Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Joe Quattrone, a legend on Capitol Hill who recently passed away at the age of 90.

Joe was the barber in the Rayburn barbershop. He served there for 52 years. During the course of his service, he cut the hair of multiple Presidents, including George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and the late Gerald Ford.

Joe was known for his outrageous stories, wonderful sense of humor, and love for life. I first met him in 2019 when I got my start right here in Congress, and I was lucky enough to sit in

his chair once a month every month until he retired. I could always count on his positive attitude and his steady hands.

Joe immigrated to the United States from Italy when he was 18 years old. He served in the Air Force and was married to the love of his life, Rita, for 65 years until she passed away.

He is survived by his two grandchildren, his daughter-in-law, and his son, Frank, who described his father as a ``one-of-a-kind guy.''

To know Joe was to love him. He was kind, openhearted, and possessed a unique ability to brighten anyone's day. We will miss the man who loved his family, worked hard, gave great haircuts, and made everyone laugh.

Joe, may you rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, H.R. 1657, the Lake Winnibigoshish Land Exchange Act of 2024.

Lake Winnibigoshish, or Lake Winnie as it is also known, is located within the boundaries of the Chippewa National Forest and is home to Bowen Lodge, a premier, family-owned fishing lodge. Bowen Lodge has been in operation and welcoming patrons since 1925.

For the past four decades, Bill and Gail Heig and their family have operated Bowen Lodge, serving as incredible stewards of Lake Winnie and providing incredible fishing and vacation memories for Minnesotans and other out-of-towners over the years.

Currently, Bowen Lodge has a 20-year agreement with the U.S. Forest Service to lease 17\1/2\ acres of shoreline along the lake, where they operate their marina. Under the Heigs' stewardship, Lake Winnie has remained accessible to the citizens of Itasca County and the many people who visit.

Notably, the Heigs purchased extra acreage in 2021 after an out-of- State mega-resort developer sought to purchase a parcel of land, which would have changed the face of Lake Winnie forever. Now, Bowen Lodge is seeking to convey this extra acreage to the Chippewa National Forest.

It is in the best interest of the public that the Forest Service take stewardship of this land, rather than out-of-State developers that may not prioritize public access for our local community.

Additionally, this land will make it easier for the Forest Service to access and responsibly maintain their other acreage in the area.

The bill before us today would facilitate the land exchange between Bowen Lodge and the Forest Service: 17 acres of shoreline to Bowen Lodge so they can continue to operate their marina in exchange for 37 acres of nearby land to the Forest Service, which would then be added to the Chippewa National Forest.

This exchange would better align proper boundaries, put the right acreage under the right management, and ensure Minnesotans have the ability to boat, fish, and enjoy beautiful Lake Winnie.

Thanks to the Heigs' quick thinking and strong advocacy, our way of life will be preserved.

I am proud that this land exchange is supported by local communities in Itasca County, including the local county board of supervisors that testified in support of the bill before the Natural Resources Committee last fall as well as the Mississippi Headwaters Board and other local environmental organizations. It is also supported by the U.S. Forest Service and leadership of the Chippewa National Forest.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Rodgers for her support and steadfast leadership on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak not just as a Member of Congress but as a father to a 22-year-old young man with Down syndrome. My son is a living testament to the fact that his value and his potential extend far beyond any limitations imposed by his disability.

Society must never devalue any human life for a perceived flaw or defect. For too long, our society did just that with how it viewed and treated people with Down syndrome, but when we stopped sending people to institutions and started providing proper medical care, such as surgery for those with a congenital heart defect, we saw their life spans increase beyond what doctors told society was possible.

The DeOndra Dixon INCLUDE Project Act is a critical step toward advancing our understanding of Down syndrome and improving the quality of life for those living with it.

Named in honor of DeOndra Dixon, whose life exemplified resilience and excellence, this bill seeks to advance our collective effort to ensure that every individual, regardless of their circumstance, receives the respect and care they deserve.

This legislation will provide crucial statutory authority for an essential research initiative under the National Institutes of Health. The INCLUDE Project dedicated to this cause will benefit from solidified funding and framework.

This bill would enable sustained and coordinated efforts to address not only the primary characteristics of Down syndrome but also the occurring conditions that can impact individuals' health and well- being, such as Alzheimer's disease, which was previously mentioned.

Individuals with Down syndrome have a completely different disease spectrum than that of the general population, predisposing them to many conditions but protecting them from others.

INCLUDE allows for more specialized research, which will lead people with Down syndrome to live even longer, better lives, and it will create breakthroughs in identifying treatments and cures for some of the most devastating diseases that affect people like you and me.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my fellow Members to join me in voting ``yes'' on the DeOndra Dixon INCLUDE Project Act. Let us stand together to support this important initiative and ensure that scientific advancements lead to tangible improvements in the lives of individuals with Down syndrome.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Minnesota National Guard's 1st Combined Arms Battalion, 194th Armor Regiment, as they were recently awarded the Meritorious Unit Commendation award, the Superior Unit Award, and the Presidential Unit Citation award. These awards are given to units for heroism and outstanding achievement under extraordinary circumstances.

We all remember the harrowing images of the evacuation of Afghanistan, which took place just 3 years ago. Thirteen American heroes lost their lives, and countless allies were left behind for the Taliban. If not for the 194th, things could have and would have been much worse.

During the evacuation of Kabul, the 1st Combined Arms Battalion rescued over 124,000 American citizens, government employees, and Afghan allies in under 15 days.

This Brainerd, Minnesota-based unit made a difference in the world. Because of them, families were reunited and lives were saved.

As the husband of the Minnesota Air National Guard 148th Fighter Wing's first female command chief, who deployed when she was called upon, I have long recognized the superiority of the Minnesota National Guard. I could not be more proud to represent these exemplary soldiers.

America is blessed to have such courageous patriots in her ranks, and we, in Minnesota, are lucky that they call our State home.

Madam Speaker, I thank the men and women of the 194th Armor Regiment for their service during this infamous time. God bless them all for their sacrifices, and God bless America.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer my amendment to H.R. 1516, which would amend the definition of ``Chinese entity of concern'' in section 2 to account for the persecution of Uyghur Muslims in the People's Republic of China.

Over the past decade, Communist China has persecuted the Uyghur population for their religious and cultural practices. Xinjiang authorities have detained Uyghurs in internment camps without formal charges, forced them into slave labor, and have committed numerous other human rights abuses against the Uyghur people.

It is estimated that over 1 million Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities have been imprisoned in internment camps in China.

Academics in China have aided in the persecution of Uyghurs as well. Hu Angang and Hu Lianhe are considered to be advocates for forced assimilation of minorities to create a state race. Hu Angang heads the Institute for Contemporary China Studies at Tsinghua University. Hu Lianhe, another university researcher, is already on the Global Magnitsky human rights sanctions list.

Yet, Yale University boasts a ``strong relationship'' with Tsinghua University on their website. Harvard University signed a memorandum of understanding with Tsinghua University in 2021. The University of Pennsylvania has Tsinghua University listed on their website as a partner. There is no reason why our universities should be complicit in religious persecution.

We may hear arguments today that the definition is already too broad and that the underlying legislation will inadvertently hinder our research apparatus. However, this amendment and the underlying legislation are necessary to stop the soft power influence China is exerting on our universities.

Throughout the past year, we have seen firsthand how Iran's influence on higher education has turned college campuses into breeding grounds for anti-Semitism. We must prevent our most malicious foreign adversaries from continuing to undermine academia.

The underlying legislation does well to address Communist China's influence and espionage in our institutions of higher learning, but we can go a step further to address Communist China's crimes against the Uyghur people.

We should all agree that higher education's willingness to look the other way is unacceptable. We must act, and I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for my amendment and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Chair, I suggest voting for this amendment. It is a good amendment. The Uyghur people should not be held captive whatsoever, and the religious persecution by the people of the Communist country of China must stop.

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, amendment No. 88 to H.R. 8998 will ensure States and other cooperating entities that provide search-and-rescue services on Federal lands can receive reimbursement.

In northern Minnesota, the St. Louis County Rescue Squad assists people lost or injured in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, which is Federal land in my district.

According to a Duluth News Tribune article, the squad's reported budget is about $450,000 per year. However, with the roughly 30,000 hours volunteer members dedicate to the cause each year, it is estimated that the squad provides about $3.5 million in free labor annually.

Recently, tragedy struck the BWCA. Two canoeists, Jesse Haugen of Cambridge and Reis Grams of Lino Lakes, fell over Curtain Falls. The St. Louis County Rescue Squad spent over 2 weeks on a search-and-rescue mission looking for these two individuals before they located their bodies. May these two souls rest in peace.

Of the 95 members of the St. Louis County Rescue Squad, 61 took part in the Curtain Falls mission. Combined, they worked almost 6,000 hours.

During a recent meeting I had with Squad Captain Rick Slatten, he estimated that the cost of the mission was around $150,000, over a quarter of their annual budget on one call.

As a former law enforcement officer, I know that rescue squads are critical to ensuring the safety of the constituencies and the many tourists that visit each year.

During a search-and-rescue mission, every second counts, and we need these crews to have the resources necessary to stay on top of their game or at a minimum know that they have the backing of the Federal Government to do what they can to save lives.

As the bill currently reads: The wildland fire management account can be used to reimburse States and other cooperating agencies for services provided in response to wildfire and other emergencies or disasters.

This amendment simply clarifies that search and rescue is a part of that reimbursement category. This will ensure that our search-and- rescue squads can continue to conduct these vital services in our communities.

Search-and-rescue volunteer rescue squads from small townships and small cities across America enter our Federal lands to rescue people that are in our Federal lands for enjoyment. It costs a lot of money to keep up equipment. It costs a lot of time and training, and these dollars will recognize them by saying that their rescue efforts are important to all of us.

Mr. Chair, I ask that this amendment be made in order, and I ask Members to be in support on the floor. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chair, I rise to offer my amendment that prohibits any funds from being used to designate the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness located within the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota as a national monument under the Antiquities Act.

The Superior National Forest is a working industrial forest, and it should always remain one. Responsible mining and responsible timber harvesting are desired traits of the forest. Mining and timber harvesting are part of our way of life in northern Minnesota, and they exist hand in hand with recreation and conservation.

This amendment protects our way of life and protects against an activist administration here in Washington taking steps to change it. In December 2016, while they were on their way out of office, the Obama-Biden administration made a last-minute Antiquities Act designation for Bears Ears in southeastern Utah. The amendment before you today is an insurance policy to ensure that the Biden-Harris administration doesn't make a last-ditch effort to do the same and designate a new monument in northern Minnesota which would jeopardize desired responsible use of the Superior National Forest, again, a working industrial forest.

Contrary to what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will likely argue, this amendment will not jeopardize any existing protections that the wilderness area already enjoys. This amendment does not expand mining or timber harvesting into the Boundary Waters. This amendment ensures we can continue to mine and harvest timber outside of the Boundary Waters.

Let me be clear. Mining will never take place in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. That has been settled since 1978 when Congress passed the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Act. Back in 1978, my predecessor, then-Representative of the Eighth Congressional District, Democrat Jim Oberstar, stood here on the House floor and argued that our ability to responsibly mine and harvest timber in the Superior National Forest shall never be infringed.

This amendment is quite simple. It simply reaffirms Congress' intent when the 1978 wilderness act was passed. It simply protects against overreach from the executive branch, and, most importantly, it protects our way of life in northern Minnesota.

Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend and colleague from Minnesota's comments. I will tell

you that in 2016 on their way out the Obama-Biden administration, for purely political reasons, pulled mining leases for a company that wanted to mine critical minerals in northeastern Minnesota. The Biden- Harris administration went against the Supreme Court when the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to pay off student loans, and they still did it.

What this says, Mr. Chair, is as the Biden-Harris administration is in their waning days here, they can't diminish our opportunities in northeastern Minnesota, period.

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

Mr. Chairman, again, I do not trust the Biden-Harris administration on their way out. I do not trust them on their way out. This will ensure that the Superior National Forest and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness remains as it is and there are no antiquities put forth. I do not trust the Biden-Harris administration when it comes to mining. They are the most anti-mining administration in the history of the United States of America. They haven't opened one mine.

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

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment that prohibits any funds from being used to expand the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area within the Superior National Forest in northern Minnesota.

Mining and timber harvesting have played a significant role in the culture and the economy of northern Minnesota for well over a century. Mining and timber harvesting are our past, our present, and our future in northern Minnesota. We have proven we can mine and harvest timber responsibly all while still protecting and enjoying the beautiful area that we call home.

Antimining and antiforestry activists in this administration have taken step after step to attack our way of life in Minnesota. As my colleagues in this Chamber have heard me discuss time and time again, the Biden-Harris administration have used every tool to ban mining in northern Minnesota. They pulled the long-held leases for the Twin Metals project where copper was to be mined responsibly. Then they went even further and put into place a 20-year mineral withdrawal banning mining on 225,504 acres in the working industrial Superior National Forest.

What is next, Mr. Chairman?

What will they do next to attack our way of life and further stop mining in northern Minnesota?

My amendment will prevent the Biden-Harris administration from expanding the wilderness area while they are on their way out of the door later this year.

Just like my last amendment, this amendment does nothing to jeopardize existing protections for the Boundary Waters. This amendment does not expand mining or timber harvesting into the Boundary Waters. It simply ensures our ability to responsibly mine and harvest timber outside of the Boundary Waters. This amendment simply ensures this administration or any future administration cannot further attack our way of life in northeastern Minnesota.

Mr. Chair, I urge all my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, we have to remember that as we speak, the U.S. Forest Service is looking to purchase 70,000 acres of the wilderness from the school trust fund. They are looking to expand the wilderness as we speak.

Again, what this does is it ensures that the Biden-Harris administration on their way out doesn't do anything to expand the wilderness area.

My good friend and colleague from Minnesota says that the executive branch can't. They will try, and what this does, Mr. Chairman, is it ensures them not even considering it because it is part of legislation now.

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

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I offered three amendments. In the last two, I think I have said maybe three or four times now that as the Biden-Harris administration exits at the end of this year, I don't trust what they are going to do to our wilderness area, our mining, and our timber harvesting. They have proven it. The Obama-Biden administration took a

run at northeastern Minnesota when they pulled the leases on their way out.

What this does, Mr. Chair, is ensures that this blocks them from the attempt. This blocks them from the attempt to devastate northeastern Minnesota more so than they have already done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my appreciation to the St. Louis County Rescue Squad and Sheriff's Office for their dedication to responding to emergency situations and to mourn the loss of two Minnesotans.

Recently, they responded to a tragic accident where a party of four canoeists went over a waterfall in the Boundary Waters, and two went missing.

One of the missing canoeists, Jesse Haugen of Cambridge, was a constituent of mine. Jesse heroically attempted to save his fellow canoeists before going under himself. Jesse's bravery was no surprise to anyone who knew him, especially given his military background.

Mr. Speaker, the Boundary Waters are remote, making any rescue attempt complex. During this time of the year, high water levels and fast currents made these efforts even more difficult.

Jesse Haugen and Reis Grams both tragically died, but I am grateful to the St. Louis County Rescue Squad and Sheriff's Office for staying on the scene for 2 weeks until both men were located.

Thanks to their determination and professionalism, the families of Jesse and Reis can now have closure, and I will continue to pray for them and our St. Louis County Sheriff's Rescue Squad.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of my bill, the Small Business Procurement and Utilization Reform Act of 2024, also known as the SPUR Act.

Madam Speaker, I also thank my friend and colleague from Washington (Ms. Perez) for her support on this important legislation.

Small businesses across the United States have a problem. Despite government agencies setting aside contract opportunities for small businesses, participation in Federal contracting has plummeted by 50 percent over just the past decade.

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They are the innovators, the job creators, and the driving force behind economic growth.

In Minnesota, small businesses account for over 99 percent of all businesses and employ over half of the workforce. It is no exaggeration to say that the success of our economy is tied to the success of our small businesses.

The Federal Government is the largest purchaser of goods and services in the world, and there is no better way for the government to support small businesses than to ensure they have every opportunity to contract with it.

The scorecard system, which is used to determine if the government is doing a good job contracting with small businesses, needs improvement. Agencies are graded on the total number and value of small business contracts, yet they do not factor in small businesses who won a Federal contract for the first time.

Without incorporating this into the agency scorecard grade, we have no ability to tell whether the pool of small businesses are first-time contractors or multiyear contractors. If the government continuously rewards the same firms time and time again, a new small business that has a more efficient, less expensive way of doing things may be discouraged from entering the marketplace altogether.

My bill, the SPUR Act, addresses this concern. It will require the SBA to account for the number of new entrants into the Federal procurement space when it grades agencies for use in its scorecard. Too many Federal agencies fall short of their goals for awarding contracts to small businesses, leaving billions of dollars in contracts out of reach of American small businesses and increasing the cost for taxpayers.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the SPUR Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am frustrated and angry but also deeply saddened. The law enforcement profession is an honorable one. To have so much compassion for others that you are willing to put your life on the line, it is, as we say, a call to service, and not many hear that call today.

If you had asked me a few years ago if my children should become law enforcement officers, I would have undoubtedly said yes. However, after these last few years of observing the treatment of our law enforcement officers, I would have to think twice about my answer.

Since 2020, I have watched the law enforcement profession become a punching bag, scapegoated by rabid media pundits more interested in clickbait than the facts, villainized by Hollywood, and disparaged by city councils, Members of this Congress, both men and women, and even our President.

Yet, all these people expect law enforcement to respond to their calls for service. They expect them to take the verbal assault and show up with a smile on their face ready to serve.

The wonderful thing about my brothers and sisters in uniform is that despite this treatment and abuse, they will show up. They will answer every call. They will sacrifice their safety for others. They will help protect their community no matter how much ridicule or resentment they face.

I am here to say the things that they can't. I am here to protect my brothers and sisters in the blue and brown because others won't.

Enough is enough.

Law enforcement officers deserve our respect, our admiration, and our support. To provide anything else is unacceptable.

The resolution before us acknowledges the change in attitude toward law enforcement over the last few years and the subsequent violence directed toward them. It acknowledges that they respond to calls for service no matter who is on the other line.

It acknowledges that the job has only become more dangerous and more mentally and physically exhausting, yet they still show up for work, not knowing if they have kissed their families good-bye for the last time.

Importantly, this resolution also acknowledges that we in this Chamber set the standard. We are the ones who must demonstrate a respect for the rule of law and a respect for our law enforcement officers if we are to expect the public to do the same. We must do so in our actions, in our conversations, and even the policies we consider.

Bills that never become law can have the most staggering ripple effect. They can persuade local municipalities to implement soft-on- crime policies and strip law enforcement of resources. They can encourage the public to cheat, steal, and disrespect fellow community members. They can cause good, noble people to change their minds about entering the profession that I love so much, which is law enforcement.

Actions have consequences, and our communities are suffering as a result.

Let's take this moment to learn, to change for the better. We can rise to the moment, stand with our law enforcement officers, reestablish law and order, and bring safety back to our communities.

I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to respond to my good friend and colleague who is managing the time on the other side of the aisle. He talked about his support for law enforcement and what he did.

I want to read something to you: ``It is not enough to hold the officers involved accountable. In the past year, police killings have reached a record high. Rogue, militant policing continues to run rampant across our country, threatening public safety and the lives of millions of Americans.

``Our antiquated criminal justice system has long allowed law enforcement to utilize excessive force and prejudicial policing practices while avoiding accountability. We need extensive reform now with de-escalation training, selective bias training, and better policing. I am urging my colleagues in Congress to pass the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.

``Additionally, we must invest in our communities through unarmed first responder agencies, mental health and crisis support treatment options, diversion programs, community intervention groups, and re- entry programs. We can and must do better to avoid tragedies and improve public safety. I will never stop working to support and enact changes that will make our country safer for all Americans.''

The first part, this whole quote that I read was from my colleague who is managing the time on the other side of the aisle. That is horrendous because the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act takes away qualified immunity. If you take away qualified immunity

from the American law enforcement officer, it will devastate our communities. It will devastate recruitment, retention, and morale.

You have to be kidding me.

Mr. Speaker, this is what we are dealing with.

I became a law enforcement officer in late 1994 when Ron Ryan and Tim Jones from the St. Paul Police Department were ambushed and killed. I was a young officer. I didn't even have my funeral uniform yet, but I went to those funerals wondering what profession I was getting in, even taking a second thought whether I should stay in the profession. I was 1 week on the job.

In Cottage Grove, Minnesota, I was working the night shift. My partner and I that night, Tom Uland, stopped at a gas station to have a cup of coffee on the midnight shift. We talked about our families. We split up. He went one way, and I went the other. Within 3 minutes he is screaming for help. He needed help on a traffic stop. I couldn't get there fast enough. When my squad car got on that scene, the whole engine was shaking. I couldn't get to him fast enough.

He was being attacked by the driver and a dog, and the female passenger was crying. We found out when Officer Uland went to make that traffic stop the driver said to the female passenger: I am going to kill him.

When Officer Uland went up to the window, the suspect was digging into his armrest trying to get a handgun, and the female passenger was trying to move it away from him to save the officer's life. I got there during the struggle. Five minutes before that, he and I were having a cup of coffee and talking about our families and our futures. That is how quickly it can change.

The cavalier attitude of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is unconscionable. Where were they during the summer of love, 2020, when officers were getting ambushed? Where were they, Mr. Speaker?

On December 15, 1995, at 10:32 p.m., at the intersection of Sixth Avenue East and Fourth Street, Duluth, Minnesota, a career criminal tried to shoot me in the head and kill me, and I survived by the grace of God. He was a career criminal who should have been put away years ago.

Don't tell me we don't have issues.

We have issues with prosecution, too. The Federal prosecutor in Minneapolis would not charge him with felon in possession of a handgun. We couldn't figure out why. An off-duty police officer was shot in the head by a career criminal who should never have had the gun, and he wouldn't prosecute.

It was about 8 years later when the drug task force supervisor woke me up in the middle of the night and called me.

He said: Pete, we got him. He is going to prison for a long time. We have got the stolen guns on him. He is not getting away with this one.

It took him years after to put this guy away.

Then on London Road in Duluth, Minnesota, suspects tried to kidnap some folks. I get the call with my supervisor. I don't get to choose what call I go on. I don't get to say: I don't want to go on this gun call. I don't want to go on that.

I get the call, and I go, and every single police officer in this Nation does the same thing.

It is a kidnapping, suspect with a gun. I go, I clear the room, Mr. Speaker, and the suspect comes flying in the room, points a handgun right at me, and pulls the trigger. By the grace of God, it didn't go off.

Do you know why I knew it didn't go off?

It happened so fast; I saw it in his eyes. I was in a street fight for my life; and, yes, I needed some help after that call. That is why I am adamant that the professionals who serve our communities get the mental health they need, and they need it now sometimes.

To listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle pretend they support law enforcement, they have never worn the boots, or many of them have never worn the boots. They have never answered a call: Two shot, officer needs help. Most of them have never had a suspect with a rifle in his hand ready to kill you.

I have to make a decision, Mr. Speaker. If that rifle comes up, then I have to save my life. I have to do that. I don't want to, but his actions are causing me to save my own life and the lives of others.

Mr. Speaker, the honorable men and women in law enforcement in America deserve better treatment. This week we celebrated Law Enforcement Week, Police Week. We saw the men and women in uniform, the proud men and women in uniform, come to our Nation's Capital and be proud of their profession.

This week, Law Enforcement Week, should be 52 weeks a year. Every week we should support law enforcement and protect law enforcement. I am sick and tired of seeing this happen to law enforcement men and women, Mr. Speaker, throughout this Nation. There are Members in this body who stand at a microphone and vilify law enforcement. They will go to their funerals though. They will go to their funerals.

When it comes to supporting the legislation that I have here, a resolution regarding violence against law enforcement, my colleague says that it is partisan.

You have to be kidding me.

This is a resolution regarding violence against law enforcement officers, and my good friend calls it partisan.

Yes, defund the police was real. We are seeing the effects of it today. The recruitment and retention morale are at the lowest ever. There are shortages, Mr. Speaker, in police departments across this Nation, including my hometown.

Do they want to sit up here during National Police Week and pretend?

No. We are not going to have it. You are either going to support law enforcement or you don't.

Do you know what, Mr. Speaker?

Most departments today wear body cameras or have squad car cameras, in-squad cameras. In this Nation, cooler heads must prevail on the support for law enforcement. We have to understand what they go through. We must push: comply now, challenge later. Comply now, challenge later.

Mr. Speaker, in 23 years of law enforcement, when I placed somebody under arrest: Please put your hands behind your back. You are under arrest. Palms out. Don't resist. Do you understand?

I placed my handcuffs on them, gapped them, and double-locked them, escorted them to the right rear seat of my squad car. When they obeyed my lawful order, Mr. Speaker, I didn't get hurt, the suspects didn't get hurt, and the public didn't get hurt.

When a law enforcement gives you a lawful order, obey her. Obey a lawful order. When a law enforcement officer says: Put your hands on the steering wheel, then put your hands on the steering wheel.

When a law enforcement officer says: Sit on the sidewalk for safety purposes, then sit on the sidewalk.

When a law enforcement officer says: You are under arrest for domestic assault, obey a lawful order, Mr. Speaker.

As a society, where do we want to be? Judge, juror, and executioner on the streets of the United States of America?

It is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, we have to change, and it is up to leadership in our Nation's Capital and elected leaders at all levels in every State.

To the men and women who wear the uniform in this great Nation: I will tell you it is a noble, honorable profession. No matter what you hear from some folks that you are not wanted, it is unwarranted, it is not a good career, I will tell you: I spent 23 years as a police officer in the city of Duluth, Minnesota. I helped build a community policing program. I love the profession, and I enjoyed the profession.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is the darkest hours of someone's life we deal with, and we deal with it with compassion and professionalism. It is not easy, but we need the good men and women.

Mr. Speaker, we also need to hold people who perform violent acts against innocent citizens accountable. We need prosecutors to hold them accountable when they perform a violent crime.

In closing, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we in this country had better reshape our thinking and our focus toward safety of all of us, and we do that by supporting the men and women in uniform. We do that by electing leaders at all levels of government who support law enforcement.

We in law enforcement want to be held accountable, but let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker. Right now we have a rogue attorney general in Hennepin County, Minnesota, who is bringing murder charges against Minnesota Trooper Ryan Londregan for what he did to save his partner's life, and the use of force expert opined to that, that Trooper Londregan used lawful force to save his partner's life. He is now being charged in Hennepin County by an anti-law enforcement attorney general.

In fact, she can't even find an attorney in her own department, Mr. Speaker, to prosecute the case. She is spending over $1 million of taxpayer money, Mr. Speaker, to come to this town and find a prosecutor. It is unbelievable.

The people of Minnesota and Hennepin County should understand what is happening to that good man, that good trooper and his family. I will stand up to the good men in law enforcement no matter what I have to do, no matter what I have to do.

Mr. Speaker, I will say this: If we don't have a change of attitude toward law enforcement, then this country is going to be in trouble.

Before I close, I want to ask--this is an ask to the American people, to every American: The next time you see a law enforcement officer, I want you to look her in her eye and tell her: Thank you for your service. We appreciate you.

She will take that response and carry it with her the rest of the day, the rest of her shift, and forever.

We need to show appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New York, Congressman D'Esposito, for leading this important conversation this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here in this hallowed institution. I am pleased to honor my brothers and sisters in law enforcement.

As a police officer with over 20 years of experience, I know firsthand the sacrifices law enforcement officers make for the safety and security of the communities.

Policing is a noble and honorable profession, and it can be a dangerous one. However, in the years since I have left the profession, there has been a dramatic increase in violent attacks on law enforcement.

In 2023 alone, as was previously stated, 378 police officers were shot in the line of duty. This is the highest number ever recorded. This increase in violence against law enforcement is the direct result of the extreme Democrats' disastrous defund-the-police movement, soft- on-crime policies, and activist prosecutors who have emboldened violent criminals and have allowed them to remain free.

In my colleague's State of New York, we recently lost Officer Jonathan Diller who was killed by a career criminal who had been released from jail 21 times--21 times. Let that sink in for a moment.

I watched the eulogy given by Officer Diller's widow, Stephanie, and she asked a heartbreaking and very powerful question: ``How many more police officers . . . have to make the ultimate sacrifice before we start protecting them?''

Similar questions have been echoed by law enforcement officers in my home State of Minnesota, where Burnsville Police Officers Paul Elmstrand and Matthew Ruge and Firefighter-Paramedic Adam Finseth were recently gunned down responding to a domestic crisis.

Much like New York, Minnesota is filled with officials who have a soft-on-crime, anti-law-enforcement agenda. There is no better example of this dysfunction than Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, who is consistently handing out lenient sentences to violent criminals. In one particularly egregious case, she attempted to give someone who had committed murder a sentence of 2 years in a rehabilitation

program. Meanwhile, Moriarty is leading a political prosecution against a Minnesota State trooper who acted heroically and lawfully to save the life of his partner.

Mr. Speaker, I am sick and tired of seeing people in power attacking our law enforcement heroes while going easy on criminals who wreak havoc in our communities. Because of these continued attacks on law enforcement by criminals and elected officials, we are unable to attract young people to the policing profession.

Meanwhile, more and more officers are retiring early from the force. This has, of course, allowed crime to skyrocket, leaving remaining officers and the communities they swore to protect less safe.

During National Police Week, I demand that all of our Nation's leaders do a better job standing up against the ugly attacks on law enforcement. There are too many politicians who are all too eager to show up to the funerals of our fallen heroes while doing absolutely nothing to protect the brave men and women who remain in this noble profession. We have a responsibility to defend those who defend us.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues in this Chamber to consider Stephanie Diller's questions once more: ``How many more police officers . . . have to make the ultimate sacrifice before we start protecting them?''

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1194, I call up the bill (H.R. 2925) to amend the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 to provide for security of tenure for use of mining claims for ancillary activities, 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 insert extraneous material on H.R. 2925.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2024.

In May 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court's decision revoking an approved mine plan for the Rosemont Copper Mine project in Arizona.

This determination commonly called the Rosemont decision upended decades of regulatory precedent and specific U.S. Forest Service regulations that allow approvals of operation on or off a mining claim so long as these operations meet environmental and regulatory standards.

Essentially, this court's ruling puts the cart before the horse and fails to reflect the process of how a company actually develops a mine. I think there is some confusion about the mine approval process and what the term ``valid'' claim means.

First, when looking to develop a mine, an operator must submit something called a Mine Plan of Operations to the United States Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. This plan must include the intended uses of the surface of the mining claim, including those for waste rock placements, mills, offices, and roads.

The Mine Plan of Operations is key in determining the economic feasibility of a mining site, which, in turn, factors into the basis of determining which mineral deposits are commercially developable and, therefore, valid.

If allowed to stand, the Rosemont decision would require the discovery and determination of a valid mineral deposit, meaning that operators must prove the existence of a commercially developable deposit on a claim before a plan of operations can be approved.

Remember, a mine cannot move forward if the Federal Government does not approve any facet of the Mine Plan of Operations. Further, mineral validity cannot be determined until after the economic viability of a site--as is laid out in the Mine Plan of Operations--is verified by the Federal Government, as well.

H.R. 2925, Mr. Speaker, would reverse this backward determination of the court, allowing American mining to resume on Federal lands. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I want to be very clear: This bill will not allow mining companies to do whatever they want on public land. That is a fact.

Mining activity will not occur if any facet of a mine plan of operations has not passed our strict Federal guidelines and our strict environmental guidelines.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), my good friend, for his words of support for this legislation.

Again, this legislation would correct a misguided court decision revoking an approved mine for the Rosemont Copper Mine Project in Arizona.

Arizona produced the second-most amount of minerals in the United States in 2023. It also has over 30 million acres of Federal lands. If the Rosemont decision stands, over 40 percent of Arizona's lands will be taken offline in the U.S. in the battle to produce enough minerals to meet our ever-growing needs.

As a member of the Natural Resources Committee, the Democrats brought an expert forward, Madam Speaker, an anti-mining expert. In fact, she said we have to stop hard-rock mining because the reclamation process doesn't work. I invited her to our great State of Minnesota to show her a reclaimed mine where we have deer hunting, bears, eagles, bees, birds, haymaking. We have drinking water that comes from mines that are not in operation. We have recreation in our mines in Minnesota and elsewhere in this country.

This hard-rock mining expert said it is too dry in Arizona and too wet in Minnesota to mine. I asked where she would like us to mine these minerals for our national security. She said the quiet part out loud. She said nowhere. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle refuse to allow mining to happen in this country.

The Communist country of China was just mentioned. This administration today, Madam Speaker, is in consultation with Congo, where 15 of the 19 industrial mines use child slave labor owned by the Chinese Communist country.

The Biden administration is entering into memorandums of understanding to have critical minerals mined by child slave labor in Congo, where there are zero environmental standards and zero labor standards, to meet their green agenda, Madam Speaker. They are okay with that but will not allow mining to happen in this country that follows our environmental and labor standards.

The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, I live in the heart of mining country, and the best water in Minnesota is in the heart of mining country. We can drink it right out of the ground in Buhl, Minnesota.

I can tell you that this country better take part in mining domestically. Otherwise, we are going to find ourselves, Madam Speaker, in deep, deep trouble.

The Department of Energy and the Department of Defense say we need more domestic mining. We cannot rely on China and other adversarial nations. This is a simple fix.

We believe the court erred, so it is our job to re-legislate this part of mining that is so important to the United States of America. It is so important to our communities where we are blessed to have these natural resources.

For my good friends and colleagues from California, let's go back many years. California started on a gold rush. It began because of mining. Safe to say, we don't want to follow California much longer, with what is happening in that great State.

The fact of the matter is, Madam Speaker, I believe this is going to pass in a bipartisan fashion. It is a good piece of legislation. I look forward to passing it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The disastrous results of the Rosemont decision will redirect the huge amounts of capital needed to mine domestically to countries like the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Indonesia.

When we choose this out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality approach to

mining, development flows to other nations with significantly lower environmental and labor standards. Indonesia, for example, is currently the world's largest nickel producer and its dominance is only expected to grow in the coming years.

Indonesian mining is accomplished with sweeping deforestation and pollution, many of which are financed, again, by the Chinese Communist Party. These operations consistently ignore environmental impacts on local communities and leave the land far worse off than they found it.

On the other hand, American mines, like this mine project in Nevada, adhere to the best standards in the world and are committed to restoring the land after minerals are extracted.

In fact, again, mines are not even permitted until the Federal Government approves a full Mine Plan of Operations, which must include a robust plan and financial assurance for reclamation after the project is complete.

Madam Speaker, this is simple. Either we do it here or we let foreign adversarial nations take over. This is a strategic national security interest.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Federal lands account for as much as 86 percent of the land area in certain Western States, and these same States account for 75 percent of our Nation's metals production.

The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act is needed to ensure that we have certainty of access to these essential mineral deposits.

If we want to encourage investment in safe, responsible, clean mining practices that provide billions in taxes that support our roads, bridges, schools, and other essential services, along with the essential materials to the American people, then we also need to support H.R. 2925.

Madam Speaker, really quick, you are hearing the other side of the aisle not necessarily debate the actual legislation. We have heard them talk about the process. When you can't debate the legislation, then you go after the process.

This is a very, very good piece of legislation, and I look forward to it passing in just the next hour or so.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let's be clear: There are no mines operating on Federal lands that are owned by the Chinese Communist Party. Zero. Zero. Anybody that mines in the United States will follow our environmental standards and our labor standards. It doesn't matter which company it is. They are going to follow our rules.

For this administration to turn a blind eye to the atrocities and the human rights violations to meet their green agenda, it is unconscionable. We can do it here in the United States with the best labor standards, the best environmental standards, with our technology, and be proud of these minerals that we produce. We can lead the rest of the world on how to do it. Nobody does it better than the United States of America and our workers, period.

Madam Speaker, let me address some of the misinformation we have heard about this bill. This bill does not allow mining companies to continue to operate under conditions that don't follow our labor and environmental standards.

If the outlandish circumstances that my friends on the other side of the aisle have been telling you will happen if this bill is enacted could have actually happened all along, including land lock-ups and subversion of environmental and governmental oversight, then why didn't it happen?

It is because the harm they claim this bill could inflict upon our Federal lands is actually not true. It is inaccurate.

This bill would, however, allow America to become a global leader in mineral production once again.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Governor of Nevada in support of H.R. 2925.

Office of the Governor,

May 1, 2024.

Hon. Dina Titus,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Steven Horsford,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Susie Lee,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representatives Titus, Horsford, and Lee: I write in

support of the Congressman Amodei's Mining Regulatory Clarity

Act of 2024 (H.R. 2925) and encourage you to vote in favor of

this critical bill when it reaches the House floor. In doing

so you will stand in solidarity with Senator Cortez Masto and

Senator Rosen, sponsors of the Senate companion bill (S.

1281), and the State of Nevada to support a key pillar of our

economy. Since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its

decision in Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, also known as the Rosemont decision, the

future of hardrock mining in Nevada and the West has been

plagued by uncertainty. This matter must be favorably

resolved for the Silver State and bipartisan, bicameral

legislation must be signed by the

President to help ensure the economic viability of our robust

mining industry.

The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act (MRCA) simply reinstates

the contemporary mining policy and permitting practices that

were upended by the Rosemont decision. Contrary to the scare

tactics of critics, the MRCA does not open the door to

unrestricted use of public lands, block renewable energy,

recreation, or conservation, or allow mining in National

Parks, wilderness areas, and other special areas. Rather, it

provides much-needed business certainty and protects the

14,700 direct high-paying jobs and an additional 20,000

indirect jobs that are supported by the mining industry in

the state. In addition to providing employment with high,

family supporting salaries averaging over $100,000, the

industry provides $4.9 billion of our state's gross domestic

product and $12.7 billion in economic output.

Schools and local governments in each of your districts

also benefit from the $389 million the industry paid in state

and local taxes. More than half of the mining Net Proceeds of

Minerals (NPOM) tax revenue goes to the Nevada State

Education Fund. The other half goes to the county where the

minerals were produced. Gold and silver operators further

contribute to the State Education Fund through the Gold and

Silver Excise Tax, or Mining Education Tax which was

established during the 81st Nevada Legislative Session; and

in fiscal year 2023, contributed approximately $68 million to

the State. Beginning in fiscal year 2024, revenue from the

Mining Education Tax will go directly into the State

Education Fund. The Rosemont decision ends hardrock mining as

we know it and threatens the livelihoods and institutions

that rely on it.

Nevada is counting on you to unite and join Senators Cortez

Masto and Rosen and Congressman Amodei to provide certainty

to one of Nevada's critical industries. I look forward to

continuing to work collaboratively to ensure Nevada remains

well positioned as a leader in domestic mineral production,

from lithium and other critical materials to precious metals.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Joe Lombardo,

Governor.

Madam Speaker, I support fair labor standards, high environmental standards, and increasing our national security. In short, I support domestic mining. I urge all of my colleagues to do the same and support H.R. 2925.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor all of America's fallen law enforcement heroes.

A few weeks ago, as was stated, upstate New York suffered a terrible loss when two law enforcement officers were fatally shot while pursuing a driver who fled a traffic stop.

In my home State of Minnesota, we are still mourning the deaths of two Burnsville police officers and a firefighter-paramedic who were killed responding to a domestic crisis. These men were not only law enforcement officers, they were husbands, fathers, friends, and beloved members of our communities.

These tragedies are real reminders of the dangers our law enforcement officers face every day. We can never take their sacrifice or service for granted.

As a former police officer with over 20 years of experience on the job, I have seen and experienced firsthand the violence committed against law enforcement. However, in the years since leaving law enforcement, I have noticed a dramatic rise in violent attacks against America's law enforcement. I am deeply concerned by this troubling trend of violence against those who protect and serve our communities.

A recent story published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported that assaults against police in Minnesota are up 160 percent from 10 years ago. While some are asking why this is the case, to me the answers are obvious.

The reckless defund the police movement and other antipolice rhetoric pushed by those on the far left has emboldened criminals, worsening the danger law enforcement faces when they put on that uniform.

This is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that one of the best ways to honor the law enforcement officers who made the ultimate sacrifice is by defending the heroes who are still doing this dangerous and much-needed job.

As extreme politicians in Governor's mansions, district attorneys' offices, State legislatures, and even here in Congress, enact policies that make law enforcement less safe, it is up to the rest of us to utterly reject these ugly attacks on the American law enforcement officer.

As we honor those law enforcement officers who have given their lives in service to others, let us also recommit to standing in defense of their brothers and sisters in uniform now and forever.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 2925, the bipartisan, bicameral Mining Regulatory Clarity Act of 2023, offered by my good friend from Nevada, Representative Amodei. I thank Representative Amodei for introducing this legislation.

Nevada and Minnesota are both mineral-rich States, and they are both States that the Biden administration has targeted as part of their antimining agenda.

The bill before us is simple. It codifies what is known as the Rosemont fix. It restores the longstanding interpretation of the Mining Law of 1872, along with agency regulations governing hardrock mining policy on our Federal lands.

In May of 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upended decades of said law when it affirmed a lower court decision revoking an approved mine plan for the Rosemont Copper mine project.

The decision limited the ability of the Forest Service to approve necessary mining support facilities and activity, which is necessary for mining operations. This decision from the Ninth Circuit put virtually every new domestic mining project in jeopardy.

During our legislative hearing earlier this year, an official from the Biden administration argued that it won't be necessary to codify the Rosemont fix into law simply because of an existing solicitor's opinion from last year that he argued addressed the issue at hand.

However, this same witness also admitted the obvious. The solicitor's opinion can be rescinded or changed with the stroke of a pen. The solicitor's opinion is an administrative action that can be undone or changed at the whim of this or any future administration.

We all know the durability of administrative actions. These actions are law of the land for 4, maybe 8 years in some cases.

Mr. Speaker, considering domestic mining projects are multidecade investments, why would a mining company ever decide to invest billions of dollars in a project when they are only guaranteed 4 or perhaps 8 years of regulatory clarity? That is why the bicameral, bipartisan Mining Regulatory Clarity Act is necessary.

The only way to fix the Rosemont decision is to codify the fix in law. This legislation, contrary to what some of my colleagues will argue, won't radically change or create new domestic mining policy. It simply builds regulatory certainty and reinstates the longstanding interpretation of the Mining Law of 1872 and longstanding agency regulations that were the law of the land before 2022.

We are all well aware of the Biden administration's ambitious goals to transition to renewable energy and other technologies that rely on critical and rare earth minerals.

Mr. Speaker, if we can't mine these minerals domestically, thanks, in part, to the Rosemont decision blocking new domestic mines, where does the administration expect these minerals to come from? The only answer I can think of is adversarial nations like China.

Continued lack of clarity on the Rosemont decision is not a benefit to the American people but a benefit to the Chinese Communist Party.

The answer is pretty clear. You can either support domestic mining with the strictest environmental and labor standards here in the United States and across the world, or you can support Chinese Communist Party-controlled mineral supplies that have zero environmental standards, zero labor standards, and they use child and forced slave labor. That is a fact.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6285, Alaska's Right to Produce Act.

From Minnesota to Alaska, President Biden has repeatedly prevented the responsible production of America's abundant natural resources.

In Minnesota's Eighth District, which I am proud to represent, the Biden administration banned mining, locking up the world's largest untapped copper-nickel mine in the world.

Now he has turned his focus to the great State of Alaska, where he has made multiple moves to block energy development on Alaska's North Slope.

Last fall, the Biden administration first announced their plans to cancel the remaining oil and gas lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and limit energy development within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. I will repeat that, National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. And within the last 2 weeks, the Biden administration finalized this devastating blow to the Alaska communities.

To quote from the testimony of Charles Lampe, the president of Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation in response to these actions, ``We are a small community that suffers as the Federal winds blow and feel the Biden administration is working to effectively erase us from the land that we have inhabited for hundreds of years.''

These actions have only further reinforced my view that Biden's energy and mining policy can be summed up as ``anywhere but America, any worker but American.''

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration has levied more sanctions against the great State of Alaska than they have Iran. The Biden administration has put 63 sanctions against energy production in Alaska, more than Iran. In fact, they are taking off sanctions from Iran. This administration has taken off sanctions from Iran.

They are punishing the great State of Alaska. It is uncalled for. Not only does this decision run counter to the wishes of Alaska's Tribes and other hardworking Alaskans who stood to benefit from the jobs, opportunities, and revenue that the responsible production of these resources would create, but it will further cement our reliance on Iran, Russia, China, and Venezuela for the energy and natural resources on which we all rely.

Mr. Speaker, how does that make any sense?

As our adversaries become more and more hostile, shouldn't the President be doing everything in his power to make American energy independent once again?

Energy security is national security.

At a time when American families are struggling under the weight of record-high inflation and energy prices due to Biden policies, shouldn't the President be doing everything he can to support domestic energy projects that will create jobs and lower costs?

As the chairman of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee, I am proud to introduce the Alaska's Right to Produce Act to allow Alaskans to develop their God-given natural resources. I introduced this commonsense legislation with Alaska's Representative Mary Peltola, a Democrat, and Alaska's two Senators, and I thank them for their leadership on this critical issue.

The Alaskans on the North Slope support this legislation, Mr. Speaker. They support it because the oil and gas revenues allow them to build schools and hospitals, pay for their police, pay for their fire service, have libraries, have the fundamental parts of our communities that we all have and all deserve.

The only way they can sustain that, Mr. Speaker, is allowing things like this to go forward. Alaskans should be proud to ethically and responsibly resource this. Again, there were 63 sanctions against the great State. You have got to be kidding me. As my co-chair of the Tennis Caucus would agree, John McEnroe, ``You have got to be kidding me.'' It is unbelievable. The great people of Alaska deserve better than what this administration is forcing upon them.

Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

I rise to offer my amendment that strengthens the underlying legislation to prevent the Biden administration from taking further steps to block oil and gas production in the great State of Alaska.

In the Bureau of Land Management's press release announcing the final NPR-A rule, they teased future action by the administration to create new special areas or expand/adjust existing special areas within the boundaries of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. These special areas are a means to lock up acreage from oil and gas production. There is no disputing that.

My amendment prohibits the Department of the Interior from creating or expanding special areas without congressional authorization.

When the administration announced its moratorium and canceled leases in ANWR and withdrew millions of acreage from development within the NPR-A, the local Alaska Native communities on the North Slope weren't given a proper heads-up, just like members of the Navajo Nation heard about the Chaco Canyon withdrawal. Alaska Native community leaders learned of these policy changes in the media.

This administration did not even properly consult with the very communities this oil and gas development would benefit, and it is clear why, because they weren't in lockstep with the administration's policies.

Mr. Speaker, just this morning we had a hearing. I asked the Secretary of the Interior five times if she consulted with the North Slope Native American communities, and she would not answer.

I finally had to go get some emails where they requested a meeting with her, and she denied meeting with them.

Let's make it very clear. The Alaskans on the North Slope requested a meeting with the Secretary of the Interior prior to this rule, and she blew them off. She didn't have the courtesy to meet with them after she was up there in Alaska already.

The administration also held an incredibly short public comment period on these actions. When the Bureau of Land Management was pressed on this

timeline, which was right in the middle of whaling season for the sustenance fishing communities that support oil and gas development, a BLM official responded that the administration wanted a short comment period to rush a rule through in order to prevent it from falling into the Congressional Review Act window.

Mr. Speaker, not only did this administration fail to properly consult with local Native Alaskan communities on the North Slope, but they have taken explicit steps to subvert Congress' constitutional responsibility to serve as a check on the executive branch.

This administration cannot be trusted to do right by the American people. Policies coming out of this administration, especially energy and natural resources policies, undermine the American people and the hardworking men and women who stand ready to responsibly develop our vast natural resources.

That is why Congress must take every step to prevent the administration from pushing forward these policies. We must close every loophole that might be out there to shut down domestic energy production.

This includes preventing the administration from creating new or expanding existing special areas within the NPR-A.

They can't be trusted to do the right thing by the American people and the Alaska Native communities on the North Slope.

Congress must step in. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment, as well as joining me in voting for the underlying legislation.

The Alaskan communities deserve this. They have been producing energy under their feet in their natural resource space for years.

The energy production--we want to be energy independent, and again, the oil and gas royalties will help the North Slope communities, Mr. Speaker.

I said 10 minutes ago they had come to an EMR hearing stating that these royalties help us live, help us buy our food, help us build our infrastructure. Without those revenues, they can't do it. They simply can't do it. In fact, at the EMR hearing, there was a resident that actually was in tears, Mr. Speaker, because of this rule. It is going to be devastating for her and her family to not be able to live on the North Slope comfortably.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Louisiana, I actually liked his expression, and I think my colleague on the other side of the aisle may be offended by this, but you know, my good friend from Louisiana actually said--