Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is right. If we want to talk about the occasional conflicts that exist between livestock and pets and any predators, that is a legitimate conversation. However, what we are hearing from across the aisle is really jumping the shark, if you will forgive another predator metaphor, Mr. Speaker.

We are being led to believe that packs of wolves are about to descend on urban areas in New England and Madison, Wisconsin, and that they are looming outside of schools.

I think my colleagues across the aisle need to understand: The American people are a little smarter than that. They are kind of going to see through this Little Red Riding Hood meets chupacabra narrative the gentleman was trying to spin to scare people about wolves.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you the way it actually works. The Endangered Species Act does not prevent wildlife managers from intervening any time a wolf or any other predator threatens property or human beings. In fact, just a few weeks ago in Northern California, I believe it was the Sierra Valley, a pack of wolves from one of our packs there had begun preying on cattle in an area where they are concentrated because of the way they move through the State, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife came in and took some. I think they took five or six of them, killed them. There was no ESA lawsuit, and there was no violation of the law.

A little reality check on what we just heard from my colleague from Minnesota, that there was nothing anyone could do about this scary chupacabra wolf in the school parking lot. That is nonsense. That is not the way the ESA works.

Now, let's be clear. This bill is not about protecting pets or livestock. It is about politics overriding science, and the consequences of doing that are disastrous. The precedent set by this bill would be very troubling. It would tell wildlife scientists that their expertise doesn't matter. It tells Tribal nations that their voices can be ignored, and it tells the American people they no longer have the right to challenge unlawful government actions.

The ESA is simple and effective. It ensures decisions are grounded in science. That is the heart of it, and this bill throws that principle out the window. It mandates a nationwide delisting of gray wolves, and it explicitly blocks judicial review. It would prevent courts from doing their job to determine whether a government action even complies with the law.

Now, we don't have to speculate about what happens when protections for gray wolves are lifted because we have seen it play out.

In the State of Wisconsin where hunters like the group, Hunter Nation, which is led by Ted Nugent and Don Jr. on the board, swept in as soon as the wolf hunting season was open. Quickly they did that, despite objections from Tribes in the region. The result was devastating. Mr. Speaker, 218 wolves, about 20 percent of the State's population, were wiped out. By the end of the season, 30 percent were killed--nearly twice as many wolves as the State had authorized.

Over the course of about 60 hours, thousands of hunters, including some unlicensed hunters, participated in coordinating hunting groups, engaged in a dangerous terrorizing campaign against the wolves using bait and wolf calls. They hunted at night. They used dogs. Mr. Speaker, 188 wolves were taken by dogs. They killed 130 wolf pups that were less than 2 years old. This is not thoughtful, science-based management of the State's wolf population. This is not celebrating the recovery of the wolf as we keep hearing in this debate.

This week we received a letter from the Wisconsin Tribes who had sued to try to stop that hunt. In the letter, they object to this bill today. They point out the inadequacy of existing State-level regulatory mechanisms that led to that disaster in Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from six Wisconsin Tribes.

December 17, 2025.

Dear Congressperson: We, the federally recognized bands of

Ojibwe in Wisconsin, oppose the legislation proposed by Rep.

Lauren Boebert (R-CO) to delist gray wolves and believe that

the gray wolf should remain protected under the Endangered

Species Act (``ESA''). We write to inform you of our

continued opposition to proposed legislation that would

direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue final rules

relating to delisting the gray wolf under the ESA,

particularly where judicial review of the rule would be

barred.

The Pet and Livestock Protection Act, H.R. 845, would

impact our rights and treaty-protected resources. The treaty-

protected resources of the Ojibwe bands include gray wolves

in the territory ceded to the United States under the

Treaties of 1837 and 1842 (``ceded territory''), which has

become the northern third of the State of Wisconsin. We

previously expressed this opposition to lawmakers, including

Sen. Baldwin and Sen. Johnson when they proposed legislation

to delist the gray wolf in 2022.

One of the requirements for a finding of recovery and

delisting under the ESA is a determination that the species

in question is no longer imperiled by ``the inadequacy of

existing regulatory mechanisms.'' 16 U.S.C.

Sec. 1533(a)(1)(D). However, Wisconsin's February 2021 wolf

hunt resulted in the deaths of almost twice the number of

wolves allowed to be killed by the state. This debacle

clearly demonstrated that Wisconsin's existing regulatory

mechanisms are not up to the task of enabling effective

management of the state's wolf population. If the gray wolf

is delisted, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural

Resources (``WDNFR'') implements another hunt as required

under Wisconsin law, Wisconsin's problematic legal framework

for regulation and oversight of state-licensed wolf hunters

and trappers will again threaten the wolves and Ojibwe treaty

rights.

This misguided legislation continues a long history of

disproportionately targeting the gray wolf--the first

endangered species ever to be legislatively delisted by

Congress. This proposed legislation also disregards the fact

that many Americans nationwide believe that wolves should

remain protected. In 2013 for example, approximately one

million Americans voiced opposition to the proposal to strip

endangered species protections from gray wolves. In addition,

widespread public opposition to the wolf hunt has been

routinely disregarded by the WDNR Board, making federal

protections even more important.

Our position still stands that legislation to delist the

gray wolf is misguided and continues to disregard strong

tribal opposition to delisting, as well as widespread

opposition from the general public.

Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Lac Courte

Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Lac du

Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Red Cliff

Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Sokaogon Chippewa

Community, St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, Tribes support continued protection for wolves. Seventy-eight percent of Americans support continued protection for wolves. They want to see living wolf pups in Yellowstone, not news stories about tortured wolves in bars or wolf hunts with dogs. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

I would also like to just move to some additional remarks that are part of our motion to recommit.

The entire debate so far has shown why Members of Congress have no business in listing and delisting decisions. We are not scientific experts. We are not objective scientists tasked with assessing population numbers, recovery goals, and continued threats to the species.

That is why the ESA properly leaves those questions to actual experts, not politicians. For that reason, we shouldn't be passing this bill at all, but if Republicans are going to go down this road, then there should at least be some guardrails in place that are based on actual science.

For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee.

If the House rules permitted, I would have offered this motion with an important amendment to this bill. We were not allowed to do that.

My amendment is straightforward. The NRA gets to have this bill and its little hunting spree, but if Ted Nugent and Don Jr. and all the other folks who need to do this to prove their manhood actually go where scientists have warned us about and take the wolf population down below science-based recovery standards, then the Secretary of the Interior would have to issue an emergency regulation temporarily restoring Federal protection in that instance.

This would provide a necessary backstop if Congress legislatively delists the gray wolf and it careens right back toward extinction again, which we know it would.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit in a few moments and keeping amodicum of actual science in the Endangered Species Act.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise along with my colleagues, Representatives Nancy Pelosi, John Garamendi, Seth Moulton, and Ed Case to honor the life and legacy of Paul DePrey, who passed away on October 10, 2025, at the age of 58. A devoted public servant for more than 30 years, Paul demonstrated an unwavering commitment to environmental stewardship, conservation, and the mission of the National Park Service.

Born in Edmundston, New Brunswick, Paul earned his bachelor's degree in history and anthropology from the University of Maine. He later moved to Bellingham, Washington, where he completed his master's degree in anthropology at Western Washington University. It was during this time that he met his wife, Cari Kreshak, whom he married in 1995.

Paul launched his career as an archaeologist for the USDA Forest Service in the Cascade Mountain Range of Oregon and Washington, before serving in the USDA Office of the Secretary and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There, Paul contributed to the Northwest Forest Plan, the Headwaters Land Exchange, the Presidential Forum at Lake Tahoe, and critical efforts to improve federal-tribal relationships and advance endangered species conservation.

In 2001, Paul joined the National Park Service, where he served with distinction for nearly twenty-five years. Paul first served as Resource Manager at Whiskeytown National Recreation Area and then at Joshua Tree National Park. In 2008, Paul became Superintendent of the Pearl Harbor National Memorial, where he oversaw the construction of a new visitor campus and renovation of the USS Arizona Memorial. During his tenure, he worked closely with the Japanese Cultural Center of Hawai'i to establish the Honouliuli National Historic Site, a vital preservation that remembers the stories of Japanese Americans incarcerated during World War II and serves as a powerful reminder of the need to protect civil liberties in times of conflict.

Paul later served as Superintendent of Salem Maritime and Saugus Iron Works National Historic Sites, where he acted as the National Park Service liaison to the Essex National Heritage Area. Under his leadership, Paul expanded visitor access to park resources, addressed historic preservation concerns, and broadened interpretive programs to include Indigenous, colonial European, and Black histories found in New England coastal communities.

In 2022, Paul was appointed to Superintendent of San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, where he led the complex task of temporarily relocating the park's fleet of national historic landmark ships to Mare Island, site of the Mare Island Naval Shipyard and the Nation's first naval base on the Pacific Ocean.

Paul was widely admired as an exceptional leader who put people first, whether it was a twenty-year veteran of the park or a new gateway community member at Mare Island and Vallejo. Paul perfectly balanced stewardship and recreation, ensuring the preservation of maritime history and culture while also revitalizing and reimagining the role of recreation at Aquatic Park. While Paul left us too soon, his legacy as a leader and person will endure. Paul is survived by his wife, Cari; children, Sebastian and Ronan; his parents and sisters.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you join us in extending condolences to Paul's family and many friends and in expressing our appreciation for his decades of exemplary public service to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Cicely Muldoon upon her retirement from the National Park Service after 40 years of extraordinary public service.

A Bay Area native, Cicely was born on the Presidio Army base in San Francisco. Her father was a World War II Army infantryman. She grew up in Sausalito and after earning her bachelor's degree in zoology from the University of California, Davis, began her first job with the National Park Service (NPS) in 1985 as a ranger at the Sitka National Historic Park in Alaska. During her tenure, Cicely had the wonderful opportunity to work in many parks across the United States, including Buffalo River National Park in Arkansas and the San Juan Island National Historic Park in Washington, before being appointed Superintendent of Pinnacles National Park in San Benito County in 2002. After three dedicated years, and significant progress in expanding the condor release program, Cicely became a deputy regional director for NPS. For five years she oversaw community partnerships, fire and safety initiatives, and education programs across the region while providing direct management of 10 parks including Death Valley and Joshua Tree.

In 2010, Cicely was named Superintendent of Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS), a position she held for a decade. My staff and I worked closely with her in this role on many challenging matters including the aftermath of the Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar's decision to let the NPS lease to Drakes Bay Oyster Company expire and the ensuing years trying to deliver on the directive to pursue 20-year leases to the historic working ranchers in Point Reyes National Seashore. During her time in PRNS she also managed several vital infrastructure renovations, including the restoration of the 150-year- old Point Reyes Lighthouse.

In January 2020, Cicley left PRNS to assume the role of acting superintendent of the iconic Yosemite National Park. After 10 months, she was promoted to permanent superintendent, overseeing the 750,000- acre park, its 1,200 employees, and more than 40 million visitors annually. The second female superintendent in Yosemite's 156-year history, Cicely led the park through historic reforms and unprecedented challenges. At the start of her tenure, she skillfully navigated the pandemic, successfully preventing any major COVID-19 outbreaks among visitors or employees. She also managed Yosemite as it faced wildfire challenges, an unexpected winter closure in 2023, and the introduction of the new day-use reservation system to manage long-term overcrowding concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I personally worked with Cicely Muldoon for more than a decade on critical issues affecting the Point Reyes National Seashore and our natural resources. She is smart, committed, and has a great sense of humor. Always dedicated to the welfare of her employees and the protection of our natural lands, Cicely leaves an indelible positive impact on the National Park Service and all those visitors and staff whom she has taught and inspired. I respectfully ask that you join me in expressing heartfelt gratitude to Cicely for her generosity of spirit, innumerable good deeds, and in sending her best wishes on her next endeavors.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish Chairman Westerman a happy birthday, but even that goodwill does not change the fact that this is bad legislation. So, unfortunately, I am going to have to rise in opposition to the bill while wishing the gentleman a happy birthday.

Mr. Speaker, we are all grateful that the Republican shutdown is finally over, but millions of Americans are still on the cusp of losing healthcare. They are struggling to put food on the table. After their 7-week paid vacation, I can't imagine anything more disconnected than for House Republicans to come back here and make their first priority not helping working families to make ends meet but jamming through more favors for their billionaire buddies.

These three Congressional Review Act, or CRA, resolutions treat America's public lands like they are just lines on a balance sheet. They silence

public opinion, ignore the fires and storms that are made worse by climate change to make fossil fuel extraction the number one priority going forward for how we manage our public lands. Wildfire defense, public safety, recreation, and conservation all take a backseat now to maximizing corporate profits, even in our most fragile landscapes like America's Arctic.

Americans want clean air, clean water, and accessible public lands, not handouts to polluters. Overturning balanced, forward-looking BLM plans in Wyoming and Alaska is a colossal mistake.

Across the Federal land management agencies, plans like these are the foundation for responsible, sustainable management of our public lands. RMPs are the product of extensive public input, rigorous scientific reviews, and meaningful Tribal consultation. Balancing the activities on our public lands from energy development to recreation is what these plans do.

They reflect the needs of communities, industries, and ecosystems. They outline a clear vision for the stewardship of millions of acres of public lands.

Let's look at the Buffalo Field Office RMP targeted by this particular resolution. It was developed after a court found that the previous plan failed to address the public health and climate impacts of unfettered coal mining in the region. Importantly, the current RMP was also developed after robust Tribal consultation and public input. Are we just going to throw that all away?

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 130, which would repeal the current balanced RMP for BLM's Buffalo Field Office in order to prop up the coal industry in Wyoming's Powder River Valley. The plan targeted by this resolution ended new coal leasing in the region because of its harm to the climate and public health and because of decreasing demand for coal.

At the same time, the plan allowed existing mines to continue to operate through the end of their current leases. Rescinding this plan means locking us into unnecessary emissions and energy costs at a time when the planet and the American people cannot afford it. It also puts us on a treadmill of litigation and uncertainty, sending us back theoretically to a plan that was already adjudicated to be illegal. Maybe Republicans are waiting for a new plan to come forward from the Trump administration, I guess, hoping that a future court will decide that it is not substantially similar to the ones that have been thrown out with your CRA. This is something that my friends across the aisle simply haven't thought through. There is so much chaos and uncertainty when the sledgehammer of the CRA is used in this reckless manner.

House Republicans already passed, and the administration implemented, unprecedented giveaways to the coal industry through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including slashing the royalty rates for coal from 12 percent to 7.5 percent and opening more than 13 million acres of public lands for coal leasing.

Yet, even with these handouts, it is not enough to reverse decades of market contraction in the coal industry. The coal industry is dying. What Republicans don't mention is that BLM's coal lease sales this year have either failed to reach market value, been indefinitely canceled, or received little to no bids.

Rather than simply redoing this RMP through the well-established public process, which the Trump administration is already doing, House Republicans want to overturn it using the CRA, again an extremely blunt instrument, that will throw us into great uncertainty and litigation for sure.

This choice would lock out the perspective from previous Tribal and public engagement and ban the agency from ever again issuing a substantially similar RMP, leaving land policy frozen in time and frozen in some kind of a limbo with incredible uncertainty and chaos.

House Republicans want to permanently enshrine fossil fuel extraction as the top priority for millions of acres of public land across the country, no matter the cost. They are picking winners and losers here, blocking affordable renewable energy projects, and sacrificing our public lands in the process.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject these reckless resolutions that would upend millions of acres of public land management and reject this entire familiar playbook from congressional Republicans.

They are trying to deepen our dependence on dirty fossil fuels that pollute our air, contaminate our water, and harm the public health while doing everything possible to slow, stop, or sabotage the development of affordable renewable energy. Our constituents deserve a lot better than this. We deserve clean, affordable, and reliable energy. We deserve good-paying jobs and affordable healthcare. We shouldn't sacrifice America's health, environment, and livelihoods in order to do it.

This legislation and my friends across the aisle are on the wrong side of history trying to prop up the dying coal industry. They are on the wrong side of public land management. They are on the wrong side of the American people's pocketbooks as they face rising electricity costs.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I oppose this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that as we are having this debate, pretty much the rest of the world is in Brazil right now for the climate conference. Of course, the Trump administration has disgracefully pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement once again, and we have no Federal delegation at all.

As the rest of the world convenes to accept the reality of the climate crisis and to accept the related reality of coal being the biggest contributor to carbon pollution, and the entire world is talking about how to phase down our dependence on coal pollution and fossil fuel pollution, we are here in this alternate reality of the Republican majority, where my colleague from Wyoming calls it climate lunacy.

It is a sad, sad testament to, frankly, the disgraceful leadership of this Republican majority that propping up the coal industry with discounted royalties, massive subsidies, millions of acres of land giveaways, and now this misuse of the Congressional Review Act is the official policy of the Republican majority. It is just almost unthinkable, yet that is where we are.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Vasquez).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit rich to hear all of this concern about jobs and the poor electrician who is going to lose a job and to hear all of this concern about the energy that we desperately need to meet projected demand increase.

What we are really hearing across the aisle is a very selective concern about some jobs and about some types of energy. At the same time as we are having this debate about a desperate scheme to try to prop up the dying coal industry, not just with this CRA but with the discounted royalties, the massive public land giveaways, and all of the other favors that have been doled out to this industry, the Trump administration is trying in every way it can to kill off the clean energy industry, which generates far more jobs than coal. Far more people stand to lose their jobs, far more electricians, like the one my friend was just so concerned about a moment ago, stand to lose their jobs because of this war on clean energy that my friends across the aisle are just fine with.

Now, Chairman Westerman said we need all types of new energy. I guess we will have a chance this week to find out if that, too, is just more happy talk, more hollow words because there will be a markup on his legislation on permitting. Democrats have been asking for meaningful changes to this war on clean energy as the first item to have a serious negotiation and discussion about. We will find out.

I hope that Mr. Westerman delivers on his promise to work in good faith with Democrats and to do something about the war on clean energy. Unless and until he does and unless and until my colleagues across the aisle stop pretending that an entire industry with far more jobs than coal and far more energy that can be brought to bear to meet rising demand at far less cost, until they stop pretending that that war on clean energy is not happening, all of this, frankly, is just political theater.

Mr. Speaker, to the point about the so-called viability of coal, let's just zoom in on the coal industry in the Powder River Basin, the very place that would be impacted by this CRA. On October 6, the Bureau of Land Management held a lease sale for 167 million tons of coal on public lands on the Montana side of this specific basin. The BLM received one bid that valued each ton of coal at one-tenth of one penny.

The administration rejected that bid and canceled the lease sale because that abysmal price did not meet the requirements of fair market value outlined in the Mineral Leasing Act. That is the reason that the BLM came together to finalize the Buffalo Field Office RMP amendment, to address decreasing demand for coal, which is both the dirtiest and the most expensive form of energy.

House Republicans would give away our public lands and waters to big coal for pennies, fractions of pennies. The coin that they are phasing out as practically worthless is about as valuable as the coal they are trying to subsidize.

This resolution will do nothing to address skyrocketing energy bills in Wyoming or anywhere else. A conservative former Wyoming State representative recently penned an op-ed that really speaks to what is happening on the ground: ``We need responsible legislators, who do not rely on wishful thinking, to make long-term policy decisions. It's time to take off the aluminum foil hats filled with wishful thinking, and make some real decisions based on responsible prediction.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I strongly oppose this resolution.

Using the CRA to overturn this RMP and the others that we are debating this week will throw our public lands into chaos. It completely sidelines the input and perspectives of local communities that have spent years working with BLM on this plan. It is another reckless attempt to prop up the fossil fuel industry and line the pockets of polluters, all at the expense of affordable energy and good- paying jobs.

The Buffalo Field Office RMP allows existing coal leases to continue with reasonable safeguards to reduce emissions and protect land and water. Congress should not be overturning this plan with the sledgehammer of the CRA.

I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution. I urge my Republican colleagues to think twice about the consequences of this action and setting this chaotic precedent.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 131. The Congressional Review Act resolution here would overturn BLM's Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision.

My Republican colleagues are, once again, pursuing policies that expand our Nation's carbon pollution and expose our communities to future disasters. Not only would this legislation grant access to one of the most ecologically sensitive and, yes, incredibly difficult regions to drill but it would reverse significant strides that Democrats have made to protect lands that Tribal Nations have occupied since time immemorial.

This misguided bill would lock in oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area known to the Gwich'in people as the sacred place where life begins. The Coastal Plain is the heart of the Porcupine caribou's calving grounds. It hosts nearly 200 migratory bird species annually, connecting the rest of the United States and also the world to this cradle of our natural heritage.

Equally vital, the 9,000-strong Gwich'in Nation, whose subsistence and culture depend on the caribou herd, reside along the herd's migratory route, making any disruption not only a threat to biodiversity but also an assault on indigenous livelihoods and traditions.

Let me read a quote from the Executive Director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, Kristen Moreland. She says: ``It is unthinkable that our congressional decisionmakers continue to push to exploit the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge for oil and gas drilling.''

She continues: ``We rely on the caribou, not only spiritually and culturally, but for our survival and subsistence. This action from D.C. is an insult to the Gwich'in people and ignores those realities.''

Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic also oppose this proposal. They said:

Many Alaska Native communities are already facing negative

health impacts from oil and gas development on their lands

and are struggling to provide for their families due to

impacts on the local fish and wildlife populations.

Mr. Speaker, these words remind us that the climate crisis is here, it is real, and it is exacerbated by this administration's relentless push toward fossil fuels.

In the Arctic, temperatures are rising four times faster than the global average.

It is the indigenous communities in northern Alaska and in the refuge that are disproportionately feeling the devastating impacts of the climate crisis. Melting permafrost and changing species migration patterns are threatening food security, cultural traditions, and their ways of life.

Mr. Speaker, you will hear my Republican colleagues argue that increased oil and gas development in the Arctic will be good for America's bottom line, but that is patently false. Let me take you back to 2017 when Republicans cut a backroom deal to help pay for Trump's billionaire tax cuts the first time around by drilling in the Arctic Refuge.

Two Arctic Refuge lease sales were included, in part, to offset the cost of those tax giveaways for the wealthy. Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration promised that these lease sales would bring in $1.8 billion in revenue for the Federal Government and the State of Alaska.

Well, when the first lease sale finally took place in 2021, guess what happened, Mr. Speaker?

It generated less than $15 million, that is around 2 percent, of what the CBO had estimated. In 2022, two of those lessees actually asked BLM to cancel and refund their leases.

Separately, in 2021, two development companies actually paid $10 million to walk away from their legacy leases in the Arctic Refuge. That is about the only revenue we have been able to generate in this spectacularly difficult place to drill.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group focused on deficit reduction, recently said that drilling in the refuge has never be a credible revenue offset, and it isn't now. They even found that new leasing in the area would only raise, at most, $30 million. That is a drop in the bucket, Mr. Speaker, when you consider my Republican colleagues' big, ugly bill will cost American taxpayers $3.4 trillion.

This resolution is the latest attack from my Republican colleagues to undercut our public lands, to prop up fossil fuel polluters, and the expensive energy sources that they peddle and leave people out of the decisionmaking process, all while driving up energy prices for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in the longstanding, bipartisan support for protecting the Arctic Refuge by opposing H.J. Res. 131, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

In closing, I strongly oppose this resolution. It would open up ecologically sensitive, culturally important, and incredibly remote regions of the Arctic to oil and gas drilling.

Drilling proponents have grossly overstated how much oil industry interest there is in drilling in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic refuge. The Arctic is an extremely remote and harsh environment requiring specialized equipment and infrastructure, making it one of the costliest places to drill in the entire world.

There have been multiple lease sales held in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which I want to emphasize is a wildlife refuge, and still no legitimate oil and gas company currently holds a lease there.

Even during President Trump's first term, no oil and gas company kept their leases. In fact, a recent report from Taxpayers for Common Sense outlined the lack of economic viability for any oil and gas development there, citing astronomically high costs in this remote region.

Let me be clear. House Republicans' actions today will do absolutely nothing to lower your energy bills, but it will allow for the sell-off of some of our most special and sacred public lands. That is why I oppose H.J. Res. 131 and all the CRA resolutions on the floor today.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

I oppose S.J. Res. 80, which would overturn the BLM's 2022 Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision for the National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska, more commonly referred to as ``NPR-A.''

Now the name National Petroleum Reserve is more than a little misleading. This is not some industrial sacrifice zone. It is not some untapped oil field just waiting to be developed. On the contrary, the NPR-A is the largest contiguous unit of public lands in the United States. It spans 23 million acres, and this area of the western Arctic is home to a diverse ecosystem, where iconic species like wolves, polar bears, and caribou roam. Beluga and bowhead whales shelter in its coastal waters. Millions of migratory birds rely on this intact landscape and the critical waters and wetlands that are the NPR-A.

The legislation before us today would withdraw a smart and well- thought-out plan to balance conservation and development in the NPR-A. The 2022 NPR-A plan was developed over more than a decade of engagement with a variety of stakeholders: scientists, experts, indigenous communities, NGOs, and industry.

It aimed to limit the disruption and ecological harm from existing oil and gas development while also designating special areas to protect habitat for the many species that call this amazing place home.

I respect that there are a variety of views on how to manage our Nation's public lands, but it won't be possible for future administrations to incorporate feedback and comments on proposed actions in the NPR-A if Congress approves the resolution before us today.

The CRA, as we have said several times in the course of this debate, is a blunt instrument. It would prevent BLM from ever issuing a substantially similar replacement, and so this path would strip local land managers of the ability to respond to on-the-ground changes and needs for the future of the NPR-A.

My friends across the aisle don't need to do this. There are already processes in place for administrations to propose new management decisions if they don't like this plan. The Trump administration is doing just that already: pursuing updates to the land management plans that we have been debating here using the standard, inclusive mechanisms that allow for public input.

Interior Secretary Burgum withdrew conservation protections for the NPR-A in July. Just last week, the Interior Department finalized a new rule that overturned the previous plan.

The Congressional Review Act is simply the wrong tool to address any changes to management of these lands, and it is not even necessary.

Why do my Republican colleagues need to take up our valuable floor time here debating a rule that their friends in the administration have already rescinded? They just returned from a 53-day, taxpayer-funded vacation, canceled 5 weeks of votes, and still have a long to-do list before the end of the year. That list, I hope, includes figuring out how to avoid another government shutdown in January.

You may wonder if my colleagues are spending time on polluter giveaways to maybe distract from something; maybe something like the fact that President Trump has been mentioned more than 1,000 times in the Epstein emails.

President Trump and House Republicans continue to push their drill, baby, drill agenda even though it makes no sense for people, for the planet, or for our pocketbooks.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this distraction, this S.J. Res. 80, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, again, the plan that this resolution targets for disapproval is not in place. It has been rescinded by the Trump administration. If ever there is a case for a misapplication of the CRA, it would be this right here.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is an important time for us to step back and consider why using a CRA for any, frankly, public land management plan, but certainly for one that has already been rescinded, is just a recipe for uncertainty and conflict and litigation.

Nearly a third of our Nation's land mass, 640 million acres, is managed by the Federal Government. The Forest Service manages 193 million acres. BLM manages 244 million in addition to 713 million acres of Federal minerals.

For nearly 50 years, BLM and the Forest Service have managed these lands under management plans required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Forest Management Act. These plans, known as resource management plans, or RMPs, establish safeguards for watersheds and recreation areas. They facilitate energy development and grazing and logging and other commercial activities and provide a mechanism for harmonizing the needs of local communities with our national goals and perspectives.

Now, just a few months ago, we debated some other CRA resolutions targeting management plans, and we explained at that time how unprecedented that was. We still don't know the extent of chaos that is going to result from these actions that have already been taken, but we do know this: Under the CRA rules and ``rules'' is a technical term of art here, normally cannot go into effect unless they are submitted for congressional review.

Here is the problem, BLM and the Forest Service have never considered RMPs to be rules that they would submit to Congress. They have just never done that, and that has long been the case under both Democratic and Republican Presidents with precedence being set by those Presidents.

Now that Congress has decided apparently to disapprove of individual RMPs, what does that mean for every other plan that is in place that wasn't submitted to Congress? What does that mean for the small businesses, the local communities, and other public land stakeholders who depend on a stable and predictable land use planning process? If the validity of these land use plans is challenged, then leases, permits, and other authorizations that depend on those plans could be called into question.

This is already creating uncertainty and delays, making it nearly impossible for new projects to proceed on time.

Here are a couple of examples for consideration. What would happen to the White River oil and gas resource management plan in Colorado, which authorizes 15,000 oil and gas wells? What about the Rosemont Copper plan amendment for Forest Service lands in Arizona, approving a 5,000- acre open pit mine in the Coronado National Forest? What about the TransWest Express and Gateway South RMP amendments for three transmission lines through Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah?

Does Interior now need to go back and submit all of those RMP amendments to Congress for approval under this new Republican interpretation of the CRA? Is Congress prepared to take on day-to-day management of public lands and minerals, thousands of miles from Washington, D.C.?

I don't think so, but I am not the only one who has concerns about this treadmill of litigation and conflict and uncertainty that is being created here.

Let me read a quote from Kathleen Sgamma, President Trump's first nominee for director of BLM. She said: ``There are some additional legal risks that can arise from the CRA. It's uncharted ground, and if not used wisely, there could be some legal risks introduced and some bad legal precedent.''

Just a few months ago, the House passed several other CRA resolutions, overturning land management plans. As we said at the time, that was unprecedented. These resolutions before us continue to chart unprecedented ground, and I don't think anyone, including my colleagues across the aisle, have thought a heck of a lot about where it leads.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that we have heard a number of times now that more drilling is necessary in the name of energy independence. I want to remind my colleagues that the United States is already the number one producer of oil in the world and the number one producer and exporter of gas in the world, but you would sure never know it when you look at the energy bills that are facing families all over this country.

It is abundantly clear that the drill, baby, drill agenda is not working for everyday Americans. As long as we are dependent on the fossil fuel roller coaster, American consumers will be at the whim of the global oil and gas market, but if we want energy independence and if we want lower utility bills, we need to get back on track with the transition to clean energy.

It is cheaper. It is safer. It is generated entirely here at home instead of being at the mercy of global price shocks like oil and gas just inherently are. Instead, this legislation would make us more reliant on fossil fuels and more entangled with the price effects of this fossil fuel roller coaster. Plus, oil from America's Arctic will not come online for many, many years.

The Willow project, for example, won't start until 2029. Meanwhile, the Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world. Even at the Willow project, developer ConocoPhillips will use artificial chillers to freeze melting permafrost before drilling for oil. That is the kind of complexity and additional cost that is inherent in drilling in these remote pristine parts of the Arctic.

The project itself will release nearly 300 million metric tons of carbon pollution into the atmosphere over its lifetime, the equivalent of at least 66 coal-fired power plants.

Again, Mr. Speaker, if we want true energy independence and security, we need to combat the climate crisis and transition to clean, renewable energy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I strongly oppose this resolution.

The three Congressional Review Act resolutions that we have been considering here today are going to strip local land managers of the ability to respond to future challenges, changes,

and needs in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the NPR-A, and the Powder River Basin. If these reckless resolutions pass, these places will be locked into outdated plans that fail to account for changes in community needs, industry needs, and, yes, climate-driven impacts.

These CRA resolutions are completely unnecessary because the Trump administration has already acted on their own to replace these plans.

Even oil and gas industry experts across the political spectrum agree that the use of the CRA on land use plans creates regulatory and legal ambiguity. In fact, Kathleen Sgamma, as I just told you, President Trump's former nominee to lead the BLM, recently said--and it is a quote worth repeating--``There could be some legal risks introduced and some bad legal precedent'' when using CRAs in this manner. Yet, apparently, my friends across the aisle are just going to do it anyway.

Sgamma led the Western Energy Alliance, an oil and gas industry trade association. She has testified for the House Committee on Natural Resources majority many times.

This misuse of the CRA will create regulatory chaos for everyone, including the industry, so I ask my colleagues across the aisle: Why pursue it?

House Republicans are continuing to lock the American people into higher energy costs by pushing their fossil fuel playbook and sabotaging clean, renewable energy.

Our constituents deserve better. They deserve a future with clean and affordable energy, where utility bills aren't skyrocketing and where we know our lands and waters won't suffer as a result.

That is why I oppose this resolution and urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lee Gary ``Tot'' Booker, who passed away peacefully on September 10, 2025, at the age of 85. Mr. Booker was a trailblazing firefighter, a dedicated public servant, and a beloved member of the Marin County community.

Born on July 9, 1940, in Bryant, Mississippi, Gary overcame a childhood marked by serious illness through the care of his grandparents, who raised him as their own. He excelled in both academics and athletics, showing early signs of the determination and perseverance that would define his life. He left Mississippi after high school and moved to Marin City, California, where he joined his mother and stepfather and immediately began working at Marin General Hospital.

In 1961, Gary was drafted by the state of Mississippi but chose instead to enlist in the United States Navy in San Rafael, California. He served nearly six years, including aboard the U.S.S. Ticonderoga during the Vietnam War, where he worked on crash, firefighting, and rescue teams. His service shaped his lifelong calling to protect others.

Upon completing his military service, Gary joined the Marin County Fire Department in 1966. Over the course of three decades, he broke barriers and blazed trails of firsts. In 1970, he became the first African American Fire Captain in Marin County, leading the Marin City Station and establishing its first community relations program. His leadership, professionalism, and courage earned him successive promotions to Assistant Fire Chief in 1981, Battalion Chief in 1984, and County Safety Officer later in his distinguished career. Through his many years of service, Mr. Booker received numerous awards and honors for his dedication to the safety and well-being of Marin County residents.

In 1970, Gary married Judith Ann Du Pont. He was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather who cherished time with his family and found joy in the outdoors. An avid hunter and fisherman, Gary's annual trips to Colorado and Montana were a source of great happiness. His warmth, humor, and storytelling made him a pillar in his community and a mentor to countless colleagues and friends.

Mr. Booker is survived by his daughter, Lomia and her husband Allen, stepdaughter Donnailla, and his grandchildren Nicole, Alayah, and Jordan. He is also survived by his brothers Ralph and Drew, sisters Trellis and Norma, and his uncle Tobe, as well as many nieces, nephews, relatives, and friends. He was preceded in death by his beloved wife Judith, daughter Garrian ``Beetle,'' and several siblings.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Lee Gary ``Tot'' Booker was a man of courage and vision whose trailblazing service helped shape the Marin County Fire Department and inspired generations of firefighters who followed. I respectfully ask that you join me in honoring his extraordinary life and extending condolences to his family, friends, and all those who had the privilege of knowing him.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of Anthony ``Tony'' Anello, who passed away at the age of 77 on September 28, 2025. Tony was a beloved and celebrated member of Bodega Bay, a renowned fisherman, and a pillar of this coastal community.

Born in San Francisco, California in 1948, Tony was raised in Guerneville, California. Tony was a rodeo calf roper when he married Carol Zucca, his wife of 58 years. To support their growing family, Tony began an excavation business, while earning additional income as a fisherman and selling produce.

In 1968, Tony joined the Guerneville Fire Department as a volunteer, launching his steadfast career as a firefighter and EMT. He served the Sonoma County fire departments for decades and rose through the ranks of captain, training officer, and battalion chief during his tenure. Tony's excellence and commitment as a training officer is credited for shaping generations of paramedics and firefighters in Sonoma County.

Most notably, Tony had a deep-rooted love for fishing. The grandson of a Sicilian fisherman, Tony purchased his first of many commercial fishing boats in 1969. On his days off from the fire department, Tony would go commercial salmon and crab fishing.

In 2004, Tony and Carol founded Spud Point Crab Co. in Bodega Bay, a small harbor stand that grew to become an iconic, homestyle restaurant for both tourists and locals. Tony and his son, Mark, provided seasonal crab and wild king salmon fresh from the dock of the marina across from the restaurant. The waterfront stand, inspired by Old Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, still attracts lines of customers seeking Carol's prize-winning clam chowder and Tony's Dungeness crab. A beacon of the community, Spud Point Co. is a critical hub for the town and a charitable supporter of many local organizations.

Along with his well-respected work ethic, Tony was well known for his larger-than-life character, humor, and generous spirit. Tony was a stalwart advocate for the local fishing community and hosted many vital community gatherings to preserve the future of the fishing industry at Bodega Bay. While he will be greatly missed, Tony's legacy will live on through the innumerable positive impacts he has had on his community. Tony is survived by his wife and their four children, Lori, Gina, Lisa, and Mark, his grandchildren and great-grandchildren, many of whom have carried on his passion for fishing and firefighting.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you join me in extending condolences to Tony's family and many friends and in expressing deep appreciation for his decades of service to his community.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to make the following vote. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 236.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to make the following vote.

Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 224.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose all three of these Congressional Review Act resolutions on the floor because the reality is that these would overhaul years of public input. They would silence Tribal voices and erase science-based planning, all so that this administration can hand millions of acres of our public lands over to the fossil fuel industry for extraction.

Public lands should be our country's proudest legacy. They are our natural heritage, a national treasure, and the agencies responsible for stewarding them, like the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service, diligently manage these resources for the future through the careful development of these resource management plans and forest plans.

The BLM plans, or the RMPs, are carefully crafted to establish safeguards for wildlife, recreation areas, and watersheds, and to identify suitable areas for energy development, as well. That also includes grazing, logging, and other commercial activities. They have to balance all of it in these RMPs.

It is also based on robust input from communities, stakeholders, the public, and government-to-government consultation with the impacted Tribes, as well.

The Republican majority has proven time and again that they don't want any of that public process. They simply want to hand things over to Big Oil and

Big Coal, and this week, they are right back at it.

The majority is making us vote on legislation that would turn the management of public lands upside down, throwing it into chaos, all just to score that quick win for their fossil fuel buddies because the existing plans don't give away the store the way they would like to.

It doesn't matter that this might upend the system that grants land ownership to Alaska Native veterans of the Vietnam war, which is what one of these RMPs does, or that the Tribal governments have spent years working in good faith with the Federal Government to develop land management plans that both allow for energy development and protect subsistence hunting and fishing resources.

That is what they are blowing up with these CRAs, not to mention that if these CRAs are signed into law, the validity of every single permit, lease, and Federal approval that has been issued based on these RMPs would suddenly be called into question and subject to litigation.

I remind my colleagues once again that they don't have to go down this road.

The gentleman from Colorado mentioned that the CRA has never been used to overturn a resource management plan. There are perfectly valid ways of achieving the same goals in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. It is what the Biden administration did to update these plans, and it is what the Trump administration has already announced it intends to do.

I certainly expect to disagree with the outcomes and the objectives of the Trump administration's efforts to amend these RMPs. If they followed the formal process at least, though, we would have a chance to make our case in that process, and it wouldn't imperil existing permits and leases. Most importantly, it would require community input and Tribal consultation.

I strongly urge my colleagues not to continue this race to the bottom. Republicans have already thrown so many norms out the window. Republicans have already disregarded Democrats in all of their legislation and have started this radical appropriations process, where it is party line, Republican only. So many norms are being trashed, and now, for the first time, they are going to do this using the CRA on resource management plans.

Stop the race to the bottom. Vote against this CRA resolution package.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to make the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 191; YEA on Roll Call No. 192; and YEA on Roll Call No. 193.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor William (Bill) T. Baglietto who passed away on June 9, 2025, at the age of 96, after a remarkable life of public service, legal distinction, and civic leadership.

Born in San Francisco in 1928, Bill's early years were shaped by hardship. After his family faced bankruptcy during the Great Depression, they relocated to a cabin in Woodacre, California. From these humble beginnings, Bill's extraordinary work ethic and intellect carried him far. He worked his way through high school, college, and law school as a member of the Marin County Fire Department, ultimately graduating as valedictorian from the University of California, Berkeley in 1949. He earned his J.D. from Berkeley Law in 1952, where he served on the California Law Review--a foundation for what would become a distinguished legal career.

Bill practiced law for 63 years, including 35 years as a partner at Nossaman LLP. He became one of California's leading experts in business, water, transportation, and public policy law. Among his many legal contributions, he successfully defended First Amendment rights before the United States Supreme Court. His commitment to justice, transparency, and public accountability informed both his legal practice and his public service.

From 1960 to 1974, Bill represented Marin and Sonoma Counties in the California State Assembly. A moderate Republican and tireless advocate for civil rights, he received an outstanding voter rating from the NAACP throughout his legislative career. Notably, he authored landmark legislation on transparency including the California Public Records Act and the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act--cornerstones of open government in California.

Following his time in the Assembly, Bill was appointed by President Gerald Ford as the first chair of the newly created Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Under his leadership, the CFTC helped modernize and globalize the futures market. He traveled to Europe and Tokyo advocating for fair, well-regulated markets, and served on the Futures Industry Association Board of Directors. His public service extended to the California Transportation Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, and the University of California Board of Regents--each role reflecting his lifelong commitment to the public good.

Bill received numerous accolades throughout his life, including the UC Berkeley Alumnus of the Year award in 2002. But to those who knew him well, he will be remembered for his character: principled, pragmatic, and endlessly generous with his time and wisdom.

Bill is survived by his wife of 60 years, Diane; their children Lynn, Bill, Jr., Walter, Shana, and Tracy, and his grandchildren Nicholas, Julian, Nathaniel, Grant, and Layli.

Mr. Speaker, Bill Bagley embodied a rare blend of intellect, humility, and commitment to public service. He believed government could work to improve quality of life for everyone--and he worked tirelessly to prove it. I respectfully ask that you join me in honoring his enduring legacy and extending our deepest condolences to his family, friends, and all who had the privilege to know him.