Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia for this opportunity to speak on the floor today. He is new to the Congress, but he has already made an outsized impact during the course of his 13 months of service in this august body taking on corruption. I am deeply grateful to him for his efforts in that regard, not just with respect to overturning Citizens United, but tackling the corruption that has become so pervasive here in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Speaker, I stand on the floor of the people's House to deliver what I believe to be an urgent message: The time to confront political corruption and clean up government is now.

Sixteen years ago to this very day, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that decision overturned longstanding precedent and limits on political spending by special interests.

The decision created a dark money system, where money speaks louder than everyday Americans. It has shifted power and influence away from everyday Americans, from the folks in our communities that we are privileged to serve, to instead these shadowy special interests that flood television screens every evening.

In my view, Citizens United undermined what it means to be a country of the people, by the people, for the people, and, above all, accountable to the people. Unfortunately, for far too long, this Chamber has failed to do what needs to be done to renew the faith of the American people in our democracy. We cannot accept that. We have to do something about it.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, I introduced legislation in the form of a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would revoke Citizens United. It would ensure transparency through our campaign finance reform and prevent unrestrained spending and dark money in our elections. Put bluntly, it would put the power back in the hands of the American people.

I thank my Democratic colleagues, 73 of them, who have already cosponsored this legislation, who are joining us tonight to be part of this effort, this clarion call, supporting the restoration of integrity and transparency to Washington.

Together, I honestly believe, with enough reformers, we can change the Congress. We can ban stock trading by Members of Congress. We can end dark money in our politics. We can overturn Citizens United. We just have to have the political will to do it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for having that will and all of my colleagues who joined us on the floor this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for the time. I support this bill for many reasons. I support it for the reasons that were articulated by the sponsor, my colleague from Colorado, Ms. Boebert; by the ranking member; and by the chairman. I think they have ably explained why this water infrastructure project for southeastern Colorado is so critical, a project 60 years in the making.

I support it because, as was noted, there are no cogent issues with this bill as were purportedly articulated in the veto message from President Trump. Far from it, this bill will cost taxpayers virtually nothing as was referenced. It makes good on a promise to the people of rural Colorado.

I support the bill because I believe that the people of Otero County and Bent County and Crowley County deserve access to clean water just as every citizen of the great State that I serve and that Ms. Boebert serves, that Mr. Hurd serves, and my other colleagues in the Colorado congressional delegation deserve.

I think what is perhaps missing from this debate, and it is important for us to level with the American people, is: Why are we here? Why, despite all the reasons that this bill makes a whole lot of sense? Why, despite the fact that this bill passed unanimously in the House and in the Senate, Mr. Speaker? Why did the President veto this bill?

We are here, unfortunately and profoundly, because the President has declared war on our State. In the last 40 days, he has taken step after step to harm the people whom I serve and whom I represent. He is denying disaster assistance for folks in Rio Blanco County and down south in La Plata County. He is freezing childcare assistance and food assistance for hungry families across our State and trying to dismantle a scientific institution in my district. Now, he is denying access to clean water to 50,000 people in southeastern Colorado.

It is unconscionable.

Now, I am speaking to my Democratic colleagues. To be clear, it is important in this moment for Members to support this override and ensure that this promise that was made to the people of southeastern Colorado is not impaired and is not abrogated by the President's retaliation against the State of Colorado. We cannot let that become the new normal.

I will say to all of my colleagues: As you consider where you land on this particular vote, let me be abundantly clear. It does not matter if your community supported Donald Trump politically. If we don't take this step, then, trust me, no town is safe, no county is safe, and no State is safe from political retaliation by the administration. We will be back here on the floor debating a veto for a project in Arkansas or in Texas or in Ohio.

The House has an opportunity, in my view, to do the right thing on the merits and to support this important legislation that Ms. Boebert has introduced and that she has fought for with our colleagues in the Senate, Senator Bennet and Senator Hickenlooper.

I am urging every Member of this body: Put aside political differences. Recognize that this is a bill you already supported as recently as last month. Recognize that it is going to

have a dramatic and consequential impact on a lot of hardworking Americans in the rural parts of our country. Vote in the affirmative on the override.

Mr. Speaker, today I honor Colonel Herbert Stern, the oldest living graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and to wish him a happy 107th birthday.

As a member of the Class of 1941, Colonel Stern and his fellow cadets were the first class to graduate directly into World War II. Colonel Stern's distinguished service and heroism during the war included his brave actions during the Battle of the Bulge, for which he was awarded the Silver Star, and him and his men liberating a concentration camp in Salzwedel, Germany.

After World War II, Colonel Stern continued his military service in many high-profile assignments, including positions at the Army War College, NATO headquarters in Italy, and the Joint Advanced Study Group with the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Colonel Stern's final military assignment was with the Central Treaty Organization in Turkey and Iran before retiring as a Colonel on September 1, 1968.

In addition to his service to our country, Colonel Stern was a devoted husband to his late wife of over 70 years, Rose; a father to his son Robert, a resident of Fort Collins, and his late daughter Betty; and grandfather to his 2 grandchildren and 2 step-grandchildren.

Colonel Stern turns 107 on Christmas Eve this year, and on behalf of the people of Colorado I thank him for his incredible service to our state and Nation and wish him a very Happy Birthday.

Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Pallone for yielding me the time.

Madam Speaker, only in Washington, D.C., can politicians who vote to give tax breaks to the biggest oil companies and fossil fuel companies on planet Earth come down to the floor of the House and argue that their legislative efforts are going to lower electricity prices.

Only in Washington, D.C., can politicians stand by as energy projects in their own districts are decimated by their inaction and then claim that they are championing efforts to improve the reliability of the grid.

My colleague from Colorado made a lot of references to local utility efforts in our home State. What he failed to mention in his quest to improve reliability of the grid is that several projects in his own district were eliminated by the Trump administration just 5 weeks ago. My colleague from Colorado, like virtually every single Member of the Republican Conference, did nothing to stop it, nothing.

By the way, we are not talking about small projects. This is the headline. ``Colorado company may close after Trump administration cuts funding for nearly 3 dozen energy projects in the State.''

I will quote this article, Madam Speaker: ``In all, DOE eliminated $7.6 billion in projects in 16 States, all of which are led by Democrats.''

Here is the kicker: ``But some of the projects are in Republican congressional districts, including a $27 million grant in Colorado's Eighth Congressional District, which Representative Gabe Evans, a Republican, represents.''

Gabe Evans is the author of this legislation we are debating today.

I will quote another article. This is the local utility, Madam Speaker, in Fort Lupton, which I believe is the sponsor of this legislation's hometown. I will just quote: ``The Fort Lupton Microgrid project was submitted with the goal of increasing the reliability of the city's municipal water treatment plant.''

This is another project, $6.1 million, Madam Speaker, that was unceremoniously cut 1 month ago by President Trump.

If we want to get serious about the reliability of the grid and if we want to address the ballooning electricity costs that are a direct byproduct of the bill that Republicans passed earlier this summer, then a good way to start would be to tell the Department of Energy to stop eliminating energy projects in Brighton, in Fort Lupton, in Fort Collins, and in Longmont, the communities I represent and the communities that my colleague from Colorado represents.

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his indulgence.

By the way, Madam Speaker, just so that we are clear, this bill does absolutely nothing as a practical matter. I welcome Chairman Guthrie's response on this front. It does nothing to impose new standards, it does nothing to compel State public utility commissions to adopt new standards, and it does nothing to require these commissions to implement new standards.

It simply says that commissions must consider them.

This is basically a press release. That is what this bill is. We could have spared everyone the time and just got on with it so that we can actually get to the substance of addressing the inflation cost crisis that Republicans have unleashed on Coloradans and on Americans writ large, but, no, we are here to debate this very carefully constructed press release that ultimately will accomplish nothing if it is ever signed into law.

Madam Speaker, I am voting ``no,'' and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to honor and thank Chief Rick Bashor for his storied career and dedication to serving his community in Lafayette, Colorado, and wish him the best on his well-earned retirement.

Born and raised in Boulder County, Chief Bashor has dedicated the last 43 years in service to the Lafayette Police Department, earning the distinct honor of being the longest-serving chief in the history of the City of Lafayette.

Throughout his career with the Lafayette Police Department, Chief Bashor oversaw significant changes to the community and the department. He has served as a Police Officer, Field Training Officer, Detective, Master Firearms Instructor and Armorer, Sergeant, Field Training Sergeant, SWAT Negotiator, Lieutenant, Administrative Commander, Operations Commander, and finally, for the last 15 years, as Chief of Police.

When Chief Bashor first joined the service in 1983, the population of Lafayette was around 10,000. The population has tripled since then, and the police department has grown from 18 sworn officers to 51.

Chief Bashor has overseen sweeping changes to the department as they adapted to the needs of a growing community. Chief Bashor led his department through tumultuous times, including adjusting to the needs of a modern police force and navigating the COVID-19 pandemic. When he took on the role of Chief of Police, Chief Bashor committed to leaving the department better than when he found it, and I believe he's done just that. It has been an honor to work with Chief Bashor and to have him represent and serve the people of Colorado.

On behalf of Colorado's 2nd Congressional District, I thank and honor Chief Rick Bashor for his invaluable contributions and service to the community of Lafayette.

We thank Chief Bashor and we wish him all the best in his retirement.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are on the floor this week debating three Congressional Review Act resolutions that would overturn balanced, forward-looking resource management plans, or RMPs, that have been carefully developed over the past 4 years.

Now, with all due respect to my friend and colleague, the chairman, I heard a lot of slogans, a couple of references to Moscow. I will just say that the CRA before this body is very simple. It is an effort by House Republicans to do something that has never been done before in the history of the Congressional Review Act, which is to overturn a resource management plan.

Why, you might ask, Mr. Speaker, do Republicans intend to take this unprecedented step? It is simply because they would like to open up millions of acres in Montana, North Dakota, and elsewhere to coal extraction. That is it, very simple.

We can probably dispense with, I guess, the hour of debate that we are allocated for purposes of these CRAs. It doesn't really get more complicated than that: Balanced resource management plans were developed in consultation with the communities and States at issue, and this Republican Congress has decided that it is of the utmost priority to, via legislative action, overturn resource management plans that, by the way, Mr. Speaker, could simply be reversed with a phone call to the Secretary of the Interior.

Last time I checked, the Secretary of the Interior happens to be the former Governor of North Dakota, so insofar as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so invested in overturning this resource management plan, perhaps they should call the former Governor of North Dakota, who now works 2 miles from the U.S. Capitol as the Secretary of the Interior, and ask the agency to follow the process by which a resource management plan is historically reconsidered.

Instead, we are here on the House floor debating a CRA on the resource management plan, a giveaway to some of the biggest mining and oil companies on the planet. That is how House Republicans have decided to spend our time on the floor today.

There are a lot of priorities, Mr. Speaker, that my constituents back in Colorado believe this House should consider. Reversing the draconian and cruel healthcare cuts that House Republicans pushed through just a mere 7 weeks ago is at the top of the list. I can tell you what is not on the list: CRA resolutions to overturn resource management plans so that more coal extraction and mining can be done in Montana. That is not on the list of priorities of my constituents, and I suspect that is the case for the vast majority of Americans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the distinguished ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the Miles City Resource Management Plan update, it is just important contextually to say that it was a very extensive and inclusive public comment period. BLM provided a 90-day public comment period, two public meetings, a 30-day public comment period, and a 60-day review period for the Governor. BLM directly contacted over 40 private landowners, all, according to BLM, to help refine and guide development of that RMP amendment. That robust public input was instrumental in shaping a plan that reflects the values of the communities it impacts.

I want to go back to, I guess, a core point that the ranking member articulated previously, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if perhaps the chairman knows. It is a fairly empty Chamber here. I don't see any other Members. Maybe he might engage in a bit of discourse here in a colloquy.

I am trying to understand why the CRA is necessary, given that the Interior Department retains the ability to amend and modify these resource management plans in any way that the Secretary deems necessary.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I might inquire through you as to whether the chair could help us better understand why they have decided to pursue the CRA rather than simply amending the resource management plan.

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve for response and that colloquy.

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

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, facts matter. Under President Trump, Americans are paying more for their electricity than ever before. Energy costs right now are higher than they have ever been. They are increasing at twice the rate of inflation.

As Republicans preside over an economy in which everything is getting more expensive, spare us lectures about energy costs. Healthcare is more expensive. Groceries are more expensive. Energy costs are going through the roof. Seriously?

Their answer to all of this is more coal. That is it. That is the sum total of the Republican response to the cost-of-living crisis in the United States of America today. From Arkansas to Colorado to Minnesota and everywhere in between, more coal is their prescription, Mr. Speaker.

In Colorado, we certainly don't think that is a prudent approach. I will say I regret that the Speaker didn't indulge me in the colloquy that I had hoped I could engage in with the chairman whom, of course, I greatly respect. Mr. Speaker, he did reveal the plot here in his answer as to what the impetus was for the CRA.

Of course, it is not as simple as amending or modifying the resource management plan. The reason House Republicans are pursuing this tool is to prevent not just this Department of the Interior but any Department of the Interior into perpetuity from issuing a resource management plan that is in any way substantially similar to the one that is at issue here. That is what this is about. That is this effort.

I don't think my colleagues on my side of the aisle will be confused by the chairman's arguments. Just in case, I want to make sure it is crystal clear for the record that a vote in favor of this CRA is not a vote to modify or amend the resource management plan. It is a vote to prevent the agency and subagency, in the case of the BLM, from promulgating any resource management plan that remotely tries to do something similar to what has been done here.

Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague. Again, on the other side of the aisle, they have their ideological reasons for pursuing that. It is more coal. Again, that is the sum total. It is two words. In my view, I think most Americans would think and agree that this isn't how we should be spending our time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I was trying to keep track, and I lost track at some point, but my colleague from Minnesota I think said the word ``Biden'' eight times, if I am not mistaken.

Mr. Speaker, if you couple that with references to the prior administration, then that jumps up to 12 or 13.

It is unclear to me when Republicans are going to stop complaining and actually do something to address the challenges that face our country. They spend more time talking about Joe Biden than they do about reducing costs. Every sentence from that side of the aisle, Biden, a verb, an adjective, and more coal. That is essentially the sum total of every sentence.

By the way, my colleagues, I suspect, are watching from their offices. I know that more of my colleagues are going to come to the floor here to engage in debate on, I don't know--how many CRAs are they putting on the floor today, three, four, or five?

That is all we do around here are CRAs. I encourage them as they are watching to, please, when they come to the floor, maybe spend some time talking about their affirmative vision for the country and not so much time talking about the prior President.

Republicans are in charge. Republicans have a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate and the Presidency, and we spend all of our time on the House floor doing CRAs or resolutions of disapproval, the weakest vehicle that this House could consider.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are aware of this, but the House has been on vacation for like the last 6 weeks. Republicans recessed us out of session early, a 6-week vacation for Republicans. Finally, we are back in Washington, September, 10 months into the Trump Presidency, and this is how you choose to spend your time, with resolutions of disapproval and reversing resource management plans for North Dakota?

Of all of the concerns of the people in Arkansas or Colorado, this is the priority?

It is a shame, Mr. Speaker. It is deeply disappointing and disheartening, I suspect to most Americans, to those who might be watching C-SPAN, to learn that this august body in the world's greatest democracy is wasting its time debating resource management plans issued by the prior administration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will give a brief closing because, as I said, I think all we are doing today are these resolutions of disapproval, so I am going to have more opportunities, apparently, to make this argument. I encourage my colleagues to dispense with what, in my view, are actually very dishonest arguments about these resource management plans. I think fundamentally they should continue the work that was done by the prior administration through an open and a transparent process.

That is the way these resource management plans are meant to be developed. I get it. I understand that my Republican colleagues have disagreements about the resource management plans. That is understood.

Mr. Speaker, call Secretary Burgum. Call the BLM director. I don't think there is a BLM director 10 months into the administration. Call whoever is running the show over at the BLM now and ask them to reopen the process.

Mr. Speaker, listen to the Tribes, listen to the American people, and update

the resource management plan. That is the way it is done.

Using the Congressional Review Act to overturn the plan is the wrong approach. I understand why it may seem easier for Republicans to just bring the hammer down and use this blunt instrument, but all you will be left with, Mr. Speaker, are smashed pieces, and you will forever close the ability of these agencies to protect some of the most treasured lands in our country, lands that belong to the citizens of this country, to you, Mr. Speaker, your children, your grandchildren, and the future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the CRA, 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.

As promised, we are back debating another Congressional Review Act disapproval resolution. This time, as was referenced, it is in regard to the resource management plan for the central Yukon in the heart of Alaska, governing over 13 million acres of public land in central and northern Alaska, some of the most culturally significant landscapes in the United States.

This region includes the central Yukon River watershed and the Dalton Highway corridor, areas that are vital to both biodiversity and community survival. These lands are also interconnected with the Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They are home to caribou, salmon, and sheep species that Alaska Native and rural communities depend on for food and cultural traditions.

The existing RMP sets strong protections in response to declining populations of these important species. It created 3.6 million acres of areas of critical environmental concern.

I will also mention here that the one voice we haven't heard from on the House floor is from the Tribal communities impacted by both the resource management plan and this particular resolution to reverse the resource management plan. These lands promote community health, support sustenance, and sustain the wild food economies that numerous Alaska Native communities rely on.

The current resource management plan is the result of over a decade, 10 years, of work between the Tribes in the central Yukon as well as the Bureau of Land Management and other stakeholders. Six Tribes worked as cooperating agencies in the development of this plan.

I know I have belabored this, Mr. Speaker, but it merits mentioning again. Rather than simply amending the resource management plan, doing the hard work required in the agency to perform the consultations necessary to then change the RMP, if folks have concerns, good faith concerns about the contours of that resource management plan, that is the way to do it.

Instead, my colleagues have chosen to use the Congressional Review Act, a very blunt instrument. Using the CRA, unlike pursuing an administrative update, would lock out--lock out--Tribal engagement in BLM's existing processes.

Using the CRA to overturn an RMP would also ban the agency not from issuing this resource management plan but from issuing any resource management plan like it. That is reckless.

I understand that my colleagues have a disagreement with respect to the contours of this resource management plan. My colleagues should work through the Department of the Interior to change it. That is the way that it should be done.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot on the line with respect to the fate of this particular CRA resolution before us. I mentioned before that we are in uncharted territory because the House has not pursued this type of vehicle to overturn resource management plans in the past. It is unprecedented.

It is important for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to recognize the gravity of taking this step. It is one that I would hope that some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might reconsider.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the resolution for those reasons, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the chairman read from a letter there. I will read from a letter that I think the Speaker might find interesting. This is a letter from the Tanana Chiefs Conference in opposition to this resolution.

Who is this conference made up of, you might ask, Mr. Speaker? It is made up of 37 federally recognized Tribes and villages across the Yukon River Basin. These Tribes served as cooperating agencies in the RMP development process working to ensure protection for critical salmon habitat and other interests, and they endorsed the RMP after extensive consultation. They oppose this resolution, among many others.

Mr. Speaker, I do say that it is important to recognize what this resolution, which I think the chairman, if I am not misquoting him, called a hammer, will do.

My view is very simple. This hammer that Republicans have proposed risks precluding these agencies from engaging in any type of rulemaking or resource management planning that is substantially similar to the resource management plan before us. I will give a simple example of what that looks like in practice.

This Central Yukon Resource Management Plan opens up 11 million acres to selection by eligible Alaska Native Vietnam-era veterans under the Dingell Act.

For those who are watching, the resource management plan allows and enables Alaska natives who served our country so bravely during the Vietnam war to access upwards of 11 million acres of lands at issue.

Here is the problem, Mr. Speaker. By passing this resolution of disapproval, this CRA vehicle, it is not simply eliminating that provision, along with all the other provisions in the resource management plan, it is potentially risking the ability of a future administration, including this one, from issuing any resource management plan that provides a similar benefit.

What happens when a court 2 years from now, 3 years from now, or 5 years from now rules that the Republican resolution that you all are poised to pass today precludes the BLM from giving any access to native Vietnam-era veterans in accessing this land?

When we call this a blunt instrument, that is what we are referencing. I understand that my colleagues disagree with a variety of different components of the resource management plan. They are fortunate that the Secretary of the Interior happens to be a former Republican Governor of North Dakota, and I imagine if they call him that he will pursue a reopening of this resource management plan. However, taking this step, foreclosing the ability of those Alaska natives who are Vietnam-era veterans from being able to access these lands and precluding that kind of benefit into perpetuity by virtue of using the CRA is reckless. There is no other word to describe it.

I would hope my colleagues would, again, reconsider and follow the process of regular order. That is the way to pursue the changes that they seek.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not in the predictions business, but I can confidently predict--and it is why one of the reasons this exchange is so important--that this particular exchange will appear in litigation 2 years from now, 3 years from now, 5 years from now, or 10 years from now.

This is untested. The Congressional Review Act has never been used before to repeal a resource management plan, so we don't know how a Federal court is going to construe this Congress' decision to en masse disapprove of a resource management plan that did provide for the allotment for Alaska natives who are Vietnam-era veterans to access these lands.

I understand the chairman is making the case here on the floor. He made it during the debate on the Rules Committee. I remember this back in July. He maintains that this congressional resolution of approval is just limited to the energy portions of the resource management plan. That is not what the resolution says.

The resolution of disapproval disapproves of the resource management plan in its entirety. I understand that the statutory provisions that provide Alaska natives with the ability, those who are Vietnam-era veterans to access these lands, remains codified. That is not up for debate.

The problem is that Republicans have decided to disapprove, to use this blunt instrument of this particular allotment, or rather access that the prior administration as was noted, included in this resource management plan. We have no idea how a Federal court is going to construe the actions of the Congress as it relates to the different

component pieces in the resource management plan if and when a future administration, including this one, decides to take that step.

It is one of the reasons why a Congressional Review Act or rather, the Congressional Review Act has not been deployed in this way previously because it is risky.

My colleague from Alaska seemed very upset. I don't disagree. I share his frustration. I support, by the way, the legislation that he mentioned. The legislation he was referencing is not the bill that is before this Congress. I don't quite understand the impetus behind extending the time as he noted to 5 years while you are simultaneously passing a resolution disapproving of a resource management plan that provided the very access to these lands that you purport to want, but that is for him to explain.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Again, not to belabor the point here, but I do think that last exchange was instructive and revealing.

I remember very well the debate that this House engaged in a mere 3 months ago, 2\1/2\ months ago, regarding the budget bill and the terrible cuts to Medicaid that this Chamber, Republicans, passed, and that the President signed into law. I remember after that legislation was signed into law, several of my Republican colleagues, including one Republican Senator in particular, bemoaning the Medicaid cuts that he had just voted for.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are familiar with Mark Twain's old adage that history doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes. It does feel a little bit like deja vu because in the case of these CRAs, I have no doubt that several of my colleagues, including several of my colleagues who are championing these resolutions, will find that down the road they will regret being so vociferous in their support for the resolutions of disapproval of these resource management plans when a Federal court decides that the agencies, the BLM, the Department of the Interior writ large can't protect or, rather, enact protections in the way that it had in the past because Republicans decided to use this blunt instrument.

I think we are going on hour number two here. I believe we have another hour of debate on another resolution of disapproval that will be coming up next. For all the reasons I have articulated, I would hope my colleagues will oppose this.

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, more coal, more coal. That is their answer again, for the third time. Their answer, apparently, to every question is more coal. Frustrated with energy costs going up across the board, State to State, community to community, more coal is their answer. Health insurance costs going up, grocery prices going up, and the economy in free fall? More coal.

I don't know what piece of legislation we are going to be debating tomorrow, but I suspect it will involve coal production.

It is bordering on obsession for the House Republican Conference, and it would be comical if not for the real-world consequences for my constituents and your constituents, Mr. Speaker, and for Americans across the country who are dealing with the real cost-of-living crisis and who expect more from this Congress than yet another disapproval resolution 10 months into the Trump Presidency, laser focused on passing resolutions of disapproval of agency actions by the Biden administration--real sense of priorities. It is disappointing, Mr. Speaker, deeply disappointing.

If one digs into this particular resource management plan, I think you will find that using this blunt instrument, as I have called it during our prior debate, in this instance is probably the most insidious of all.

There are a couple of reasons why. One, the resource management plan that was adopted replaced a plan that was nearly 40 years old. This resource management plan provided a modern framework that balances responsible energy and mineral development with the protection of wildlife habitat, water resources, cultural sites, and recreational opportunities. It provides a stable and predictable framework to guide and balance the multiple uses of our public lands and resources based on the needs of today and into the future.

It is important to recognize that even if one disagrees with the way in which this resource management plan balances public land uses--and I understand there are good faith disagreements with the resource management plan. The chairman mentioned our mutual good friend, my dear friend, Kelly Armstrong, now the Governor of North Dakota. I recognize we may disagree with the nuances of the resource management plan, but, again, the broader point here is that the CRA is not the proper vehicle for registering one's objection to a resource management plan.

Why is that? It is because using the CRA does not return the resource management plan to the status quo.

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act outlines the proper process for updating a resource management plan. That is a process that centers on the voices and needs of local land users, while preserving regulatory certainty.

By contrast, the CRA strips the public out of the process, and it throws public lands into chaos. What do I mean by that, Mr. Speaker? Here is what I mean. If Congress passes this resolution, if the President signs this resolution into law, it will call into question all the leases, all the permits, and any other related authorizations that stem from the resource management plan. Grazing permits, resource development projects, transmission rights-of-way, all of those leases and permits, and so on, will be tied up in litigation if this resolution is passed.

It makes no sense to me why my colleagues have chosen to take this approach and endanger grazing permits in North Dakota when there is a much easier way to do this.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of the Interior is the former Governor of North Dakota. It is true that he could simply change this. He could, through administrative fiat, modify the resource management plan for the State for which he served as the chief executive. He could do that now, and it would not call into question any of the permits or leases.

Instead, House Republicans have taken this approach, and I don't think it is going to achieve the stated objective of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--far from it.

Again, I hope my colleagues might reconsider. I don't have the Secretary of the Interior's phone number, but I suspect my colleagues do. They can call him. I am sure they can get this worked out, and we can save you, Mr.

Speaker, and the few Americans watching on C-SPAN from this stale debate over yet another resolution of disapproval.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague from North Dakota disagrees with the resource management plan. As I said, there are good faith reasons my colleagues have in opposition to the resource management plan.

There is a way to register that opposition. Change the plan. Modify it. Amend it. Edit it. Call the former Governor of North Dakota. Chairman Westerman noted he objected to this plan when he was Governor. Give him a call. He is now the Secretary of the Interior. Ask him to modify this plan. That would be the way for one to register their objections.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen a very different approach. Again, I am just leveling with my colleagues. They are putting at great risk grazing permits and leases that have been issued pursuant to that resource management plan.

This story is not going to end with the President's signature on the CRA. Litigation will immediately follow. It is unclear to me why House Republicans would prefer that outcome, unless, of course, they are bereft of substantive ideas and an affirmative vision for solving the cost-of-living crisis that so many of our constituents are facing that they have made the decision that it is better to spend their time on disapproval of Biden administration-era rules.

That is the only conclusion I am left with. Perhaps my colleague from Oregon will expound on that

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Dexter).

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

Mr. Speaker, unless I can convince the chairman to have a final colloquy, I suppose I will conclude as well.

Mr. Speaker, using the CRA to overturn land use plans, as I have said previously, does take us into uncharted territory. It is not, as some have suggested, a way to return us to the way that we used to manage public lands in North Dakota or elsewhere.

The resolution pulls the rug out from under all public land users. It calls into question the validity of grazing rights, permits, transmission rights-of-way, and other permits and authorizations that are premised on the land use plan being nullified.

It disregards the Tribes, local land users, communities, and businesses who provided input over years to craft a modern plan to guide land and resource management for these respective States.

Instead, it puts the courts in charge of deciding the day-to-day management of lands and minerals in North Dakota and beyond. Mr. Speaker, even if one disagrees with the resource management plan for North Dakota, Montana, and Alaska, the way to change it is through an administrative review and a public process and not through a blunt and inflexible tool like the CRA.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to keep local voices and land managers in the driver's seat by voting ``no'' on this CRA resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, only in Washington, D.C., could politicians come to the floor and brag about cutting $9 billion from rural radio stations while 2 weeks ago they voted to increase the deficit by $4 trillion. Spare us these lectures.

For years, Republicans have lectured us and the country about so- called fiscal responsibility, the deficit, the debt, and then they have the audacity to increase the deficit by $4 trillion to pay for tax cuts for the 800 billionaires that my Republican colleague from Pennsylvania is so carefully tracking. It is shameful.

This bill, make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, is a war on rural America. They are closing rural hospitals by virtue of the bill they passed 15 days ago. Now they will close rural radio stations in the chairwoman's district in North Carolina and in my State, Colorado, the western part of my State that I have the privilege of representing. There are rural radio stations across the country that help constituents during wildfires and during floods. It is shameful. It should be rejected, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hoyle), my colleague and the ranking member. I also thank Chairman Westerman for his support and his team and his staff for giving us the opportunity here to consider a number of bills that are bipartisan, common sense, and certainly mean a lot to the folks who I represent out West.

Mr. Speaker, as you may know, I represent Colorado's Second Congressional District. It is an incredibly large geographical district. It is a district that spans across more than 8,000 square miles. It is larger than eight States on the eastern seaboard and spans 12 counties and over 55 towns.

I have the privilege of representing this incredible district each and every day back home in Colorado. When you represent a district of that size and scale, you learn early on how important it is to be present in your communities to be able to listen directly to constituents, local leaders, the folks on the ground, about problems that you can ultimately help to solve.

This bill is a perfect example. It is a bill that has been described well by the chairman and the ranking member that, in effect, would ensure that a number of different water authorities--specifically, the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District and the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority--would have access, as the town of Minturn already does, to the Bolts Ditch structure.

It builds on legislation that we successfully got across the finish line several years ago. It is common sense. It is bipartisan, and it means a great deal to the folks that I represent in western Colorado.

I hope that my colleagues can support this measure. I look forward to doing everything that needs to be done to get it to the President's desk.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that Republican leadership has issued a notice to their Members that they aren't required to be on the floor, essentially an informal adjournment, notwithstanding that this amendment vote is pending. Is it appropriate under the Rules of the House of Representatives' procedure or Jefferson's Manual to keep a vote open while simultaneously declaring to Members that they are free to leave?

Mr. Speaker, it does, and I appreciate the Speaker's response. Is it customary for a vote to go over 1 hour?

Mr. Speaker, my final parliamentary procedure request: Would it be permissible, Mr. Speaker, or would the Speaker entertain a motion to adjourn, given that Republicans don't intend to complete this vote?

I thank the Speaker.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that House Republicans have kept this vote open longer than any other Congress in the history of the House of Representatives.

At what point will the Speaker ascertain whether this practice is violative of rule XVII with respect to the order of the House or rule XX with respect to the voting procedures of the House?

Nine hours ago, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I asked whether or not it was violative of rule XVII or rule XX for Republicans to keep this vote open longer than any other Congress in the history of the United States House of Representatives.

We know for certain that this, in fact, is a new precedent that has been broken by Republicans. This is the longest--yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude simply by saying: Is it permissible under the rules for this vote to be held open for 24 hours, 48 hours, 3 months? How long, in the Speaker's judgment, is it permissible to hold the vote?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

First, I thank the ranking member for his leadership in addressing the scourge of fentanyl overdoses across our country.

I serve as one of the co-chairs of the Bipartisan Fentanyl Prevention Caucus with Representative Darrell Issa and Representative Madeleine Dean. It is certainly an issue that we have worked tirelessly on. I appreciate the bipartisan cooperation, notwithstanding, obviously, the disagreements with respect to this particular bill. I think the ranking member has spoken very eloquently with respect to his concerns.

I thank the ranking member for indulging me and giving me a few minutes to speak on the floor because, at the conclusion of this debate, I intend to make a unanimous consent request of the Chair. I would hope that it is a consent request that everyone in this House could agree to.

As many of my colleagues, of course, are well aware, there was a terrible, heinous terrorist attack in my district 10 days ago in Boulder, Colorado. We have introduced a resolution, H. Res. 476. It is a bipartisan resolution. Several of my Republican colleagues have joined me on this resolution.

It denounces anti-Semitism, condemns the horrific attack in my community, and lifts up the organization Run for Their Lives, which was heinously targeted by this terrorist. This is an organization that has been working every week to peacefully call for the release of the hostages held by Hamas in Gaza.

Mr. Speaker, I am simply asking for this House to consider my resolution. This terrible attack happened in my district. I have no doubt that if Republican leadership just puts the resolution on the floor, it will pass unanimously in this House. I have no doubt, so I am just asking my colleagues to give us the opportunity to weigh in or at least explain to us and my constituents why my community is being deprived of this resolution that honors law enforcement, the FBI and the Boulder Police Department, which acted so swiftly in response to this terrorist attack.

Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Griffith, in particular, to be somebody who shares, I believe, my views as I have articulated them with respect to this particular attack, and I just hope that my colleagues would agree to give this resolution its due course.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H. Res. 476, my bipartisan resolution to condemn the terror attack in Boulder and to denounce anti-Semitism, be called for consideration by the full House.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding under ``Jefferson's Manual,'' is that the Speaker has the ability to disclose in the Congressional Record the source of the objection. The minority does not object to this unanimous-consent request.

Will the Speaker tell the House and the American public, is it Speaker Johnson that opposes this?

Who opposes unanimous consent to this resolution denouncing the attack?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Goldman) for yielding. I also thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew) for introducing this resolution, and I am proud to co-lead this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, a week ago, my congressional district suffered an unimaginable tragedy when a terrorist by the name of Mohamed Soliman drove over an hour to carry out a horrific act of terror in Boulder, Colorado.

This attacker targeted Jewish members of the Boulder community, literally trying to burn them alive with Molotov cocktails and incendiary devices.

Our community, Mr. Speaker, is reeling from this terrorist attack. This kind of hateful violence and anti-Semitism is spreading across the country. It is metastasizing, and it has deeply shaken the people of my State and the people of my community. The group, the organization that was targeted by this horrific attack, Run for Their Lives, is composed of our neighbors and friends.

Last Sunday, they gathered on the idyllic Pearl Street Mall to take part in a peaceful walk and vigil as they have done every week for the past 2 years, to call for the release of the hostages that were kidnapped and are being held by Hamas in Gaza.

We pray hard, Mr. Speaker, for the 15 victims of this heinous attack, my constituents. Several of these victims are people I know personally. They are friends. I support this bipartisan resolution denouncing anti- Semitism. I continue to stand with those victims, with my constituents, with their families, with our Jewish brothers and sisters as we recommit ourselves to addressing the scourge of anti-Semitism.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the privilege of spending some time with several of the victims of this terrible attack. It is hard for me to describe in words, Mr. Speaker, the emotions I felt in seeing their resilience, their strength, their humanity under such incredibly trying circumstances.

It is hard to describe in words, Mr. Speaker, the emotions I felt yesterday walking back in my district in Boulder, Colorado, with thousands of Coloradans, who came from all across Colorado, both of our United States Senators, many community leaders, rabbis, people of all faiths, walking with our Jewish brothers and sisters to condemn this vicious attack and to recommit ourselves in defeating anti-Semitism. That is why I support this resolution.

On a final personal note, I will say that I have had the privilege of serving in this body for 6\1/2\ years. My colleague and I, Mr. Van Drew, entered Congress together. He remembers it well. I thank Mr. Van Drew for approaching me in good faith. Our teams working together put forward a resolution that addresses the enormity of this challenge, this threat that our Jewish constituents and Americans are facing. I am proud to co-lead the resolution with the gentleman, and I think his interaction with our office is a reflection of how things ought to work in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey and the gentleman from New York for their leadership.

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Goldman mentioned, I represent Boulder, Colorado, in the Congress. I live in Boulder County. My wife and I are incredibly blessed and lucky to be raising our family in this community.

Last week, I introduced a bipartisan resolution denouncing this heinous anti-Semitic terror attack in my community. H. Res. 476, a resolution that makes clear that we stand with the Jewish people, the Jewish community, and which explicitly calls for us to do more to address the scourge of anti-Semitism.

Mr. Speaker, that resolution is broadly supported by the members of Colorado's congressional delegation. Colorado has eight Federal lawmakers here in Washington. Six of the eight joined that resolution. I thank Republican Representatives Jeff Crank and Jeff Hurd for doing the right thing and joining that resolution so that we could speak in one voice in denouncing this attack.

There were two Members of Colorado's entire congressional delegation who refused to join this resolution. One of them, Mr. Gabe Evans of Colorado, instead decided to introduce the resolution that the House is going to consider today. This resolution is not bipartisan. It is not carried by the Member who represents this community. This a first, by the way, Mr. Speaker, in the precedence of this House, that the majority would not give the Representative who represents the victims the opportunity to speak on behalf of their community, but Mr. Evans decided to proceed anyway.

Mr. Speaker, of course, because Mr. Evans does not represent this community, the resolution that he has introduced is riddled with inaccuracies. That is not a surprise. It is why it is important for Members who represent communities that are besieged by tragedies like this one to have the opportunity to introduce a resolution and have that resolution considered on the floor.

Let me give you some examples, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Evans' resolution claims that there were 14 victims of this attack. He is wrong. There are 15 victims. Maybe he got that from Google or found it in a newspaper article, but had he been involved in the conversations with law enforcement, as I have, he would know that there were 15 victims of this terrible attack.

It is poor decorum to ask this body to vote on a resolution that lists the wrong number of victims. They are my constituents. They are real people who were burned half to death by a terrorist 7 days ago. The least you can do is list the right number.

Mr. Evans' resolution also says that ``reportedly one victim was a Holocaust survivor.'' She is not reportedly a survivor. She is a Holocaust survivor. There is no doubt to that. There is no allegation to that. I know because she is my constituent. The word ``reportedly'' should be struck from this resolution.

My colleague's resolution, Mr. Speaker--Mr. Evans' resolution, to be clear, because we are considering multiple resolutions today, so I am talking about the resolution from Mr. Gabe Evans of Colorado--does not mention once, not once, the Boulder Police Department, the officers who I represent who put their lives on the line to save members of the community 7 days ago.

The resolution that Mr. Evans has offered doesn't mention the FBI once, not once, whose swift response was so integral. The only law enforcement agency that Mr. Evans mentions is ICE, the one agency that was not in Boulder that day.

We should have the decency to recognize the Boulder Police Department and the officers who I represent who put their lives on the line 7 days ago. It is the least we can do. We have a resolution that does that in a bipartisan way. Had the House majority, the Republicans, done what Republicans and Democrats in this Chamber have done since time immemorial, since I have served in this body, which is allow a Member to put his resolution to the floor for a vote, mistakes like this wouldn't happen.

Now, I know that an earlier version of this resolution that Mr. Evans introduced, which he tweeted about, talked about the fact that this was because Colorado was a sanctuary State. He has removed that language from this resolution, so I am heartened that he now concedes that is an inaccurate claim, that that language is not in this resolution.

However, in times like these, I would have hoped that my colleagues would be willing to come together to properly honor the victims and to condemn anti-Semitism, as I have said, as our resolution does.

It is not hard to do the right thing, Mr. Speaker. The question that Mr. Evans should answer is: Why? Why not join his two other Republican colleagues in Colorado and join the bipartisan resolution that thanks the Boulder Police Department, that thanks the FBI?

The purpose of these resolutions is to unite the Congress, not divide it. The purpose is to unite us in condemning violent attacks like these, to make clear that we stand with the Jewish community today and always and that we will be there for them in the weeks and months ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage you, read the resolution that Mr. Evans introduced. You will not find a single reference--not one--to the victims' families, the people I met with over the weekend, the people I marched with. There is nothing in Mr. Evans' resolution about standing with the Jewish people. Nothing. The word ``Jewish'' is mentioned once in this resolution. The terrorist's name is mentioned 13 times. There is no mention of this being a hate crime. There is nothing in the resolution about the anti-Semitism that is metastasizing across the country that Mr. Van Drew and I agree is a scourge.

So much of what Mr. Van Drew said is in the bipartisan resolution that I introduced. None of it is in the one that Mr. Evans introduced. There is not one mention, Mr. Speaker, in his resolution of Run for Their Lives, the organization that was targeted by this terrorist, the organization that has been pushing for the release of the hostages. They couldn't include one reference to the organization that was targeted? One?

I have served in this body, as I mentioned previously, Mr. Speaker, for 6\1/2\ years, and I have seen a lot of partisan debate unfold on this floor, but I think it is disgraceful to not give my community an opportunity to see our resolution considered on this floor.

I don't know how the Republican majority can force a vote on a resolution like this that gets so many of the basic facts wrong. I had hoped that my Republican colleagues would choose a different course, but they have yet to do so. There is still time.

The Speaker, the majority leader could put our bipartisan resolution on the floor for a vote. They could fix the defects in the resolution that Mr. Evans has introduced. I would implore them to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, very simply, can we amend Mr. Gabe Evans' resolution with the inaccurate information so that it reflects the accurate information about the number of victims? Can we just change the number from 14 to 15 and add the Boulder Police Department and the FBI? Then, the law enforcement agencies in my district, in particular, the Boulder Police Department, can be recognized by this House.

Mr. Speaker, there are three Republican Members in the Chamber: Mr. Van Drew, Mr. Crank, and Mr. Evans.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House proceed to a vote on H. Res. 476, the bipartisan resolution condemning the anti-Semitic attack in Boulder.

Mr. Speaker, I again simply ask Republican leadership to do the right thing and to bring H. Res. 476, the resolution I have introduced to condemn this attack in my community and in my district, to the floor for a vote. I think what the Republicans have decided to do is shameful. I couldn't be more disappointed.