holdups.

Let's look at the Twin Metals project in northern Minnesota, where we have one of the largest deposits of copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum, and palladium, all things we need. That has been going back and forth from one administration to the next.

Let's look at the Keystone XL pipeline that was stopped after billions of dollars were spent, and not one drop of oil went through it.

My colleagues are making the case for permitting reform. It just happens to be that we are in a Republican administration now, when they turned a blind eye to what was happening during a Democratic administration.

This is why we need permitting reform.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Chair, how about the last runway that was built at the Atlanta airport? It only took 11 years to build it. Actually, it only took 18 months. It took 9.5 years to go through the NEPA permitting process.

These are the kinds of projects we are talking about all across the country that are being adversely affected by a cumbersome permitting process. It is not doing anything extra to help the environment or protect our resources. It is simply a way to stop progress and stop projects from happening.

Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Chair, what about the $12 billion we put in the reconciliation bill to upgrade our air traffic control system? We are not talking about just permitting energy. We are talking about permitting safety.

Look at how long it takes to build interstate highways and bridges, and the safety effects that happen because those projects are dragged out for so long. It costs so much more money, and it creates congestion. It creates all kinds of problems.

If we could just move the permitting process more quickly, we could benefit not only from the cost of energy, the cost of transmission, and the cost of raw materials that we can be mining, but we could also improve the safety of our country.

Mr. Chair, we allocated $12 billion to upgrade the air traffic control system. The Department of Transportation tells me the problem is they can't get a NEPA permit to put fiber-optic cables in air traffic control towers. That is insane when something like an outdated air traffic control system that has funding can't be implemented because we can't get through the NEPA process to run a fiber-optic cable.

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

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

Mr. Chair, permitting reform in the SPEED Act will help every American by lowering costs and increasing affordability. That is a word that is talked about a lot today, but I think we sometimes forget the question: Why are things not affordable?

When we have to import all of our products, when we can't build new energy plants, and when we can't build public infrastructure projects on budget and on time, things become unaffordable. Now is the time for Congress not just to talk about how we need permitting reform but to actually walk the walk when it comes to helping the families in their districts keep the lights on.

An analysis by Common Good shows that a 6-year delay in construction on public projects like building roads, something I think we all can agree on, costs the U.S. economy $3.7 trillion.

The SPEED Act is supported by over 375 industry leaders ranging from utility companies and energy producers to homebuilders and domestic manufacturers. These are the industries that will lower everyday costs if we simply allow them to build here in America again. A vote for the SPEED Act is a vote for affordability.

As I close, I want to return to the core principle at the heart of this debate and this legislation. The Federal permitting process should serve our national interests and not obstruct them. Let me say this again. Permitting should serve our national interests and not obstruct our national interests.

NEPA no longer passes the test. It is currently a source of waste, abuse, and predatory litigation. Its unpredictability is fundamentally unfair to the local communities, to working families, and to taxpayers who depend on the infrastructure projects that NEPA obstructs. This has never been more true than today when demand for energy is dramatically spiking.

America is blessed with resources we need for a future of energy dominance and critical mineral abundance. God has blessed America with minerals and with energy, we are just refusing to use them.

Mr. Chair, we are dependent on China for 90 percent of our rare earth and critical minerals. That is not just economic insecurity. That is a national defense issue. They mine 70 percent of those around the world and process and control 90 percent of them.

We have all of them here in America. We refuse to do the permitting, not just to build mines but to build refineries that will create jobs for Americans.

When we mine the materials out of the ground and we process them and put them into manufactured goods, there is a multiplier effect by 28. That is what the USGS and Department of Commerce says. We multiply that value by 28. Think of the good-paying jobs Americans could have if we not only mined here in America but if we refined and manufactured products from those things that we mined.

The SPEED Act is a targeted, bipartisan solution that will restore balance and accountability to the Federal permitting process. It will streamline administrative review and curtail open-ended and dilatory litigation. These are practical, commonsense reforms that, again, I will say have garnered the support of more than 375 business, labor, and nonprofit groups from across the country, from all 50 States and Puerto Rico.

Mr. Chair, we are at a critical point in our country. America has always been a place where we have a can-do attitude. We have always been able to succeed. I like to say we are ``Ameri-cans.'' We are not ``Ameri-can'ts.''

The current permitting laws are telling Americans they can't. We can't be innovative. We can't develop. We can't build here. We have to be dependent on somebody else, somewhere else. We can't have the jobs to earn good wages. We can't grow our rural communities because we can't get through the bureaucratic red tape and permitting. The SPEED Act is the first step in doing that.

Mr. Chair, we have to pass this bill. We have to get it to the Senate. We have to work with our Senate colleagues because this is an important time in our country, and this is an important piece of legislation. It is an important issue that affects every American, and today is the day to pass the SPEED Act. I urge my colleagues to support the SPEED Act to get ourselves building again.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 951, I call up the bill (H.R. 1366) to provide for the location of multiple hardrock mining mill sites, to establish the Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1366.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1366, to restore clarity and stability to mining operations and support reclamation of abandoned hardrock mine land.

First, I thank my colleague from Nevada, Representative Amodei, for his work on this bipartisan legislation.

In 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals revoked an approved mine plan of operations for the Rosemont Copper Mine in Arizona. The ruling, known as the Rosemont decision, limited the Forest Service's ability to approve support activities necessary for conducting mining operations on Federal land. This decision upended over 40 years of regulatory and legal precedent.

Before developing a mine on Federal lands, an operator must obtain a mine plan of operations from the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. This plan must detail the intended uses of the surface of the mining claim, including waste rock placement, mills, offices, and roads.

Under the Rosemont decision, however, operators must prove the existence of a commercially developable deposit on a claim before a plan of operations can be approved. This obvious problem is that the economic viability of a site cannot be determined until after the mine plan of operations is approved by the Federal Government.

The ramifications of the Ninth Circuit's decision are substantial. Although the Rosemont decision involved Forest Service lands, it has prompted multiple lawsuits targeting projects on BLM lands based on similar regulations.

If allowed to stand, the Rosemont decision will thwart hardrock mining projects across Federal lands, further jeopardizing domestic mineral supply chains, energy security, and national security.

Mr. Amodei's bill provides needed regulatory clarity by creating a new category of mill sites for activities ancillary to mining that operators can include within the boundaries of an approved plan of operations.

The legislation also creates an abandoned hardrock mine fund to support the reclamation program by using claim maintenance fees to inventory, assess, and remediate abandoned hardrock mines.

Simply put, our reliance on foreign critical minerals is one of the greatest strategic vulnerabilities facing our Nation today. America has been truly blessed with vast natural resources. This bill would create the regulatory clarity and stability that companies need to attract investment and responsibly develop these resources.

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

Again, I applaud my colleague Mr. Amodei for this commonsense but urgently needed bill.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) the subcommittee chair on Energy and Mineral Resources of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about some of the issues that were just brought up.

First, the foreign entity of concern restrictions, I agree, and I think everybody would agree, that we should scrutinize foreign direct investment to ensure that it does not pose a threat to the United States.

We have programs to do that, programs that possibly should be strengthened. However, imposing arbitrary standards could prevent publicly traded, non-Chinese companies from mining domestically. Doing what? Forcing a continued reliance on China.

We all know that China is already doing whatever it can to prevent us from building out secure domestic supplies of critical minerals. The CCP has repeatedly used its dominant market position to strategically flood markets and make U.S. projects uneconomic.

Mr. Speaker, when they see a project announced in the United States, they dump product on the global market, lowering the prices and making our mining operations uneconomical to investors.

If we create an arbitrary standard, they will continue to play even more dirty. The CCP will simply buy shares of publicly traded companies to disqualify the companies from mining on Federal lands. We are being naive if we think that China won't use any tool and loophole at their disposal to stop mining in the U.S. In any event, this bill is about regulatory certainty so that we can start mining again in America.

I have already mentioned this, but we are blessed with resources here in America. A lot of those resources are on Federal lands. This issue has come up about royalties. It continually comes up. People say this bill would allow mining companies to extract valuable public assets without paying any royalties to Americans.

I want to remind everybody of something. U.S. mining companies already pay between 40 and 50 percent of earnings in Federal, State, and local taxes, as well as other fees. These taxes are vital to funding school systems, roads, and other infrastructure projects, especially in rural communities.

Now, thanks to the Rosemont decision, on top of paying those taxes, companies must pay millions more in litigation. The developers would be required to pay fees for any mill sites established under this bill. These fees would go toward remediating abandoned hardrock mine lands, something my Democrat colleagues have repeatedly pushed for.

If we want to encourage investment in safe, responsible, and cutting- edge mining practices that provide billions to the public's coffers and essential materials to the American people, we need to support H.R. 1366.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to call attention to a letter we received, signed by 28 organizations from A to Z. It is literally from A to Z. Starting with A, the Alaska Miners Association, American Exploration and Mining Association, Bipartisan Policy Center Action, Battery Materials and Technology Coalition, Colorado Mining Association, National Mining Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Women's Mining Coalition, Wyoming Mining Association, and I will round it out with Z, the Zero Emission Transportation Association.

These organizations stress the importance of Congress enacting this bipartisan legislation. They stated: This legislation will ensure the U.S. can utilize its vast domestic resources to build essential mineral supply chains. Your efforts to enhance mineral supply chain security, while upholding our leading safety and environmental standards, are crucial. The passage of H.R. 1366 will support the trajectory of innovation in the U.S. and maintain the Nation's economic leadership.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is common sense, supporting American industries that are working to bolster our domestic mineral supplies.

I also want to draw attention to a letter we received from Nevada democratic Governor Joe Lombardo in support of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act. His letter states: Advancement of this bipartisan, bicameral legislation is indispensable to the long-term economic resilience of our rural communities and Nevada's ability to help achieve domestic mineral security.

Again, this bill is common sense. It is bipartisan, and it bicameral. It supports a key industry for States like Nevada. It should be strongly bipartisan.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the abundant minerals that we are blessed with across the United States, I think of the claim that our colleague from Alaska (Mr. Begich) also says. He talked about the Ambler Road district. Of 50 things listed on the U.S. List of Critical Minerals, he says in the Ambler Mining District, 49 of those exist in abundant capacity to develop, process, and mine. Yet, we are yet to be able to get a road into this area to process these materials.

When I look at my home State of Arkansas, we have the largest deposit of lithium possibly in the world. At least 15 percent of the world's lithium is in brine water on public land in the great State of Arkansas.

We have all these minerals available all across the country. According to the ``2025 Mineral Commodity Summary'' from the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. is 100 percent dependent on imports for 14 critical minerals, many from China and Russia.

Mr. Speaker, I have met with the Navaho Nation. They have abundant deposits of uranium they could recover from former mining operations. We are so dependent on uranium imports. The last number I saw, we produced only one-half of 1 percent of the uranium we use for fuel in U.S. reactors. Do my colleagues know where most of that comes from? It comes from Russia and Kazakhstan. These are the kinds of minerals we are dependent on foreign actors for.

If my colleagues support growing our domestic supplies of critical minerals, this bill provides the regulatory certainty necessary to strengthen domestic mineral supply chains. If my colleagues support weakening China's global control over minerals, join us in voting for the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act.

Let's talk a little bit more about China. We need not only more mining here in America, but we need to do more processing and refining in the U.S. to meet our energy infrastructure and national security and defense needs. The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act will help strengthen domestic mineral supply chains.

I have a chart here that shows where we are at with China on rare earth and their monopoly. They control 70 percent of the mining in the world. It is not in China. It is all over the world.

My colleague mentioned child slave labor being used to extract cobalt in Africa. It is atrocious where they go and mine these materials and the lack of standards that they have. The environmental, human health, human safety, and human rights that are violated in the mining is also appalling.

They take that back to China, and they process 90 percent of it in China. This is all of the world's critical minerals. Then they manufacture 93 percent of the things that are manufactured with critical minerals.

If my colleagues want to help China maintain their stranglehold over our critical mineral supply chains, we should oppose this bill. Look no further than the chart behind me. We will see we can't continue to allow China to have the monopoly and the stranglehold on our economy and on our defense that they currently have through the critical mineral supply chain.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. I appreciate my colleague from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) for bringing it to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 951, I call up the bill (H.R. 845) 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 to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 845.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we are getting close to breaking for the Christmas holiday, I am glad that this last bill that the Natural Resources Committee will offer is one that we will have a debate on that will resolve an issue that has united the Bush, Obama, Biden, and Trump administrations alike.

I am not sure there is another issue like that out there, but this is one of them because each of those administrations has agreed that the gray wolf is a recovered species and should be removed from the Endangered Species Act, or ESA, protection.

H.R. 845, the Pet and Livestock Protection Act, sponsored by Representatives Boebert and Tiffany, instructs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to re-issue its 2020 final rule that delisted the gray wolf from the list of threatened and endangered species in the entire lower 48 States.

Recovery of the gray wolf is a true ESA success story, and there aren't a lot of them. In the 1970s, the species was at risk in the lower 48 States. Today, the gray wolf numbers in the thousands across the Great Lakes and Rocky Mountains, with each of these populations being connected to tens of thousands of wolves in Canada.

The first Trump administration recognized this successful recovery and issued a delisting rule for gray wolves in the lower 48 States. Unfortunately, this rule was vacated by a Federal judge in California in a blatant instance of judicial activism.

Mr. Speaker, don't just take my word for it. The Biden administration appealed the California judge's vacatur of the 2020 Trump rule, arguing: ``The district court misunderstood the ESA's clear mandate and compounded that error by imposing its own review of the science.''

By every sensible definition, the gray wolf is a recovered species, and that recovery should be celebrated as a success of the ESA. Gray wolf populations are healthy and thriving in every region in which they are found.

The Great Lakes region has the largest concentration of gray wolves in the lower 48 States, with approximately 4,200 wolves inhabiting Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Moreover, this population is connected to at least 12,000 to 14,000 wolves in central Canada. The Western United States is also home to roughly 2,500 wolves, including already delisted populations in Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and Wyoming. This population is connected to over 15,000 wolves in western Canada.

The Biden administration's own science determined that wolves in the Western United States had a healthy abundance, retained genetic diversity, could respond to high-mortality events, and maintained adaptive capacity. Most of these wolves reside in States where they have already been delisted.

The science is clear. Gray wolves have recovered in the lower 48 States, and it is time to return their management to the States, which have managed and will continue to manage wolf populations responsibly.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to state again: The gray wolf is an ESA recovery success story. We should be celebrating this.

While gray wolves might not currently occupy all of their historic range, they do not meet the criteria for listing under the ESA. This was confirmed by the Biden administration, as with previous administrations before.

Most species are not found throughout their historic range. Elk and black bears, for example, are still absent from much of their historic range, but they are not listed under the ESA.

According to my colleague's argument, the wolf can't be totally recovered until it is back in its entire historic range. Mr. Speaker, the Northeast United States is part of the historic range of the gray wolf. If what I

am hearing is correct, are we promoting restoring the wolf to the Northeastern United States, within metropolitan and suburban areas, where packs of wolves can range 100 miles a day? Is that what we want to make the criteria before we say gray wolves are recovered?

The scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Biden administration, along with those in the Trump administration, the Obama administration, and the Bush administration, have said that the gray wolf is recovered.

This is just another push to continue a top-down Federal approach to wildlife management that does little to actually help wildlife.

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 such time as I may consume.

The whole State of Virginia was at one time gray wolf habitat. Washington, D.C. had gray wolves. When are we going to turn them loose here on the Mall or Old Town or whatever part of Virginia?

This is a problem that seems to get exported to rural areas, and people turn a blind eye to what happens in the rural areas.

Also, there is a difference between desiring fewer wolves and desiring no wolves. States where wolves have already been delisted have a proven track record of success which has been confirmed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This bill does not prohibit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from listing the wolf in the future if it determines a listing is warranted.

However, as the service has confirmed multiple times, the gray wolf currently does not meet that criteria.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question: Which will it be? What is the good science?

As I have mentioned before, the Obama administration, the Bush administration, the first Trump administration, the Biden administration all said the wolf has been recovered. The experts, the scientists at U.S. Fish and Wildlife have said it has been recovered.

Yet my friends argue it has not been recovered because there are some places where its native range is that the wolf is not there. I remind everyone, we are in gray wolf territory, historical gray wolf territory.

Mr. Speaker, like many, like you probably and myself, I have walked around D.C. at night, and this is a rat-infested city. I think there would be at least a little bit of food for the wolves if we were to turn a pack loose on The Mall. However, what happens when they eat all the rats? What do they go after next?

Now, this is a preposterous situation because I don't think anybody really wants a pack of wolves on The Mall. However, if you go down the logic trail that my colleagues are making, the wolf is not recovered until it is back in its historic range.

Why do we want to sit in a big city where wolves once were and say: We want wolves, just not in our backyard. We want them out in the Midwest or West where it is somebody else's problem, but we don't want those problems here because it makes no sense to put wolves back here in the big cities and across the Northeast.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), where they have a lot of wolves.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the facts and the science are clear. The gray wolf is a recovered species. It is time for America to celebrate that, and Congress needs to act to make that happen.

By passing this bill, Congress would be celebrating an ESA success story and endorsing the bipartisan policy of four successive Presidential administrations--namely, to trust the science and delist the gray wolf.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Boebert and Congressman Tiffany for their strong leadership on this important legislation.

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