Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in New Mexico, we care for our elders. It is a part of our culture. It is a part of who we are because our elders are the people who birthed us, who raised us, who cared for us. They are our grandparents and our parents, our aunties and our uncles, our veterans, the people who carry our histories, our cultures, our languages, and our traditions.

That is why it is so outrageous to me as a New Mexican that the House GOP would even consider, no less propose, to gut the critical programs that support our elders--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

In New Mexico, thousands of New Mexicans depend on Social Security-- our seniors, our elders, people living with disabilities. Over 450,000 New Mexicans depend on Medicare. That is over 20 percent of our State's population. New Mexicans depend on these programs to access lifesaving healthcare, to provide for their families, to put a roof over their head, to put food on the table.

Before Social Security, our elders were left with nothing. Before Medicaid and Medicare, our seniors and our low-income families could not access lifesaving healthcare.

In New Mexico, over 12 percent of our seniors are considered low- income and living below the poverty line. Thousands are struggling to maintain housing, to have basic services, to have a roof over their head, and to put food on their table.

Let me be clear: these programs save lives, and they have secured our elders for generations.

New Mexicans and all Americans should be able to live without fear that politicians here in Washington are going to use their lives for political gain, but here we are on the House floor. The GOP is playing politics with the lives of our seniors proposing to gut the fundamental programs that have supported them for generations.

We already know what happens when Federal programs are cut. Hospitals close, food insecurity rises, and critical programs disappear. That is why we are fighting as House Democrats and the Biden administration to protect our seniors, to protect these programs, and to ensure that they are there for generations to come.

That is why we are fighting to protect Social Security and our healthcare services. It is why we took on Big Pharma 2 years ago and won. It is why we passed the Inflation Reduction Act which has the largest single expansion of Medicaid since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. It is why we fought to lower prescription drug costs. It is why we capped insulin prices for every American, and it is why I fought in the State legislature to end State taxes on Social Security benefits in New Mexico.

I ask my colleagues: Is this how you care for your elders?

Is this how they taught you and raised you?

Are these the values that you were raised with?

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is not how we treat our elders in New Mexico because we know they depend on these programs and because we know about the lifesaving care and support that are necessary. We know that we cannot break the promises to those who cared for us and raised us.

Democrats understand, just like New Mexicans, that we must care for our seniors. That is why we are fighting back and working every day to make sure that we secure their well-being.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2925, and I will remind my friends across the aisle that mining is already happening on American lands and on our public lands.

However, this week, instead of working on meaningful legislation on behalf of the American people, our friends have opted instead to focus on a toxic free-for-all on our public lands and have opted to focus on legislation to rollback energy efficiency in home appliances.

In fact, they put forward a bill this week called Hands Off Our Home Appliances because they are so concerned about the American people that they want to regulate the efficiency of their toasters, their dishwashers, their refrigerators, and undermine the ability of our immigrant and our Hispano communities to have representation in the United States Census and, yes, to allow a free-for-all on our public lands.

Now, the American people are not asking us to do this. They are asking us to work on real problems: to work on the economy, inflation, helping families put food on the table and a roof over their head, protecting our reproductive rights and access to the ballot box, protecting our democracy, and dealing with the international crises that are happening on multiple continents.

My question is: Why the heck are we back on the House floor one week after we voted, on a bipartisan basis, to send this bad bill back to committee when it couldn't even be supported on the floor once?

Yet here we are, and our friends are trying to pass it once again, without revision, without changes because they think they found a few extra spare votes.

Let's talk about mining laws. The existing mining law of 1872 already gives our mining companies, including foreign-owned companies, the right to extract on our publicly-owned lands. They can also do so without having to pay even one cent in royalties. That includes companies that are controlled by governments of adversarial nations.

This is not only a shameful giveaway, but a huge national security vulnerability for the United States. This bill is not about clarifying a court decision, it is about giving more minerals away to those who would like unfettered access to our public lands. It would give opportunities for multinational corporations and adversarial nations to control even more of our resources without having to pay royalties to the U.S. Government, and to tie up claims on our public lands, whether or not there are minerals actually present there.

This would make it impossible to invalidate a mining claim, even if their real intent was other things, maybe to lock up development on other uses or buying them for other uses, including construction of transmission lines or other things that they would want to do.

This should be of deep concern to anyone who does not want adversarial nations or the companies that operate in them to control our public lands or minerals.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that it is either mine here or mine abroad and create a false equivalency, but it is not that simple. Some of the countries that are trying to expand their mining operations here in the United States, in fact, many of these multinational corporations are owned as subsidiaries under countries like China and other countries that we have adversarial relationships with.

They also engage in practices that we know cause human rights abuses, things like slave labor elsewhere in the world. While my friends across the aisle have tried to claim that this is really about mining on American lands, it is about granting unfettered access to these corporations.

In fact, these entities can ship the minerals that they take from American lands anywhere in the world and smelt those materials on the cheap, often relying on human rights abuses abroad to cut costs.

As I said, we already had this debate last week. The outcome was the entire House, right here on this floor, voted to send this toxic bill back to the Natural Resources Committee. In fact, that hasn't happened in years because this bill was so flawed and such a giveaway to foreign national owned companies and a threat to our national security that it was agreed that it wasn't ready for prime time and shouldn't be passed on the floor.

My colleague from New Mexico, Representative Teresa Leger Fernandez, offered to send the bill back to committee so that we could discuss amending the bill to ban these adversarial corporations operating in adversarial nations from mining and locking up our public lands.

I have to say, I was heartened. We had six Republicans join the Democrats to do just that. They said they were not going to vote for that bill. Well, it was about time. We need some bipartisan support to double down on protecting U.S. interests.

In fact, as I said, it has been decades since the House sent a bill back to committee like that, but as we see today, here we are. Republican leadership is trying once again to get the bill passed through brute force without addressing serious concerns, without sending it back to committee, without going through due process. Here we are, debating it and about to take a vote again.

These concerns aren't new. Last year, the bill was included in H.R. 1. At that time, one of my Republican colleagues offered a very similar amendment banning mining on our public lands by foreign companies with records of human rights violations. We are literally talking about companies that have child slave labor records. That amendment passed through committee on a bipartisan basis, yet they stripped it out and are trying to pass the bill without it here today on the floor.

I find it absolutely jaw-dropping and extremely telling that this was the amendment that was stripped out of the bill and that we are back here a week later after this bill failed on the floor.

I think it is very clear what is going on here. This is really about advancing the interests of corporations, interests on our public lands, and opening them up for exploitation.

I think it is important that we talk about how outrageous this is. We have to ensure that our public lands are not open to our adversaries, to these multinational corporations that will exploit our minerals for free. We need some bipartisan action to make sure that that cannot happen.

We should be back in committee discussing the vulnerabilities, discussing the national security implications, discussing American competitiveness, discussing energy policy, not trying to jam through a bill that will violate human rights and international trade.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Porter).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Madam Speaker, I would like to insert my side eye, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

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

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2925, which rolls out the welcome mat to our foreign adversaries to exploit our minerals and violate human rights as well as national security.

We must defeat this bill. We did last week. We debated the merits. It is bad for America. It is bad for national security. It is bad for our economy. It is bad for American mining. It is bad for the environment, and that is why we must send it back.

Madam Speaker, I support the gentlewoman's motion to recommit. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule under debate and to oppose H.R. 7109, the so-called Equal Representation Act.

This GOP bill is designed to fundamentally change who is included in the U.S. Census by undercounting, especially, our Hispano communities.

Now, let me be clear, first and foremost, this bill violates the U.S. Constitution and the 14th Amendment and is designed specifically to dilute who counts in America--quite literally who counts--because the bill would stop millions of Americans from filling out the Census.

Now, let's not forget that Donald Trump tried to do this in the 2020 Census, and the courts had to intervene.

Mr. Speaker, do you know what the Supreme Court found?

It found that the arguments in support of that effort were not only flawed and contrived but unconstitutional. That is right. This is not a partisan issue, as was said by the gentlewoman across the aisle. This is a constitutional issue. I brought a copy of the Constitution for my friends across the aisle to do some reading if they would like to actually see what it says in the 14th Amendment.

In fact, not only is this not a partisan issue, both Republican and Democratic former Census Bureau directors argued that the implementation of the citizenship question would lower response rates especially for our Hispanic communities. A Harvard study showed that 6 million Hispanic Americans would remain unaccounted for.

Undercounts would have devastating implications not only for our electoral system but the well-being of our families and communities because Federal aid grants and other funds in our States fundamentally are determined by the Census, things like maternal health grants, healthcare for our children, and mental health services for our veterans. An undercount would result in dramatic underfunding in areas with large immigrant and Hispanic populations, like my home State of New Mexico where more than 50 percent of the State identifies as Hispanic.

New Mexico is a place where we already struggle and where we have the worst social, economic, and health outcomes in the country due to a history of underfunding and underrepresentation, which is why instead of attacking representation, we should be focused on barriers to representation. That is why I filed an amendment in the Rules Committee to do just that.

Now, unfortunately, my friends across the aisle in the Rules Committee ruled it out of order because not only are they not interested in improving the Census, they are obsessed with determining who counts, with who is American, and who should have access to the American Dream, including at the ballot box.

I say that is not the America that my ancestors immigrated to, that is not the America that our Founding Fathers formed and fought for, and that is not the America our people are asking us to fight for.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to read this document here, the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Barron Lamont Jones of Albuquerque, New Mexico, a cherished son, brother, friend, and determined advocate.

For those who knew Barron, they know his story and the unimaginable adversity and indomitable spirit and sense of humor that lit up a room and the life that he built committed to advocacy and lifting up the voices of those who were formerly incarcerated in our community.

Barron's work advancing the fight for justice and equality in the criminal justice system while working at the ACLU was instrumental in the passage of the New Mexico Civil Rights Act and the New Mexico Voting Rights Act, among many other legislative victories.

I join Barron's family, and especially Heather, his partner of 32 years, his many friends, ACLU New Mexico, and so many others who are grieving and celebrating his life.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong but respectful opposition to H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, as it has been named here, the fifth bill this week brought to you by our friends across the aisle, the GOP, who, unfortunately, this week seem to stand for guns, oil, and pollution.

My home State of New Mexico has a wealth of minerals, many of which are critical to the clean energy transition. We also have a very long history of mining. Mining, of course, has created thousands of jobs, supported economies across the Southwest and the country, and, of course, is an important part of our economies and communities. It has also left a toxic legacy of pollution in its wake.

As we move to the clean energy future, we cannot repeat the shortsightedness and injustices of the past. The Mining Law of 1872-- let me say that again, 1872--a 150-year-old law that was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant after the Civil War, is still the law that governs mining on public lands to this day.

It gives mining companies rights over public lands that all other industries could only dream of. It makes mining the top priority use of our public lands and gives companies the right to develop any valid mining claim, no matter if that land is a sacred site, a beloved local recreation spot, the headwaters of a critical watershed, or a priority area for other kinds of development--not even if it would pollute a nearby community's water supply.

The Mining Act of 1872--not the bill before us but the one that is currently in effect--contains no environmental or community protections, does not require Tribal consultation, and does not charge companies a cent--not one--in royalties for the minerals that they extract on our public lands. Oil, gas, and coal don't even have that good of a deal.

Mr. Speaker, you heard that right. These mining companies, many of which are foreign-owned at this point, don't pay a cent back to the American people for the royalties of those publicly owned minerals. Not even Big Oil has a deal that good.

We cannot build a sustainable mining future for the United States on such a flawed foundation. This is a law from when the government was helping out prospectors, when it was chasing manifest destiny, and we didn't care if we destroyed everything in our wake.

Wake up. It is the year 2024. We don't have to manage our public lands using laws from the 1870s. Many of us agree that the mining law is badly in need of reform. Republicans, Democrats, Tribal leaders, local leaders, environmental advocates, even members of the mining industry themselves think that it is insufficient. What is astounding about the bill that is on the floor today, the so-called Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, is that it doesn't clarify the situation at all. In fact, it chooses to take us in the opposite direction, to before the 1870s. This bill removes the one frail safeguard that we have in that mining law of 1872. Under current law, a mining claim is valid only if it contains valuable minerals. Miners get the rights to the land only if there is something they can show to be mined there.

Under this bill, any American or, frankly, any American subsidiary of a foreign company, including those that are located in adversarial countries, can put four stakes in the ground on open public lands and pay less than $10 an acre per year to have exclusive rights to that land forever.

This bill would create a free-for-all on our public lands. It would enable our public lands to be given away, not just to the highest bidder but to the first person who got there.

Mining companies--or really anyone with any motive--could lock up any public lands to conduct whatever mining-related activities they want, from destroying sacred sites to building a power plant to encroaching on recreational areas.

What if the public wanted to use the land for recreation? What if it was an important site for cultural reasons? What if we wanted to put renewable energy on that land?

Too bad. Under this bill, the mining industry can use it for whatever it wants, including to dump toxic waste.

Now, some of my colleagues say that this is just codifying the existing practice, but let me tell you, that is not true.

As bad as the mining law is already, and we are talking about the one from the 1870s, it at least allows for the invalidating of claims when the claimant can't show or prove that the lands actually contain a valuable mineral, but this bill doesn't do that.

We have seen that in Ranking Member Grijalva's backyard where the proposed Rosemont mine wanted to dump toxic waste on public land. It wasn't allowed because the mine's land claim was invalid.

Now, here is the thing: When the company lost its case in court, it immediately--and when I say immediately, I mean the same day. That company announced that it found an alternative waste site on private lands. Wow.

Clearly, there was not an imminent need. The company simply would have preferred to put its dumpsite on land that was basically for free from the American people.

Let's be honest about what this bill is. It is essentially stripping away the only safeguards we have in a deeply flawed, very old mining law to give away more giveaways to corporate polluters.

On behalf of Ranking Member Grijalva, whom our prayers and our thoughts are with today, I include in the Record a letter from the Pima County Board of Supervisors in support of responsible mining and in opposition to this bill.

County Administrator's Office,

Pima County Governmental Center,

Tucson, AZ, May 23, 2023.

Hon. Congressman Raul Grijalva,

House of Representatives,

Tucson, AZ.

Dear Congressman Grijalva: On May 16, 2023, the Pima County

Board of Supervisors approved the attached Resolution 2023-12

opposing the Permitting for Mining Needs Act (H.R. 209) and

the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act (S. 1281), and supporting

meaningful mining reform. Since then, we became aware of H.R.

2925, which is identical to S. 1281. All three of these bills

contain similar language intended to legislatively reverse

decisions by the U.S. District Court for Arizona and the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which halted the construction

of the proposed Rosemont mine on the eastern slopes of the

Santa Rita Mountains, within the Coronado National Forest.

Located south of Tucson, within Pima County, this mountain

range provides disproportionally high amounts of water for

runoff and ground water recharge for the greater Tucson

basin, is recognized worldwide for its biodiversity, is

culturally important to a number of tribes, and serves as a

respite for Southern Arizonans. The ruling confirmed that the

Forest Service should have required proof that the mining

company's unpatented mining claims were valid before

permitting the mining company to dump waste rock and tailings

on public land.

All three bills contain language that would allow those

with mining claims to ``use, occupy and conduct operations on

public land, with or without the discovery of a valuable

mineral deposit.'' In addition, those with claims could carry

out mining activities on other federal lands absent of

claims. This legislation prioritizes mining over other

equally important interests and is likely to result in

significant unintended consequences. This legislation would

remove the ability of federal land management agencies to

balance the need for other equally important uses of public

land. Furthermore, this legislation is not needed. The mining

industry still has the ability to gain access to public land

via land exchanges, special use permits, and other permitted

means. However, because these actions are discretionary, they

allow for an informed and balanced approach to managing a

multitude of uses across public lands.

This legislation also has a number of unintended

consequences that are alarming for the State of Arizona and

Pima County. Not only would these bills increase the ability

for nuisance claims on Federal land that could block other

necessary federal projects and increase destructive

speculation without mineral extraction, our understanding is

that they could also impact split estate lands. Split estate

lands are lands where the surface is owned separately from

the subsurface mineral rights. In Arizona, this is a common

occurrence. For instance, the surface can be owned privately,

by a local government like Pima County, or managed in trust

by the Arizona State Land Department; whereas the subsurface

mineral rights are publically owned and managed by the

Federal Government. Mining companies or others can make claim

to these subsurface minerals, the exploration and development

of which can significantly impair the rights of the surface

owner to use the surface for its intended purposes.

As the Bureau of Land Management explains on their website:

``When the surface rights to a piece of land and the

subsurface rights (such as the rights to develop minerals)

are owned by different parties, the mineral rights often take

precedence over other rights.''

In addition, the legislation essentially makes mill site

claims moot, which were one way that mines could gain access

to federal land for waste and tailings in areas that

specifically did not have mineral value. Congressional or

administrative mineral withdrawals would also be

substantially impacted, or complicated. Valid unpatented

mining claims are protected or excluded from withdrawals, but

this legislation makes moot the concept of ``validity.''

What is needed is comprehensive and meaningful mining

reform, not these shortsighted changes that provide the

mining industry with exclusive rights to public land.

Please know that Pima County is not anti-mining. The copper

mines in Pima County have contributed significantly to

national and international copper supplies. Pima County has a

good relationship with our two largest copper producers,

Freeport-McMoRan and ASARCO, and in particular has taken

actions to support expansion of existing mining operations in

the area southwest of Tucson. This area is less biologically

diverse and more suitable for development, according to the

County's comprehensive Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 10 permit, both of

which were developed based on the best available science and

informed by extensive public input. This area also has

significant copper reserves for future development. Pima

County has also worked cooperatively with two copper mining

companies that proposed reopening an underground mine on Mt.

Lemmon, north of Tucson, both of which voluntary offered to

comply with the County's Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and

related conservation guidelines.

In summary, Pima County strongly opposes S. 1281, H.R. 2925

and H.R. 209 and the damaging intended and unintended

consequences to the public health, safety and welfare of our

community. In addition, we continue to seek comprehensive

mining reform akin to the comprehensive, science-based and

community informed conservation planning undertaken by our

local community in partnership with Federal agencies.

Sincerely,

Jan Lesher,

Pima County Administrator.

Attachment:

Resolution of the Pima County Board of Supervisors Opposing the Permitting for Mining Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act,

and Supporting Meaningful Mining Reform

Whereas, Pima County and the Pima County Board of

Supervisors have long advocated for meaningful reform of the

1872 Mining Law, acknowledging that mining is necessary and

should occur in places and with methods that protect the

health, safety, and welfare of our County's residents; and

Whereas, on January 2, 2023, the ``Permitting for Mining

Needs Act of 2023'' was introduced as H.R. 209 in the United

States House of Representatives; and

Whereas, on April 25, 2023, the ``Mining Regulatory Clarity

Act'' was introduced as S. 1281 in the United States Senate;

and

Whereas, both Acts do not provide meaningful mining reform

and instead would make it easier for mining companies to gain

access to federal lands at the expense of all other uses such

as recreation, tourism, conservation, watershed protection,

climate mitigation, traditional uses by Tribal Nations,

cultural and historic preservation, healthy forest

management, and other uses that contribute significantly to

the local, state, and national economies; and

Whereas, both Acts would allow mining companies to ``. . .

use, occupy, and conduct operations on public land, with or

without the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit.'' This

includes dumping waste and tailings on federal land without

the need to prove valid mining claims, as well as on federal

land absent of claims; and

Whereas, both Acts would authorize actions where mining

companies secure rights on our federal public lands through

unpatented mining claims without proving that the claims are

valid, actions that have occurred for too many years; and

Whereas, both Acts are intended to legislatively reverse

recent decisions by the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona (``District Court'') in 2019 and the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (``Ninth Circuit'') in 2022

halting the construction of the proposed Rosemont Mine on the

eastern slopes of the Santa Rita Mountains, located in Pima

County, and the dumping of waste rock and tailings on 2,500

acres of unpatented mining claims in the National Forest; and

Whereas, the District Court's ruling, which the Ninth

Circuit later affirmed, confirmed a long-standing concern,

raised by Pima County since the beginning of the Rosemont

Mine federal review process in 2006, that Federal agencies

such as the U.S. Forest Service failed to consider whether

Rosemont held valid unpatented mining claims; and

Whereas, the District Court's ruling confirmed that the

Forest Service needs to consider reasonable alternatives when

reviewing mining proposals, providing the opportunity for a

more balanced approach to public lands management.

Now Therefore Be It Resolved That:

1. The Pima County Board of Supervisors opposes the

Permitting for Mining Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory

Clarity Act, as well as any similar legislation that attempts

to allow mining projects on public lands in areas without

mining claims and in areas with unproven mining claims, and

supports meaningful mining reform;

2. The Pima County Board of Supervisors calls on Arizona's

Congressional delegation to oppose the Permitting for Mining

Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act;

3. The Pima County Board of Supervisors directs the County

Administrator and the County's Federal lobbyists to take the

necessary measures to communicate Pima County's opposition to

the Permitting for Mining Needs Act and the Mining Regulatory

Clarity Act;

4. The Pima County Board of Supervisors directs that

communications to our Congressional delegation emphasize Pima

County's support for meaningful mining reform and our record

of supporting mining projects in Pima County that adhere to

local health, safety, and conservation guidelines;

5. The Pima County Board of Supervisors opposes piece-meal

legislation that does not address the issue of mining reform

comprehensively; and

6. The Pima County Board of Supervisors affirms support for

the rulings by the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals, which is consistent with past resolutions and

actions of the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just the mining industry that gets

to have free rein on these lands from other uses.

One of the things that is important to understand about the language in this bill is that any actor with a few dollars to spare could lock up these public lands and just sit on them until somebody buys them out.

That means anyone who wants to use the land, and that could be for recreation, renewable energy, transmission, or even for another mining claim, would be blocked out so long as somebody was sitting on that claim. Again, this bill takes away the only requirement to show an interest in actually mining the land and just rewards the first person to make a claim.

This bill is not only a giveaway to the mining industry; it is literally a giveaway of our public lands. It is completely mystifying because this isn't even what the American people want.

Our friends across the aisle continue to push for an agenda that the American people haven't even asked for. They voted to cut veterans' benefits, to raise healthcare costs, and to enrich and provide these corporate giveaways, just like in this bill. Where is this coming from? I ask my friends: Where is this coming from?

I urge my colleagues to vote against this toxic polluter giveaway, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I deeply appreciate my friends across the aisle for their clarification of their intent, but unfortunately, we can't go forward based on intent. We actually have to go forward based on the bill that they introduced and are asking us to vote on.

I am going to do a little reading from your bill to help clarify for the American people what this bill actually says.

First of all, it addresses security of tenure. For folks that aren't familiar with this kind of jargon, that means ownership, who gets to hold the rights to this land.

Then it defines the kinds of operations that would be tied to this tenure. So let me read them to you. This is what it says in the bill: ``Prospecting, exploration, discovery and assessment, development, extraction, or processing.'' It also goes on to clarify that you can do any activity that is found to be reasonably incident to an activity described in another clause of this bill.

It goes on to say right here in the bill, words on the page, and this is what we were asked to vote on: The ``Rights to Use, Occupation and Operations''--which we have already laid out is basically anything you want to do on the land--``A claimant shall have the right to use and occupy to conduct operations on public land, with or without the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. . . . `'

Yo. This is a giveaway of our public lands. You can say whatever you want on the floor, but the bill that we are voting on literally says: Whatever you want to do on that land, as long as you pay the fee of $10, you show up, and you

make the claim, it is yours. This is a giveaway of public lands. It guts the only safeguard from our Mining Law of 1872.

I want to just make that clarification, and in a moment, we will get more into Rosemont, but I do want to take the opportunity to yield to my dear friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

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

I want to take on some of these arguments to make sure that folks understand the broader context in which American mining and manufacturing occurs.

First of all, we just heard some claims that these mining companies can't figure out how to get their mines permitted. Well, I hate to inform my colleagues across the aisle, but most of our companies these days are multibillion-dollar, multinational companies that spend literally millions of dollars a year to lobby Federal, State, and local entities and to employ folks to navigate these processes. These are not entities that are struggling to figure out processes.

Secondly, the United States has not disallowed mining. There are many mines in operation. If my friends across the aisle would like to visit New Mexico, I can take you to one of the largest copper mines in North America. There is lots of mining happening in the United States.

It is true that up until the 1990s, we were a net exporter of critical minerals here in the United States. What caused American production to tank was not laws and regulations; it was global commodity prices, just like oil and gas. What happens when there is international competition is that local entities cannot compete because of competitiveness on the global commodities market.

We are all for American competition. We are all for Made in America. That is why our President, of course, has led, and the Democratic Congress passed, three major bills for a renaissance of American manufacturing and our economy: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the American Chips and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, which are making the largest single investment in reshoring American jobs in modern history. That is the reality of what is happening on the ground.

I want to take the opportunity to yield to my dear friend and my sister from New Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Ledger Fernandez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that we do have mining in our backyards. As the gentlewoman from New Mexico and I both noted, we have multiple mines in New Mexico. What we don't want are mines poisoning our watersheds and destroying sacred sites irrevocably. What we fear and what we know, based on the language that is in the bill that we will be voting on and that we are debating today, is that that would be the outcome of what they are trying to pass.

I also want to clarify for the record that we actually had Secretary Deb Haaland this morning in front of our committee. She stated this morning that the Biden administration has approved 40 new mines or mining modification permits just since President Biden took office, including 5 critical minerals mines, so the assertion that we heard this afternoon that there has been no new mining is just false.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to address the specific example that was just brought forward about a mining exclusion in the Grand Canyon because I believe that the exclusion that we are talking about was to mine uranium in the Grand Canyon.

Now, I ask the American people: Is that what you would like to see?

In New Mexico, we know the legacy of uranium mining. Our communities are dying from it, the mining communities whose water has been poisoned for generations and those who have been impacted by the materials that were built from that uranium.

That is why Congresswoman Leger Fernandez has been leading an effort that is bipartisan and bicameral with our colleagues from New Mexico to get a RECA amendment passed in this Chamber so that we can help address those communities.

That is why we should not be mining uranium in the Grand Canyon.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, proponents of H.R. 2925 would like to argue that this bill is a surgical fix to a problem created by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision on the Rosemont Copper Mine. If this is surgery, then like the mining law of 1872, it is surgery with an ax, not a scalpel. If that evokes an image for you of our post-Civil War surgical maneuvers, then that is what this bill

does because it takes away guardrails to protect our communities.

Let's clarify. In 2022, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the proposed Rosemont mine in southern Arizona could not use invalid mining claims to permanently bury Colorado's thousands of acres of national forests in mining waste, including sites that were sacred to multiple Tribes. The court ruled that it was not a valid mining claim to do this.

The requirement that mining claims must contain valuable minerals for the claim to be valid is a core tenet of the mining law. It is the one, as we have said, fragile guardrail that we have in this antiquated law.

For over 150 years, the mining law of 1872 has given mining precedence over all other uses and values of our public lands. This imbalance of power has left a toxic trail of pollution, destruction, and desecration of sacred sites, and it continues to impact our communities today.

We urgently need to reform the mining law. Instead, the bill that is being put forward here today would make things worse and take us back. It is such a breathtaking giveaway of our public lands that former Department of the Interior Solicitor John Leshy said that it should be called the mining charity act because of the giveaways for these mining companies rather than the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act.

This bill allows anyone to put a stake in the ground in any open public land and pay less than $10 a year to make a claim to those rights forever. Our public land managers have long said that once there is a mining claim in place, they cannot say no to anything mining related on that land.

If this bill becomes law, then the mining industry would be free to pick and choose which of our public lands to lock away and then permanently bury, destroy watersheds, or pollute our communities, to do whatever it wants on those lands that it has tied up. The unintended consequences of this bill go far beyond mining and could hurt our communities irrevocably.

I want to reiterate that this bill empowers anyone with a few dollars, including foreign companies in adversarial nations, to blanket our public lands in untouchable mining claims and block other uses of this land. This bill will create chaos, not clarity, on our public lands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to also respectfully oppose H.R. 3397, or what my colleagues across the aisle are calling the WEST Act.

I, too, have great respect for the chair and for the sponsor of this bill, and especially for the farmers, ranchers, and land stewards who were just referenced, but I vehemently disagree with the premise of what this bill and the underlying rule do and how it was characterized.

This bill would overturn a long-overdue administrative action to protect our public lands, wildlife, and cultural sites and access to the outdoors, with the intent of tipping the scales back to a time when extractive industries--oil and gas companies, multinational mining corporations, and developers--had the upper hand in dictating the uses of our public lands.

Like so many efforts by the GOP this Congress to chip away at our rights, unfortunately, this bill seeks to undermine and strip away the Bureau of Land Management's recently released final public lands rule, which establishes a framework to protect our Nation's public lands and ensure healthy ecosystems, waters, and wildlife, and a historic effort to protect the special places and cultural sites that are so important to our communities, their identities, and who they are, especially for our Tribal communities.

Unlike the disinformation that has been offered up here today, this rule will not stop other productive uses on public lands but will ensure that they are informed by the best-available science, protect our ecosystems, and provide for climate resilience, and it will ensure that we are not developing on sensitive and sacred sites.

In fact, in New Mexico, when we implemented a similar rule on our State lands, not only did it not end resource development but the State saw historic revenues from these activities on State lands while we managed to protect the special places that make us who we are.

I say to my friends out there across the West: Don't buy into the political hype and disinformation. This actually is about protecting our public lands and is what our public lands management is supposed to look like. That is why it was supported by more than 90 percent of the comments that were submitted. The vast majority of Americans, in fact, over 80 percent across the political spectrum, support protecting public lands.

That is why I strongly stand with the President, Secretary Haaland, and the good people of BLM, who are working every day to preserve our lands, waters, and cultural sites.

Under the same rubric of protecting our public lands and waters, I also stand to oppose H.R. 3195, which would similarly withdraw a Department of the Interior effort to protect 225,000 acres in the Boundary Waters from mineral leasing. This bill would rescind DOI's public land order and would put America's most visited wilderness at risk of sulfide or copper mining by a large multinational corporation based out of South America.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of over a million dollars that this corporation has spent lobbying the U.S. Government, the people have spoken and submitted over 675,000 public comments to protect the Boundary Waters.

That is why I support the protection of this pristine, interconnected waterway, forest ecosystems, and the homelands of the Anishinaabe people who have lived here since time immemorial.

One mining accident could irrevocably destroy these lands and waters forever. New Mexico knows this history all too well, which is why I strongly oppose H.R. 3195 and support the administration's actions in protecting Boundary Waters.

Mr. Speaker, this week we are closing out Black Maternal Health Week, focused on bringing attention, awareness, and, most importantly, action to improving maternal health for Black mothers.

Across the United States, Black mothers are three times more likely to die from pregnancy, making them the most at risk for maternal mortality of any group. In New Mexico, our Black babies have the highest ratio of infant mortality and premature births.

In addition, Black women and families are more likely to experience economic instability, lack of access, racism, and implicit bias within the system.

Black maternal health is a crisis that demands action. That is why I am proud to cosponsor Representative Lauren Underwood's Black Maternal Momnibus Act to help address the leading causes because access to care is a right, not a privilege, and we cannot leave Black women alone in this fight.

Our Black mothers are strong and resilient, and we must work every day to ensure that they have the respect, support, and care they need.

Mr. Speaker, I start by thanking the gentlewoman from New Mexico, my sister from the north, for yielding me the time, and say that I rise today to both celebrate and urge passage of the EXPLORE Act which we are here debating today on the House floor.

This bipartisan bill will not only improve access and opportunities for recreation across our public lands and waters across New Mexico and the United States, it will help to protect and promote opportunities for all people to access our lands and waters.

I am especially proud that this package includes my Promoting Accessibility on Federal Lands Act, which is a bill I was deeply proud to have joined forces across the aisle with Representative Ciscomani from Tucson to make the great outdoors accessible to everyone regardless of physical limitations.

This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Agriculture through all of the parks and public lands and waters that they manage to conduct a comprehensive assessment of accessibility options for our trails, our campsites, and our recreational facilities so that every single person can enjoy the great outdoors.

Almost half of New Mexico's lands are publicly managed. I ran for Congress as a native New Mexican largely because of my passion and love for protecting the precious lands and waters that make us who we are and to ensure

that every single New Mexican has access to the great outdoors-- especially our veterans, which is part of why this bill is so important.

In New Mexico, we have one of the largest proportions of veterans and Active-Duty military in the United States--nearly 140,000 veterans in New Mexico alone.

As Ms. Leger Fernandez, my sister from the north said, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we are maintaining access and ensuring that all of our veterans, our elders, people living with disabilities, and everyone in our communities can access the great outdoors. It is a place of restorative, resilient opportunity for everyone to be whole and to reconnect.

That is why I am proud to have had Vet Voice Foundation testify in support of this legislation who share a strong connection with the outdoors and believe that protecting our national public lands is not only an opportunity for recreation but truly a patriotic duty.

Mr. Speaker, America's public lands are for everyone regardless of culture, age, gender, or differing abilities, and this legislation will help to address disparities in accessibility and take critical steps to ensure that our lands and waters are accessible to everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in commemoration of the 75th Anniversary of New Mexico Press Women. 75 years ago, New Mexico Press Women was founded by women committed to expanding opportunities in journalism for women. New Mexico Press Women is New Mexico's oldest, largest, and most diverse women's press organization.

New Mexico Press Women will celebrate its 75th Anniversary Conference in just a few days. Countless members--both men and women--have left their marks on the communications professions. New Mexico Press Women will honor and profile courageous communicators at its 75th Anniversary Conference.

New Mexico Press Women encourages excellence through its professional communications contest and through its annual Zia Award, which honors outstanding woman authors who personally or whose book has a connection to New Mexico. New Mexico Press Women has provided encouragement and real assistance to college students entering communications professions by awarding thousands of dollars in scholarship funds over the years.

Through monthly luncheons, statewide conferences, and legislative workshops, New Mexico Press Women and its geographic chapters have brought together major players in New Mexico's history. New Mexico Press Women's gatherings have served as a forum for informing communicators and the public about the implications of current events.

New Mexico Press Women's 75th anniversary is a significant milestone, and I am proud to extend my congratulations to all of its members during the 75th Anniversary Conference.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues one simple question: Do you honestly believe that you have any right to tell me or any woman in America what I can do with my own body?

Do you have any right to tell me when, if, or how, I decide to have a family; or the thousands of women across Alabama who had their rights stripped away this week to become a mother; the thousands across this country who are facing the devastating experience of having a miscarriage and not being able to get care; and the millions of women, including myself, who

woke up 2 years ago to the news that the Supreme Court had stripped away our rights.

Yet, you stand here on the House floor denying the rights of women to IVF and reproductive care and telling your donors that you will enact a 100 percent abortion ban this November.

It is our body, it is our right, and I will not yield.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Veronica Krupnick of Santa Fe, New Mexico, who was selected by Casey Excellence for Children Awards to receive the 2024 Alumni Award. Veronica is the first Indigenous person to have been selected for this great honor. She is an enrolled member of the Hopi Tribe of Arizona and has Jemez Pueblo and Navajo Nation heritage.

Veronica is a mentor, a leader, and an unwavering advocate for children and youth in New Mexico's child welfare system. Drawing upon her own experience in the foster care system, Veronica's advocacy and mentorship centers around the importance of connecting children and youth in the child welfare system to their cultural identities, communities, and traditions. Last year, she played a crucial role in upholding the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which was under threat by a case heard before the Supreme Court. The ICWA mandates that when the government seeks foster and adoption placement for a child who is a member of or eligible for membership in an Indian Tribe, it must give preference to those with kin or Tribal relationships to the child. In the decades since it was enacted, the ICWA has been labeled the gold standard of child welfare policy. This law consistently establishes best practices to protect Indigenous children and preserve the integrity of Indigenous cultures and identities.

Veronica currently serves as the Leadership Analyst for the Majority Leader in the New Mexico House of Representatives. In addition, she is the Vice President of the Board of Directors of Court-Appointed Special Advocates for Children (CASA), First Judicial District, a senior member of the National Foster Youth and Alumni Policy Council, a member of the National Child Welfare and Racial Equity (CWARE) Collaborative, and the Co-Chair of the Training Committee for the New Mexico Partners.

Veronica works tirelessly to give a voice to children and youth in Tribal families, and in New Mexico as a whole, that are impacted by the child welfare system. I would like to thank Veronica for working every day as a champion to instill hope in our future generations.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to wish everybody who is celebrating in New Mexico and across the world a very happy Lunar New Year.

This Saturday, we will begin the Year of the Dragon, a symbol of strength, wisdom, and success.

Across New Mexico and the world, many will be celebrating with family and community traditions and joyful feasts. This holiday is a chance to reset and reconnect and is part of our history and culture as New Mexicans and the beautiful multicultural fabric that makes New Mexico who we are.

I hope all who are celebrating have a wonderful Lunar New Year full of celebrations and, of course, lots of delicious food. I wish everyone a happy, healthy, and prosperous Year of the Dragon.

Mr. Speaker, we just voted here in the House to bring back the child tax credit, one of the most important and effective efforts to help working families and to lift children out of poverty in generations.

These payments will provide a crucial lifeline to families struggling to make ends meet. The previous child tax credit helped almost 75,000 families across my district alone. Here are some of the stories that we heard.

One said: It was the only thing keeping my family afloat while my partner was able to pursue his dream of starting a business.

Another said: As working parents, we struggled between childcare costs and paying a mortgage. The child tax credit was the only thing keeping us afloat.

Another said: It was the thing that helped pay down my student loans.

These are just a few of the many stories of how the child tax credit gave New Mexico families a lifeline. Here we are this week fighting to get it passed. I will not stop until we make the permanent child tax credit a reality and get it across the finish line.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the GOP's two anti-choice bills which are going to be on the House floor this week.

These two bills, like so much of the House GOP's legislation, claim to support women and our communities while doing the exact opposite through a thinly veiled attempt to further restrict and stigmatize abortion as they meanwhile work to gut access to reproductive care all across this country.

These policies are so unpopular that they are now hiding them in education bills like the ones that they are bringing to the floor this week, as nearly three dozen of our House Republican colleagues are now trying to walk back their support for national abortion bans.

Be that as it may, the American people are not fooled. Do not be fooled by these bills. Our reproductive rights are under attack, and these two bills are part of that attempt to gut the rights of women.

That is why I will not only be voting ``no'' but hell no to these bills.