Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1438) to redesignate the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in the State of Missouri as the ``Gateway Arch National Park''.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, towering 630 feet above the banks of the Mississippi River, Gateway Arch has, for 50 years, commemorated both Thomas Jefferson's vision of expansion and America's enduring spirit of discovery.

Clad entirely in stainless steel, the Gateway Arch is the tallest man-made monument in the country and uniquely features two custom trams on either side, which shuttle thousands of guests a year to a viewing deck at the apex.

The Gateway Arch National Park Designation Act would redesignate the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis, Missouri, as the Gateway Arch National Park. The park would include not only the Gateway Arch, but a museum and the old St. Louis courthouse, the site of the Dred Scott trial.

People from across the country have been visiting the monument and surrounding buildings since 1965, when the memorial was established.

Passing this bill today would make the Gateway Arch National Park America's 60th National Park and allow the National Park Service to ensure that the site would be ready for a planned Fourth of July celebration this very year.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this Gateway National Park has support from everybody. It is that gateway to the West that we are so eulogizing. I ask all Members to vote for this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2504) to ensure fair treatment in licensing requirements for the export of certain echinoderms.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2504, introduced by my Maine colleagues, Chellie Pingree and Bruce Poliquin, is a bipartisan effort to right a bipartisan wrong. In regulations created by an outgoing George W. Bush administration and carried on by administrations since, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has imposed unnecessary fees and duplicative and costly inspection requirements on what was once a growing industry that aims to export niche seafood to overseas markets.

Even the National Marine Fisheries Service, a bastion of Federal regulatory growth, disagrees with its sister agency on this matter. The stories of spoiled food shipments, loss of jobs, and bureaucratic indifference embody the arrogance of an agency gone wild. This bill preserves and promotes jobs as a counter.

I will include in the Record an exchange of letters with Chairman Royce of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who also received a referral of this bill. I thank him for his cooperation in allowing this bill to go forward today.

Again, I commend our two Maine colleagues for working on a bipartisan basis to address this matter. I urge adoption of this commonsense measure, and I reserve the balance of my time.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC, January 8, 2018.

Hon. Edward R. Royce,

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: H.R. 2504, To ensure fair treatment in

licensing requirements for the export of certain echinoderms,

was introduced on May 17, 2017. The bill was referred

primarily to the Committee on Natural Resources, with an

additional referral to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

I thank you for allowing the Committee on Foreign Affairs

to be discharged from further consideration of the bill so

that it may be scheduled by the Majority Leader. This

discharge in no way affects your jurisdiction over the

subject matter of the bill, and it will not serve as

precedent for future referrals. In addition, should a

conference on the bill be necessary, I would support having

the Committee on Foreign Affairs represented on the

conference committee. Finally, to memorialize our

understanding, I would be pleased to include your letter and

this response in the Congressional Record when the bill is

considered by the House.

Thank you for your response and cooperation. I look forward

to further opportunities to work with you this Congress.

Sincerely,

Rob Bishop,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

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

I, too, want to compliment the two Representatives from Maine. They gave us a hands-on and a palate-trying type of opportunity in our hearing. It doesn't get better than that, and I want to compliment them for both.

I ask all of my colleagues to vote for the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express serious concern and opposition to the unilateral decision by the Chinese Civil Aviation Authority to activate four air routes in the Taiwan-Strait. The decision was made without any consultation with the government of Taiwan, which is a clear violation of international law according to the International Civil Aviation Organization. This action by China could pose a grave threat to the cross-strait status quo between China and Taiwan. The cross-strait status quo has been essential in preventing a military crisis between the two countries that could be a threat to peace and security in East Asia.

All relevant parties, including the Taiwanese Government, support the continuation of the cross-strait status quo. The Chinese Government must come to the negotiating table with Taiwan in order to return to the status quo. I

am pleased that the State Department has come out strongly against this unlawful action by the Chinese Government and I encourage them to use their influence to bring China back to the negotiating table. The relationship between China and Taiwan should be based on dignity and respect, not one side trying to dominate the other.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the developments in Iran. For years many in the United States and elsewhere, have been advocating for changes in Iranian policy, including the adoption and implementation of human rights with respect to dissidents, religious minorities, protesters and opponents. The recent protests, and the loss of life in response to the protests, give us the opportunity to reflect that now is the time to reaffirm freedom of expression. Now is the time to reaffirm restraint and protect the lives of protestors.

I am encouraged that the High Level Political Dialogue between the European Union and Iran in Brussels last year included a discussion on protecting and enhancing human rights. Nor should it go unnoticed that even the Iranian Supreme Leader noted that the leading opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), has popular support within Iran. It follows that the MEK should be treated as a legitimate opposition party with grass roots appeal. The MEK has pointed out the excesses of the current government and its efforts at accountability ring true with many Iranians. It is my hope that Iran can embrace a more responsible world view, a more humane approach to its own people, and allow dissidents and protestors the freedom to air their grievances.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great satisfaction and pride that I report the outcome of the first formally authorized national Convention of State Legislatures to convene in 156 years. The ``Arizona Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) Planning Convention'' was held September 12-15, 2017 in the chamber of the Arizona House of Representatives. The purpose of the convention was to discuss and plan for an eventual Article V--convention of states to propose a federal balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

The convention was formally called by the Arizona legislature's passage of HCR2022 sponsored by the Arizona Speaker of the House, J.D. Mesnard, on March 16, 2017. Pursuant to that resolution, the purpose of the convention was to create a proposed set of rules for adoption by and to govern a future single subject Article V convention to propose a BBA. Additionally, delegates were instructed to address the logistics involved in preparing for and participating in an upcoming Article V BBA convention. This report is intended to inform the work of the Arizona BBA Planning Convention and highlight areas of importance.

The Arizona BBA Planning Convention has created a roadmap for future conventions to draw upon when they convene, and has provided a sense of security to those who questioned the ability of State delegates to hold a convention that would address solely its single purpose and nothing more. It was an important endeavor that deserves proper cataloguing in the appropriate annals to include the Congressional Record, the Library of Congress, the National Archives, State Libraries, and the participating State Legislatures' records. I submit this congressional report and ask that you consider the work of the delegates as legitimate and pertinent.

In keeping with the traditions of past national conventions, the Arizona BBA Planning Convention has encouraged delegations to create a report of the convention to their state. Georgia, Michigan and Minnesota, among others, are states whose delegates have provided a comprehensive assessment. We encourage them to submit their work to the above archives as well, and hope to preserve this work and encourage more national conventions on a variety of topics in the future.

Therefore, I include in the Record a report to Congress in regard to Arizona balanced budget amendment:

It is with great confidence that I believe each member of

Congress possesses the same depth of gratitude for the work

of our

Founding Fathers as those of us who attended this first fully

authorized convention of states since the Civil War. We are

all tasked with the grand responsibility to govern the

people. In doing so, we reach with one hand into the future

to focus on protecting the prosperity of our children's

children, and with our other hand we reach to the past to

learn and explore what happened so that we are better able to

protect and preserve the vision of those who built this great

Republic.

One such visionary was Col. George Mason, who insisted that

the States should also be able to propose amendments to the

Constitution. He imagined that there would come a time when

the Legislatures would be called upon to take appropriate

action, and that there ought to be a second mechanism to

update our founding document should the need arise. This

method has recently gained interest and popularity across the

country, and for several years State Legislators have been

examining the viability of such an exercise.

It can be legitimately argued that the time George Mason

envisioned is before us. The momentum is increasing and the

reality of an Article V Convention of States is becoming ever

apparent. Greater Legislators than I were aware of the need

to prepare the way in advance, and it has been an honor to

join them in that effort. We hope to work together with

Congress to restore fiscal accountability through the

requirement of a balanced budget, and preparing a proposed

set of rules for the Balanced Budget Amendment Convention is

our gift to future delegates to make that process easier.

We present this report to you in hopes that you will

consider the work that has been accomplished thus far. The

Phoenix Correspondence Commission was created as an outgrowth

of this convention, and as a founding member of that

Commission, I look forward to beginning the conversation

needed to prepare for the much-anticipated Article V

Convention of States.

``We face the most predictable economic crisis in

history.'' That was the conclusion of Erskine Bowles, co-

chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and

Reform (Simpson-Bowles Commission), to the U.S. Senate Budget

Committee on March 8, 2011. At the time of this ominous

warning to the nation in 2011, the national debt had just

eclipsed $14 trillion. It took 206 years for our nation to

amass $1 trillion in debt; it has increased by over $6

trillion in the just the last seven years. Had Congress acted

on the commission's proposal, it would have reduced the

national debt by $4 trillion over a decade and put Social

Security solidly on the road to solvency. Congress ignored

this unequivocal national wake up call. ``The fiscal path we

are on today is simply not sustainable,'' Bowles said. ``This

debt and these deficits that we are incurring on an annual

basis are like a cancer and they are going to truly destroy

this country from within unless we have the common sense to

do something about it.'' States are exercising the common

sense to do something about it. Acting under Article V of the

U.S. Constitution, 28 of the required 34 States have now

called for a convention of states to propose a balanced

budget amendment to the Constitution in order to avert this

``most predictable economic crisis in history.'' In September

of 2016, at the call of the Arizona Legislature, 19 States

convened in their official capacity to propose rules for

conducting an Article V balanced budget convention of states.

We call upon Congress, the States, and people of good faith

everywhere to extend their utmost efforts to support this

constitutional remedy for curing the national fiscal

``cancer'' before the exponentially increasing national debt

``destroy[s] this nation from within.''

The Phoenix convention was instructive in preparing for a

future Article V BBA convention. We learned much about the

process of communicating with the state legislatures and the

need to continue to educate them on the logistics of a

convention. We were encouraged from the manner in which the

delegates conducted themselves that any future convention,

like Phoenix, will stick to its task and never ``run away''

as Article V naysayers assert. The nature of delegate

appointment process and the rules, in addition to numerous

other safeguards, simply won't allow for it.

As a result of the Arizona convention, including the

establishment of the Phoenix Correspondence Commission, the

states as a group are positioned to assist Congress in

counting the number of live Article V BBA applications in

place, in assisting with identifying a time and location for

a future BBA convention to be held, in addressing any legal

issues which may arise concerning the calling of such a

convention, in preparing language for an appropriate

resolution to be passed by Congress fulfilling its mandatory

obligation to call the convention when the threshold number

of states have applied and to otherwise assist Congress in

performing its duties pursuant to Article V of the United

States Constitution.

At present, twenty-eight (28) states have passed (and not

rescinded) Article V applications calling for a convention to

propose a balanced budget amendment. As we approach the two-

thirds threshold triggering the call of a convention, we

stand ready to work cooperatively with Congress in moving

forward with this historic endeavor.

I authored the resolution calling for a Balanced Budget

Amendment Planning Convention in Phoenix because I love this

country. I believe it to be the greatest nation that has ever

existed, but I am greatly concerned that our country is not

on a sustainable fiscal path. Contrary to what some would

like us to believe, the responsibility to get our fiscal

house in order does not just rest with Congress, nor is

Congress the end-all-be-all for governing this country.

In fact, a critical responsibility of the states in this

great Union is in helping to keep our federal government in

check. That value of Federalism was a bedrock principle that

our Founding Fathers captured in the design of government put

forth in the Constitution of the United States, over two

centuries ago. I believe it is time for the states to start

flexing our constitutional muscles, just as our Founding

Fathers envisioned. And one vital tool for facilitating that,

was instilled by our Founders in Article V of the

Constitution. That is, the power of the states to propose

amendments, especially as a means of constraining the power

of the federal government. In 1798, then Vice President

Thomas Jefferson, in correspondence with a state legislator,

wrote, ``I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment

to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that

alone for the reduction of the administration of our

government; I mean an additional article taking from the

Federal Government the power of borrowing.'' While it might

be more than two centuries late, I hope that soon we will be

able to give President Jefferson his wish--for our own sake

All fifty state legislatures were invited to attend the

Arizona BBA Planning Convention. The Arizona planning

committee actively sought a delegation from each state and

was fully inclusive in their efforts to host a bi-partisan

event. HCR2022 specifically required that the delegations be

chosen by resolution of the legislature or by formal joint

appointment by the leadership in both houses of their

respective state legislatures. This was to ensure that the

delegation was authorized to speak and vote on behalf of

their state Legislature. Delegates who were not listed on

their State's approved delegation list were not seated. The

meeting consisted of officially approved delegates from 19

state legislatures, with delegates from three additional

states observing. Committees established to fulfill the

requirements of HCR2022 were as follows: The Rules Drafting

Committee; The Planning Committee, which was divided into two

sub-committees: A Subcommittee on Ethics which was formed to

address the impact and management of outside influence on the

convention process and A Subcommittee on Delegates and

Correspondence to assist in planning for a future BBA

convention. A synopsis of the product of the Rules Committee

is as follows: Produced a model set of rules for an Article V

convention to propose a BBA. Some components of the set of

model rules were as follows: The Article V convention shall

be limited in scope to the balanced budget amendment.

Governing rules provide for appropriate order and conduct

during a BBA Article V convention which include, but are not

limited to, the following: Duties of the officers. A quorum

is a majority of the states in attendance. Each state shall

be given only one vote, as has been the precedent in all

preceding state conventions. Order of business and names of

committees. The cost of the convention to be divided equally

among the states in attendance.

A synopsis of the Planning Committee is as follows:

Recommendations for protecting the integrity of an Article V

Convention. Non-delegates should not be permitted on the

Chamber Floor, Members' Lounge, etc., and should only be

permitted in public areas. Any interaction of Convention

leadership and staff with non-delegate individuals or

organizations that pertains to Convention business or process

should be strictly prohibited, with the exception of the

press. Convention communications should only include official

activities. States should consider extending their ethics

restrictions (i.e. lobbying, food, gifts, etc.) to delegates

serving within a convention, in addition to any ethics

standards imposed by Convention rules. Sub-Committee on

Delegates and Correspondence reported the following: In

anticipation of the call for a convention for proposing

amendments, states are strongly encouraged to enact delegate

selection legislation at the earliest opportunity. The

Phoenix Correspondence Commission (PCC) was created. The PCC

will consist of commissioners appointed by the states to

carry out the following functions to organize a convention

for proposing amendments: Creating a single point of contact

to act as a liaison with Congress. Track all applications for

a convention for proposing amendments. Create a process to

suggest to Congress a time and place for a convention for

proposing amendments. Provide a process for legal

representation, if necessary. Perform tasks as needed to

organize the convention. Each state is strongly encouraged to

appoint a commissioner to the PCC to communicate on all

matters associated with a convention for proposing amendments

with any or all of the following: State Legislators, United

States Citizens, Convention Organizers, State Congressional

Delegations, and Congress. The members of the PCC will be

initially comprised of one member appointed from each

delegation present at this Arizona Balanced Budget Amendment

Planning Convention, until such time as each commissioner's

state formally appoints a commissioner to the PCC or declines

to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and H.R. 3905, the Minnesota Economic Rights in the Superior National Forest Act.

17,000 jobs, $3 billion for education, $1.5 billion in annual wages, and $2.5 billion annually for our economy are at risk if we don't pass H.R. 3905. Further, there are more than 4 billion tons of ore containing copper, nickel, and other metal resources within the area the previous administration tried to shut down, which represents the largest known undeveloped deposit of strategic and critical minerals in the world.

If left unchallenged, these political anti-mining and anti-education actions set precedent for a sweeping executive power grab that threatens communities throughout the country. Education will be significantly harmed, as Minnesota is projected to lose up to $3 billion in royalty revenues for the State's permanent school trust fund that would support nearly 900,000 K-12 students statewide if the withdrawal application and canceled leases are not rejected.

As the President, on January 19, was leaving office, he actually proposed a massive land withdrawal in northern Minnesota, immediately placing 245,000 acres off limits to development potentially for 20 more years in the future.

In conjunction with this massive mineral withdrawal, the Obama administration's Bureau of Land Management inappropriately rejected Twin Metals Minnesota's application to renew two hard rock mineral leases in Minnesota's Superior National Monument.

Finally, I want to put to rest the false claim raised by the extremist groups that this bill would affect the 1.1-million-acre Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness that already has a significant buffer between it and the forest.

No one is advocating to mine in the wilderness or the surrounding buffer zones. In fact, the bill clearly states on page 4: ``Nothing in this section may be construed as permitting the prospecting for development and utilization of mineral resources within the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness or Mine Protection Area.''

Congress has authorized mining in the forest by law two different times, and the 1986 Forest Service and 2004 Forest Plans both concluded mining is a desired condition in the Superior National Forest.

Mr. Speaker, I ask Members to support this commonsense, job-creating bill and to support the rule to bring this bill to the floor for proper adjudication.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 631, I call up the bill (H.R. 3905) to require congressional approval of any mineral withdrawal or monument designation involving the National Forest System lands in the State of Minnesota, to provide for the renewal of certain mineral leases in such lands, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3905.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the originator of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Emmer), the originator of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind everybody I am wearing a copper tie, and that is because I come from Arizona. We are known as the 5 Cs: for the cotton, for the climate, for the cattle, for the citrus, and for copper. It is a critical mineral.

We have seen these displays here in the well this morning, diverting the public's attention about what truly is actually here.

This is actually a cite to explain to people exactly the clear definition. Let's look at this.

What you see in red and yellow, just like a light that you see red, stop; yellow, caution; green, go, the red is the Boundary Waters. The red is the Boundary Waters: no mining, no mining whatsoever. The yellow is a buffer.

By the way, the only place in the United States in which a monument is surrounded by a buffer: no, don't proceed.

They confused you with that map. This is where we are talking about, down in here, in the green area. It is not the Boundary Waters. The pictures you saw that were in the well so eloquently shown to us were of the Boundary Waters, not where the mining is going to take place.

Let's dispel the rumors. Let's get back down to facts.

Red, no mining; yellow, no mining; green, okay. But that is following rules. That is following all rules.

Once again, just to remind folks back home that are watching, the red is the Boundary Waters. There is no mining in the Boundary Waters. The pictures you saw in the well are of the Boundary Waters. No mining occurs in the Boundary Waters.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the charge is Minnesotans strongly oppose mining near the

Boundary Waters, so let's go back, remind everybody back at home about the red. We are not talking about the red or the yellow in the previous document. Let's go through what we see.

Minnesota's Democratic Governor was for mining in the area before he was against it. Several polls over the years consistently show strong support for copper-nickel mining in general and for allowing companies to explore and propose projects.

In November of 2016, a poll of 400 registered voters in the Eighth Congressional District found, among other results, by greater than a 3 to 1 margin, survey respondents support environmentally responsible mining in the region.

By greater than 2-to-1 margins, respondents support the building of a new copper-nickel mine and believe copper-nickel mining can be done in an environmentally responsible way. They demand that. More than 60 percent support an underground copper-nickel project, the Twin Metals mine.

In October 2013, a poll of more than 600 registered Minnesota voters statewide found, among other results, a majority of voters, 56 percent, favor expanding Minnesota's mining industry.

A plurality of voters, 48 percent, support expanding the nickel- copper mining industry in the State.

All mayors, State legislators, the county commissioners that represent the Iron Range region, and the area proposed for the withdrawal are pro-mining advocates. Fifty-three bipartisan State legislators, including leadership of both parties, have endorsed the bill and support the passage.

Why is that?

These aren't just your average jobs. They don't pay service wages of $20,000. These are $100,000 plus and, additionally, have benefits. Those are jobs that Americans sink their teeth into. That is what built America.

Stay tuned. I am going to show you some other photos of how they really look at mining.

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

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

This bill alters no current environmental laws or protections. Mining companies will still have to comply with the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, NEPA, and all State and Federal laws.

In fact, the local communities--everybody wants clean water. These people actually live in the area. These local communities actually want mining in Minnesota. It results in cleaner water. This is actually a viewpoint of an actual mine site. This is a long time ago. This is a pit. What ends up happening is, they are very proud, because Minnesota is proud of their water.

This picture is before, and this is after. Can you imagine local municipalities and towns lining up for this water? This is the cleanest water in Minnesota. This is how they will actually reclaim the water. This isn't me. These are the people from the area who gave us these photos. And if you want to see an in-depth video, go to YouTube and look up the video that the people back in this region put together. This actually shows you, this is clean water. This is where you have pristine fisheries. They line up for this water.

There are no environmental hazards. Minnesota's mining industry has been proud of what they have actually built. Once again, before and after, it is an inconceivable difference.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

That is a taconite pit.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is talking about this whole aspect, the gentleman is right, but it is about all mining. This isn't just about copper mining. This is about taconite and all other mining.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the gentleman from California. Can the gentleman give me an example of a mine that he actually supports?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, once again, the gentleman can't identify a single mine that is permissible to the opposition.

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

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

We have heard some other charges that H.R. 3905 changes five Federal laws for Minnesota's national forests. This bill alters no current environmental laws or protections. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act, NEPA, and all other environmental laws still apply to Minnesota.

Let's go through this history. In 1950, Congress took action to make land available for mineral exploration and development within the Superior National Forest. Congress did. Then again, in 1978, Congress passed the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act, a compromise that prohibited mining within the 1.1 million acre Boundary Waters; once again, the red area and the yellow. No mining.

But again, it specifically authorized mining in the Superior National Forest, the green. Once again, red, no; yellow, no; green, go. But that is fulfilling all current legislative and environmental laws.

The General Mining Act of 1872 that we heard about earlier governs most mining on Federal lands. However, in this case, it does not. It is the Weeks Act that controls projects in this area because they are located on acquired National Forest mineral leases on these lands. There are no indefinite agreements. They typically retain a nondiscretionary right--nondiscretionary right, once again--to renew every 20 years. The two leases for the mineral deposit in question began in 1966, were renewed in 1989, and again in 2004, without controversy.

The MINER Act halts last-minute political mineral withdrawals by requiring congressional approval. Once again, the magical words are ``congressional approval.'' The return to federalism--amazing--renews those two mining leases that were denied for political reasons under the same terms they were renewed twice previously and ensures any future mining projects will have to satisfy all existing environmental permitting requirements, including NEPA.

These people demand that they do it in a righteous way. There is no digging right now. These are proposed. The Minnesotans whom I came up to visit, they happily shared their history and their area with me. They want it done right because they have to live with the consequences; not somebody who comes from Twin Cities once in a blue moon.

Once again, let's go back. This is the Boundary Waters. This is what you have heard misrepresented all the way around. There is no mining going on in the Boundary Waters. There is no mining going on in the buffer area. Once again, no other buffer exists around a national monument except this. This is hallowed ground. Green, go.

Now, it is also very unfortunate that we hear rumors going around from Members of Congress that the Department of the Interior actually is against this. That rumor is far from the truth. We just received an email from the Secretary of the Interior that they are not opposed to this bill.

I include in the Record a list of over 150 groups, individuals, and community leaders who now want to be on record as supporting the lawful aspects of returning this back to the folks in Minnesota for mining.

Endorsements of H.R. 3905

53 bipartisan state legislators (including leadership of

both parties); AFL-CIO International Association of Bridge,

Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers Local

Union 512; Agribusiness & Water Council of Arizona; ALLETE;

American Exploration & Mining Association; Americans for

Limited Government; Apache County (Arizona); Apache Sun Golf

Club; APEX; Arizona Association of Conservation Districts;

Arizona Cattle Feeders Association; Arizona Golf Association;

Arizona Pork Council; Arizona Liberty; Arizona State Rep. Bob

Thorpe; Associated General Contractors of Minnesota; AZ BASS

Nation; AZ Deer Association; The Bass Federation; Better in

our Back Yard; Cactus and Pine Golf Superintendents

Association supports H.R. 3905; City of Ely.

Colorado Mining Association; Competitive Enterprise

Institute; Concerned Citizens for America (Arizona);

Conservatives for Property Rights; Dena Cordova Jack,

Executive Vice President, Mountain States Lumber and Building

Material Dealers Association; Global Minerals Engineering

LLC; Golden Vertex Corporation; Grand Rapids Area Chamber of

Commerce; Hibbing Area Chamber of Commerce; International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 31;

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49; The

Jamar Company; Jefferson County Commissioner Donald Rosier,

P.E.; Jobs for Minnesotans; Laborers District Council of MN &

ND; Laborers International Union of North America; Laurentian

Chamber of Commerce; Minnesota Building and Construction

Trades Council; Minnesota Chamber of Commerce;

MiningMinnesota; Minnesota Pipe Trades Association.

Minnesota Power; Minnesota State Rep. Josh Heintzeman;

Montana Mining Association; National Mining Association;

National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association; New Mexico Cattle

Growers' Association; New Mexico Federal Lands Council; New

Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.; North America's Building Trade

Unions; Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 589; Range Association

of Municipalities and Schools; Scott W. Yates, President,

Denver Lumber Co.; Shake Rattle & Troll Outdoors; Sulphur

Springs Valley Electric Cooperative; Twin Metals Minnesota;

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America;

Water Resource Institute; Women's Mining Coalition; Yavapai

County Cattle Growers; Yavapai County Supervisor Board

Chairman Thomas Thurman; Yuma County (AZ) Chamber of

Commerce.

Other Groups Supportive of Issues Addressed by the Bill

62 bipartisan state legislators (including leadership of

both parties); Chair of the MN Permanent School Fund

Commission; Dakota County Regional Chamber of Commerce; Dale

Lueck, Chair of the Minnesota Legislative Permanent School

Fund Commission; Duluth Chamber of Commerce; Fairmont Chamber

of Commerce; Fergus Falls Chamber of Commerce; Greater North

Dakota Chamber of Commerce; Iron Mining Association of

Minnesota; Laborers District Council of MN & ND; Lake County

Board of Commissioners; Metro North Chamber of Commerce;

Minnesota Association of School Administrators--Region 7;

Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; North Central States Regional

Council of Carpenters; Owatonna Chamber of Commerce;

Rochester Chamber of Commerce; St. Louis County Board of

Commissioners; Twin West Chamber of Commerce; Up North Jobs;

Western Mesabi Mine Planning Board; Willmar Chamber of

Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, what transpired here was a travesty. As I outlined, historically, Congress dictated twice in a usual fashion this green area for go. They designed the Boundary Waters and a buffer area for protection.

Once again, no Boundary Waters--you are being misled--no Boundary Waters are having mining. This is as clear as it gets. What ended up happening was in an illegal action by the President last year, or earlier this year, he wiped this away.

This doesn't wipe away any environmental laws. What it does is, it returns it to the way it was. The way that it should be; the way that Congress dictated. Federalism, a return to the people in that State.

Mr. Speaker, I ask everybody to vote for this bill and support this bill. I also ask everybody to go to a video that has been produced by the people in this iron-ore range to see exactly how the people of that area of Minnesota actually feel about it. It is magnificent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, in July, the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources heard all about how royalties, if ill-constructed, serve only to disincentivize investment in self-sufficiency and increase our reliance on imported critical minerals.

This amendment is a hallmark example of such a poorly designed royalty. This amendment doesn't specify what the royalty will be applied to, when in the mining process it will be assessed, and it doesn't even have a cap, for that matter. This amendment is just a thinly veiled means to prevent this important mining project from getting off the ground. The author actually stated that in his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this amendment. I ask all Members to vote against it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, once again, we may want to go back to misinformation. This does not pertain to the Mining Act of 1872. In fact, this is under the Weeks Act, which controls projects in this area because they are located on acquired natural forest land. Mineral leases on these lands, though not indefinite agreements, typically retain nondiscretionary right for renewal every 20 years.

The two leases for mineral deposits in question began in 1966, were renewed in 1989, and again in 2004 without controversy.

I would also like to take the opportunity to go through a number of groups that actually are against this amendment and endorse the bill.

Fifty-three bipartisan State legislators from the State of Minnesota are for this bill: ``As elected leaders of the Minnesota Legislature, we are writing in strong support of H.R. 3905. This legislation supports jobs, economic development and industry in northeast Minnesota, and will reverse an onerous, overreaching, and politically motivated decision by the Obama administration. H.R. 3905 has bipartisan support, and it is our sincere hope that it will become law for the well-being of our State and its citizens.''

A second one from the Range Association of Municipalities and Schools:

The results of the withdrawal and a potential 20-year

moratorium would have a devastating impact on the financial

support for our statewide public school system and future

generations of Iron Rangers who would be employed in any

future mining developments. It has been estimated that within

20 years of mining for precious metals, our Permanent School

Trust Fund would reap nearly $3 billion in royalties if

allowed to go forward. The Miner Act does not infringe or

restrict these very strenuous and stringent environmental

review processes, and we emphasize there will be no mining in

the Boundary Waters or the buffer zone specifically

surrounding the Boundary Waters.

Let's go to the next one from the American Exploration & Mining Association: ``H.R. 3905 will eliminate delays, return to good stewardship of fair process and restore the opportunity to explore strategic metals critical to our economy and national security in one of the richest mineral deposits in the Nation. . . . The emerging mining industry is an investment in the future well-being of our State and Nation; without this legislation, that future is at risk.''

Here is another one from the Competitive Enterprise Institute: ``The bipartisan H.R. 3905 is a welcome reassertion of congressional authority over public lands. Article 4 of the Constitution vests Congress--not the President--with plenary power over public

lands. Members on both sides of the aisle should take umbrage at President Obama's lameduck machinations to withdraw from the multiple- use framework more than 230,000 acres of public lands in Minnesota-- with the mere stroke of a pen. By treating public lands regulation as a means to build a Presidential legacy through midnight regulation, the previous administration flouted the spirit of participatory and inclusive lands-use statutes as designed by Congress. Lawmakers should correct the course by passing the excellent H.R. 3905.''

Finally, the Associated General Contractors of Minnesota:

H.R. 3905 changes no environmental review processes,

relaxes no environmental standards, and specifically restates

Congress' prohibition on any mining activity in the Boundary

Waters and surrounding protective buffer areas. H.R. 3905

would reaffirm longstanding congressional intent that

actually espouses that this area be designated for mining and

timber sales.

Mr. Speaker, I ask everybody to vote against this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3043 from Representative McMorris Rodgers, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017.

For centuries, Western States have fought over scarce water supplies. We even have an expression in the West that says: Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over.

Water scarcity in the West led our visionary forefathers to build Federal water storage projects throughout the West to provide water, hydropower, recreation, flood control, and environmental benefits while adhering to States' water rights.

These were nonpartisan endeavors, as evidenced by President John F. Kennedy dedicating the San Luis Dam in California. While the Central Arizona Project came after President Kennedy,

it continues to bring prosperity to Arizona's cities, Tribal communities, ranches, and farms almost 50 years after its inception.

The Glen Canyon Dam and other projects affiliated with the Colorado River Storage Project provided the backbone of a regional economy that has produced year-round and emissions-free hydropower.

H.R. 3043 streamlines the permitting process and encourages the expansion of hydropower generation by establishing a single lead coordinating agency, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, in order to facilitate in a timelier manner all hydropower authorizations, approvals, and requirements mandated by Federal law.

This bill will also dramatically decrease costs to relicense non- Federal dams, a huge win for the West.

Presently, FERC exercises jurisdiction over 1,600 non-Federal hydropower projects at more than 2,500 dams under the Federal Power Act.

According to FERC, the relicensing workload is increasing dramatically. Between FY 2017 and FY 2030, roughly 480 projects amounting to 45 percent of FERC-licensed projects will begin the relicensing process.

Rural co-ops, power companies, and other stakeholders in the West need a clear process without the bureaucracy. Let's get bureaucracy out of the way and pass H.R. 3043 so we have a clear process moving forward for pursuing worthwhile hydropower projects.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington for the sponsorship of this much-needed legislation, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this commonsense bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for taking the opportunity to highlight some of the good work the House has accomplished this year. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to build on these accomplishments so that Congress as a whole can keep their promises to the American people.

As Congress continues to face the preeminent task of repairing our Nation's healthcare system, first and foremost, we must establish the proper foundation for a competitive and consumer-driven health insurance marketplace. The Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2017 will restore the application of Federal antitrust and competition laws to the health insurance industry.

Ending the special interest exemption is the first step to broader healthcare reform. Popular cost-reducing reform priorities, such as selling insurance across State lines and developing diverse consumer- driven plans, are predicated on the robust competitive markets this bill will ensure.

The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 exempted the insurance industry from the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act, acts that have the purpose of ensuring fair competition. This broad exemption was intended to assist the newly developing business of insurance so that those companies could set sustainable premiums by permitting data sharing between insurance companies.

However, after 70 years, it is apparent that the broad-stroked exemption created by Congress in the 1940s was not wise. Over the decades, and expeditiously since the passage of ObamaCare in 2009, the health insurance market has devolved into one of the least transparent and most anticompetitive industries in the United States.

It is clear that the continued exemption of the health insurance industry from the full application of the Federal antitrust laws has had an unfair impact on consumers. It shows up as artificially higher premiums, unfair insurance restrictions, harmful policy exclusions, and simply no diversity of choice.

These antiquated exemptions are no longer necessary. There is no reason in law, policy, or logic for the health insurance industry to have special exemptions that are different from all other businesses in the United States.

Repeal of the specific section of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which applies only to health insurance, has strong bipartisan support. A form of this legislation passed the Democratic-controlled House during the 111th Congress by a vote of 406-19 and passed the Republican-led House in the 112th Congress by a voice vote.

Similar legislation has been introduced by multiple Democratic Members of the House, and the text of my bill has been included in the Republican Study Committee's healthcare reform bill for the last four Congresses in a row.

In March of this year, this pro-market reform received its biggest show of support yet, passing by an overwhelming majority of 416-7. Now, when 416 Members of the House agree, it sends a strong call to action in the Senate.

As a dentist, I know how important robust competition is to dynamic and effective health insurance. It should protect the patient as well as the healthcare provider. It should uniformly apply associated checks and balances that incentivize competition and prevent monopolies. Today, in the healthcare market, those equally applied antitrust protections just simply don't exist.

I don't have a crystal ball that will tell you what the future holds for healthcare or what it will look like. I don't think anybody knows. But I can tell you that history is an important guide. The 70-year antitrust exemption for health insurance has strangled competition and resulted in a consolidated, anticompetitive, and nontransparent scheme controlled by seven megacorporations. That is not what we want for our future.

Instead, let's liberate the market by removing this antitrust exemption. Imagine what could exist when we put the patient first and demand that health insurance companies compete for their business. This market should be patient-centric, patient-focused, and provide a variety of affordable, quality options that empower patient involvement and accountability.

The passage of the Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act into law is an important first step toward increasing competition in the health insurance market and will assist in setting the foundation for real competitive and patient-centered healthcare reform.

I thank my friends in the House for their strong support, and at the same time, promises were made in the Senate to get a vote on the Senate floor. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to build upon the good work of this Chamber and do their part to restore competition in the health insurance industry.

There is an old saying: Trust is a series of promises kept.

Keep the promise. We are watching.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2936, the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017, introduced by my friend and colleague Bruce Westerman.

Our forests and the communities that live, work, and rely on them desperately need improved management practice to reduce these forest fire disasters and to increase resiliency.

I was very pleased with the quick work by my friend and former colleague OMB Director Mick Mulvaney for addressing the wildfire funding crisis at the United States Forest Service, requesting $576.5 million for wildfire suppression and recommending active management reforms.

Now, while the Trump administration came through in a big way for Western communities that have been ravaged by catastrophic wildfires, Congress must pass H.R. 2936 and get serious about combating catastrophic wildfires before they get started.

The Resilient Federal Forests Act is a bipartisan, comprehensive piece of legislation that simplifies the cumbersome planning process and reduces the cost of implementing proactive forest management strategies.

H.R. 2936 empowers local communities by getting them involved in the decisionmaking process. It empowers Tribal communities to be part of the solution and help reduce the risk of wildfire.

The bill removes incentives for extreme special interest groups to file frivolous lawsuits. In fact, it requires litigants opposing active management projects to propose an alternative plan as opposed to just saying ``no.'' Imagine that, solutions over lawsuits.

Mismanagement has left our forests vulnerable to insects and disease and ripe for catastrophic wildfires. It is clear the system is broken. Western communities are tired of being victims, and this bill allows us to be proactive and to prevent disasters before they become a risk.

Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record two letters, one from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the second from the National Association of Home Builders, in support of H.R. 2936.

Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies,

Washington, DC, June 26, 2017.

Hon. Rob Bishop,

Chairman, House Natural Resources Committee, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Raul Grijalva,

Ranking Democrat, House Natural Resources Committee, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Democrat Grijalva: The

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Association) is

pleased to support H.R. 2936, the ``Resilient Federal Forest

Act of 2017'' (RFFA). All 50 state agencies are members of

the Association. Founded in 1902, the Association's mission

is to protect the interests and authorities of the states to

manage fish and wildlife within their borders, including on

federal land. The Association works closely with the federal

land management agencies to deliver on the ground

conservation of fish, wildlife and their habitats for our

citizens.

The Association is particularly appreciative of changes

made by the Committee staff at the request of the

Association. These changes make more prominent in federal

statute the states' authority to manage fish and wildlife on

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) lands. Nothing in the amended language is intended to

change any existing federal, state or tribal authority. It

simply makes more evident the state-federal jurisdictional

relationship which Congress has affirmed. Federal-state

cooperation in this arena is compelled because the USFS and

BLM own the land and thus the habitat, and the state fish and

wildlife agencies manage the fish and wildlife. Robust

cooperation will provide that both land/habitat objectives

and fish and wildlife population objectives are met.

The RFFA is vitally needed to restore the health of our

Nation's federal forests on USFS and BLM lands.

Unfortunately, the USFS and BLM have fallen significantly

behind in meeting objectives for early successional stage

forest habitat, for a number of reasons. Significantly,

federal court decisions and increasing uninformed litigation

has created ``paralysis by analysis'' to quote a former USFS

Chief. Congress mandated that the federal forests were to be

managed for water quality, wildlife habitat, recreation, and

timber harvest. Active forest management by the federal

professional managers in cooperation with the state fish and

wildlife agency professional managers has been replaced by

natural resource management decisions being made by the

federal courts. A return to active forest management will

facilitate realization of all of the public values of federal

forests.

The Association much appreciates that the fire-borrowing

problem is addressed in HR 2936. While most catastrophic

fires occur in the western United States, this is a national

problem because the funds for every national forest and

public land unit are affected. This remedy will prevent the

USFS and BLM from having to borrow from other appropriated

line-items (for example, wildfire prevention, wildlife,

recreation and water quality) to pay for the cost of

catastrophic fire suppression, which cost consumes over 50%

of the USFS budget. We respectfully urge the Committee to

further protect the USFS budget by capping the 10-year

average cost of catastrophic fire costs at its current level.

The 10-year average is used by the USFS in building their

budget request. The 10-year average continues to rise and

unless it is capped it will continue to erode other important

budget line items such as wildlife, water quality, fire

prevention and recreation in the President's budget.

The Association further appreciates the process relief

provided to National Forest Plans (NFP) and (potentially)

Resource Management Plans (RMP) developed by collaborative

deliberation. It is appropriate that a collaborative-

developed plan, which often takes years to deliberate and

conclude, be subject to only two options under NEPA, proceed

or not proceed. It is very reasonable to assume that the

collaboratively deliberated process has examined and rejected

the other options, and only the action or no action need be

analyzed.

The bill's establishment of a pilot binding arbitration

process as an alternative to litigation in each FS Region is

certainly welcomed by the Association. Not only is the cost

of defending the land management plan a burden on the

agencies, but the planned for management work on the ground

is lost, perhaps never to be resurrected on that site. We

commend Congressman Westerman and the Committee for settling

on this significant improvement to litigation reform that was

in HR 2647 from the last Congress.

We also appreciate the increase in acreage ceilings for the

statutorily endorsed Categorical Exclusions (CEs) under NEPA.

CEs must avoid sensitive areas and must be consistent with

standards and guidelines in Forest Plans. Early forest

successional stage habitat, for instance, cannot be just

incidental to be effective in providing habitat for deer,

elk, wild turkey, neo-tropical migratory songbirds and other

species which are dependent on this habitat type. While an

acreage ceiling is an easy metric to measure success, the

desired forest future condition should really determine the

size of the timber harvest.

Additionally, the Association supports the proposed common-

sense amendments to the Endangered Species Act. First, H.R.

2936 overturns the Cottonwood decision, which directs that if

additional critical habitat is designated under an approved

FP or RMP, a section 7 programmatic re-consultation of the

entire FP needs to be done. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) and the Obama Administration argued that the

section 7 consultation needs only to be done on the project

covering the additionally designated acreage of critical

habitat. This remedy will greatly reduce the debilitating

process that the federal court decision directs. Second, the

bill affirms that no ESA section 7 consultation is required

if the USFS or BLM determine during informal consultation

that the proposed action is ``not likely to adversely affect

a species or designated critical habitat'', which is already

USFWS policy. And third, if any consultation on a categorical

exclusion established by the bill is not concluded after 90

days, the action shall be considered to have not violated

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.

The Association is committed to working with our partners

in the USFS and BLM to manage our federal forests to fulfill

their public values as Congress mandated. HR 2936 makes

significant improvements to and would expedite the process

that governs approval of the USFS and BLM management plans.

We urge that your Committee expeditiously report HR 2936 from

the Committee to the House floor.

We look forward to continuing to work with you to move this

bill quickly through the legislative process. If you have any

questions, please contact AFWA Government affairs Director

Jen Mock Schaeffer.

Sincerely,

Nick Wiley,

President, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies;

Executive Director, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission.

Mr. Chairman, we need forest management reforms, we need them now. I thank Mr. Westerman and the committee for their work on this bill, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Arizona for yielding.

What a great issue. As a conservative, I am an outspoken defender of one's right to life. But being pro-life doesn't mean that I am just antiabortion. It also means that I support the right to try, because life at all stages is worth fighting for.

Every year, over 1 million Americans die from terminal illnesses, many of whom pass away while waiting for the FDA to approve a drug that could dramatically change their prognosis, while others die in the hopeless cycle of trying and trying again to gain acceptance into a medical trial.

Think about that: we are losing millions of Americans at the hands of government red tape.

Now, as a healthcare provider for 25 years, I know firsthand how important innovation is to the medical community. The Right to Try Act, if made into law, will give hope to the child with leukemia whose doctors have exhausted all other treatment options. It opens previously locked doors by allowing healthcare providers to try experimental drugs as a last-ditch effort for survival.

The experiments that the Right to Try Act will allow for have the potential to lead to many more birthdays, more piano recitals, and more camping trips, and offer hope for our future, hope for years to come.

But don't take my word for it. Emily Whitehead was merely 5 years old when she was diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, and her doctors quickly realized that she was among a small percentage of patients whose disease was seemingly untouchable by chemotherapy. The Whiteheads were at the end of their rope. The little girl's body was resisting chemotherapy, and the window for many more birthdays, more piano recitals, and more camping trips was wearing thin. Their only option was to join a clinical trial that experimented with T-cell therapy, where Emily could be the first pediatric patient to undergo this treatment.

And do you know what? It worked. Three years later, a groundbreaking study was conducted where 63 patients received T-cell therapy for 1 year, and 52 of them became cancer free, an absolutely unheard-of statistic with this deadly strain of leukemia.

Think about that: 52 lives were saved; 52 families were given another birthday, another piano recital, and another camping trip. What a waste it would have been had they not had the right to try.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the topic of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring this Chamber's attention to the devastating wildfires that have ravaged the Nation this year.

The National Interagency Fire Center reports that there have been 49,563 fires that have burned 8,422,251 acres so far in 2017. Wow. Another 80 million throughout the country are at high-risk status, including one-quarter of the 193 million-acre National Forest System.

Though the Forest Service has spent a record $2.3 billion to fight fires in 2017, these resources are being spent on the back end.

Mr. Speaker, the country has literally been on fire, particularly Western communities. It is far past time that this Chamber pass H.R. 2936 and get serious about combating catastrophic wildfires before they get started.

Mr. Westerman's bipartisan bill adopts a forward-thinking, active management strategy and also provides allocation reforms that would cease the practice of fire borrowing.

I will likely have more comments later, but we have a few folks pressed for time, so I am going to end my comments there.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton), my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the vice chairman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Utah, who has seen the challenging aspects and destruction from the fires, for his remarks.

I also now want to acknowledge my friend from Montana, who is actually still seeing the ravaging of the fires. In fact, Seeley Lake, Montana, set a record for the worst air quality ever recorded there, 18 times greater than the EPA safe particulate limit. Wow, that is a record that we have got to stop.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Gianforte).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Montana, who I am sorry to see have such a hard time this year in forest management, for his remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock), my friend and colleague.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his thoughts. He brought up some specific facts that need reiteration just because they are so plentiful.

The Forest Service only harvested 2.5 billion board feet in 2016, compared to over 10 billion board feet in 1990. To make matters worse, litigation and other challenges have caused a significant reduction in active sawmills nationwide from over 1,300 in 1995, to just over 220 today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman so greatly for his indulgence in coming down and expressing the problems that have been faced in Oregon and thank him for the timely hearing tomorrow in Energy and Commerce. We certainly appreciate it.

We need to enlighten all Americans as to the tragedy that is going on in our public Western lands.

I yield to the gentleman.

I want to highlight one thing that the gentleman actually brought to attention. Catastrophic fires also cause significant damage to the environment. Robust data from NASA has concluded that one catastrophic wildfire can emit more carbon emissions in a few days than total vehicle emissions in an entire State over the course of the year. Phenomenal. We just have to make sure people understand.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), my dear friend.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. Speaker, the two speakers have now brought up the issue that the House has repeatedly passed resolutions and ideas in regards to funding and taking care and mitigating our forest tragedy. There is an old adage around here that the Democrats may be the opposition, but the Senate is always the enemy. What we are here to do is light a fire under the Senate. Their talk is cheap; their actions speak. So let's light a fire.

To do that, I now yield to the gentleman whose Resilient Federal Forests Act is the topic for this evening, H.R. 2936.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his excellent leadership. He is very modest.

Listen, folks, I made a comment. Around here in Washington, D.C., we talk about the Democrats being the opposition and the Senate being the problem. Well, as you know, this is a very bipartisan bill. He is very modest.

Let's go back through what H.R. 2936, the Resilient Federal Forests Act, actually does.

It allows for the streamlined review of projects up to 30,000 acres if the management strategy is put forward by collaborative stakeholders. Imagine that, something so simple.

It also requires litigants opposing active management projects to propose an alternative proposal as opposed to just saying ``no.'' ``No'' isn't a solution. It is what you are for.

It removes incentives for extreme special interest groups to file frivolous lawsuits--boy, once again, coming to the table with a solution.

It empowers local stakeholders and decisionmakers. So often we overlook the people on the ground, on Main Street, who have to live with the consequences for bad policy decisions.

It also empowers Tribal communities to be part of the solution and to help reduce the risk of wildfire. We see this time and again, that the Native Tribes that are in charge of their forests have pristine management practices.

H.R. 2936 also maintains current protections for our environmentally sensitive areas, including wilderness and roadless areas. What a concession.

We need to be clear about larger risk areas and get to these in a more timely manner that we really want to handle.

This bill is good for forest-dependent species as it allows for improvements to their habitat.

This bill adopts a forward-thinking, active management strategy that combats dangerous wildfires before they get started, which includes reforms that would end the practice of fire borrowing.

I want to thank the gentleman for his excellent piece of legislation. It is time that it moves forward.

Once again, it is not the House that is the problem, but our colleagues across the street. Once again, talk is cheap; actions speak. Americans need help.

The fact that these disasters are quite natural might lead one to think they are inevitable, but according to forestry officials and experts, it is our stunted Federal forestry management and underfunded and misallocated Forest Service accounts that are to blame.

Our system is broken. These fires start naturally and decimate our natural ecosystems, but the ultimate cause at the level of their severity and recurrence is manmade.

The facts about the relationship between management and wildfires speak for themselves. Forest Service data indicates that active forest management reduces wildfire intensity, while improving forest health. In spite of this, only 1 to 2 percent of high risk areas are actively treated and subject to forest management.

The United States Forest Service expends too many resources fighting fires after they break out to work to prevent them in any significant way before they start. By performing routine thinning, culling hazardous fuels on the forest floors, and conducting controlled burns, they could accomplish exactly that, but such a course of action would require ample resources and wise allocation. As you could guess, my professional diagnosis is that both of those are in short supply.

I hope my friends on the other side of the aisle are able to hear what I say next. If you care about carbon emissions, you should care deeply about this issue, no matter where you live in the country, no matter where you live.

NASA data shows that one wildfire can emit more carbon in a few days than total vehicle emissions in a State for the whole year. To put it in perspective, controlled burning releases roughly 10 percent as much, and is only one part of an overall active management strategy.

So the correct choice in this situation is obvious: we spend a little more on the front end so that we can save ourselves much of the economic, environmental, and familial displacement costs on the back end. These costs are year after year, and they are catastrophic when they are left untreated.

Treatment is the right course of action, but it requires a little bit of planning, due diligence, and yes, action on our part. I know Congress is a big fan of the word, but when you look at the track record, Congress isn't a big fan of actually acting.

In response to this dire situation, Members of Congress from across the country will be sharing their thoughts and experiences within their home States. They will be discussing this during the year, and this past year of terrible wildfires. These are stories that need to be recounted.

They will also be speaking about the solutions that we have come together

with, for forestry officials and stakeholders across the country. Tackling this problem has become a collaborative and holistic national policy effort, and the policy proposals we have produced are reflective of this fact. They are also bipartisan.

But, Mr. Speaker, we can't let this just be a rhetorical exercise. We are united in demanding Congress do something. This Chamber has the knowledge and aptitude to deliver policy solutions. Now we need the political will to turn that knowledge into congressional action. Only then will huge portions of the country finally see some relief from these disasters.

When your home is on fire, it is straightforward, it is a nonpartisan issue. You call the fire department, and after the problem is dealt with, you make sure that you eliminate what caused the fire so that you don't see it again.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation was on fire this year, and I demand that we, as this Chamber, unite in the same spirit of decisive problem solving as we do for our natural disasters. Let's put these fires out, and then let's stop the brunt for next year's fires before they start.

In my four terms as a Congressman from Arizona, I have had to witness the largest catastrophic fire in Arizona history, and also the most catastrophic life-taking, the Yarnell fire. The first was the Wild Well fire in northeast Arizona, and the second was the Yarnell fire that is now in the movie theaters that took the lives of 19 firefighters. That is a travesty.

This is something that gives when it is managed right. The people back home know the right answer. Let's give them the tools, the working power, and the policy that allows them, instead of being victims, to be stalwart solutions for a policy that gives back.

As the gentleman from Arkansas said, as Teddy Roosevelt said: Leave our natural resources better than we found them.

Mr. Speaker, the speakers tonight shared their stories. We want America to hear those loud and clear. These are natural disasters no different than hurricanes, but these, in one case, are different. They are manmade.

Let's bring this commonsense policy that Mr. Westerman has put forward. He is a true advocate and smart in regards to those reforms; that is why we want to make sure that H.R. 2936 gets moved through this Chamber, and then put the onus back on the Senate, so that we actually reward the people for good policy and making sure that the victims are turned upside down and made stalwart solution makers.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.

My colleague, Mr. Mullin, is absolutely correct. When former President Obama directed the EPA, BLM, and other agencies to target industries for greenhouse gas emissions, they went directly for oil and natural gas first. But this EPA rule targeting methane is completely unnecessary.

Though methane is a byproduct of oil and natural gas production, it is also a valuable product in and of itself, and that is something that oil and gas companies routinely capture and sell rather than emit. Even EPA estimates show that methane emissions have decreased, while the production of natural gas and oil increased over the same period.

The free market has provided an incentive to reduce methane release on its own. There is no further need for EPA to impose costly bureaucratic hurdles on these sensitive industries.

And make no mistake: This rule imposes a steep burden. It is estimated to cost our economy $530 million annually.

Natural gas and oil production will continue to be pillars of an energy-friendly American economy. But instead of reducing barriers to growth, as President Trump has requested, this rule cripples our industries by duplicating what a combination of market forces and existing regulations have already produced.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.

The Trump administration has done a good deed for the economy and for the American workers in issuing an executive order declawing the Obama administration's social cost of carbon guidance, but that is not enough. A future administration may not have as much sense to take on carbon tax policies. What is more, agencies continue to work on researching social cost on the taxpayer dime.

This is also a separation of powers issue. Congress is charged with setting tax policy, and by failing to put the nail in the coffin of this tax in disguise, we abdicate our duty. Congress and the American people have repeatedly rejected cap-and-trade proposals; now the Trump administration has as well. Social cost, however, remains on the books; therefore, Congress must act.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The BLM venting and flaring rule, or the BLM methane rule, represents one of the Obama administration's most egregious abuses of executive power designed to destroy responsible energy production on Federal land.

BLM exceeded statutory authority by attempting to regulate air quality; authority that is vested solely with the EPA. Methane emissions from oil and natural gas have significantly declined in recent decades without duplicative Federal regulations in a time when oil and gas production in the U.S. has surged.

It is frustrating that this rule is somehow cloaked under the idea that it will benefit taxpayers. It won't. It is an onerous rule with no connection to the reality of the physics and chemistry of energy production. It will reduce American energy production on Federal land and, therefore, reduce royalties due to the U.S. Treasury.

This amendment brings accountability to executive rulemaking. I thank Congressman Pearce and applaud him, as well as Congressmen

Westerman and Cramer for their similar amendments crippling other Obama rules.

Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it is frustrating and egregious that this amendment is actually necessary, but it is. The FDA has, thus far, blatantly ignored congressional direction to respect the statutory difference between distributing and dispensing of compound medications.

As a dentist and healthcare provider for more than 25 years, I can tell you from my professional experience how harmful this overreaching guidance from the FDA would be to patients. As a dentist, I often use specialty compounded medications to deliver the customized care my patients deserved. I relied on the expertise of my pharmacist colleagues to ensure that medications were available to patients as appropriate.

As a Congressman, I support this amendment to ensure FDA follows congressional intent. As a doctor, I support this amendment because it means better care for patients.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment--and that is doctor's orders.