Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of University of Arizona-led NASA mission of spacecraft OSIRIS-REx and the first ever return of an asteroid sample to Earth. Launched seven years ago, in 2016, the Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, Security-Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) successfully arrived at the asteroid Bennu in 2018. Because Bennu is older than Earth, studying a sample of Bennu will provide understanding of what might have been delivered to early Earth during Precambrian time. The asteroid is 500 meters across, roughly the height of the Empire State Building. OSIRIS- REx used complex imagery to successfully map and determine the best place to obtain a sample. On October 20, 2020, OSIRIS-REx landed and collected a sample of Bennu, four times more sample than originally expected.

On May 10, 2021, OSIRIS-REx began its return voyage to Earth. This past Sunday, September 24, OSIRIS-REx released a capsule containing the Bennu sample before continuing on to rendezvous with the asteroid Apophis. Apophis will come very close to Earth's orbit in 2029.

The sample return capsule made a spectacular descent as it hit the Earth's atmosphere, traveling 27,000 miles per hour and reaching five thousand degrees Fahrenheit. The capsule safely reached the drop zone, traveling a mere 11 miles per hour. Crews determined the integrity of the capsule; it is now in a clean room preparing for analysis.

The sample will be analyzed by students at the University of Arizona to determine Bennu's physical and chemical properties, windows into the most fundamental questions of our universe--namely how planets formed and how life began. Examining Bennu will also aid scientists in planning for possible impact mitigation missions. Asteroids like Bennu contain natural resources such as water, organics, and precious metals.

I am extremely proud that Tucson is once again a key player in a critical NASA mission, just as it has been with many others throughout our Nation's history. OSIRIS-REx is an $800 million University of Arizona-led NASA mission that demonstrates the importance of vital scientific investments.

The OSIRIS-REx mission is funded by NASA and its science is led by the University of Arizona (UA). I would like to once again congratulate Dr. Dante Lauretta of the UA Lunar and Planetary Laboratory for his leadership as principal investigator and, along with his team, for bringing this exciting mission to the sample analysis phase. I greatly look forward to celebrating even more milestones with

his team as analysis reveals untold mysteries of our universe and as the now OSIRIS-REx-APEX continues towards the asteroid Apophis. This mission is the latest in a long list of achievements by scientists at the University of Arizona in my home district. In fact, UA scientists have collaborated in every single American mission to the Moon and Mars since 1964, including serving as the lead on the Phoenix Mars Mission.

The University of Arizona is involving undergraduate and graduate students and continuing to cultivate the next generation of STEM leaders--many of whom will be from my home state of Arizona. I wish the OSIRIS-REx team the best of luck in the analysis stage of their historic mission and congratulate them in their profound success in the first ever return of an asteroid sample to Earth.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 1567 introduced by my colleague from Wisconsin, Representative Tiffany.

The United States Forest Service manages millions of acres of forestland, including vital watersheds, critical wildlife habitat, and countless outdoor recreational areas.

The Forest Service's 10-year Wildfire Crisis Strategy Implementation Plan stresses the importance of fire-adapted landscapes and hazardous fuel treatments to build resilient forests.

Wildfire risk reduction projects are complex multistep processes requiring significant planning and investments often carried out over several years.

Therefore, it is important that we receive accurate, transparent, and accessible data on how forest management projects are being planned and implemented.

This legislation would require the agency to include a report in the President's annual budget on hazardous fuel activities carried out in a given fiscal year to account for each treated acre.

This ongoing reporting requirement will enhance transparency and accountability, providing critical information that can help guide investments in management of our national forests--including how we deploy our historic investments in wildfire risk reduction efforts that were included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and in the Inflation Reduction Act.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

H.R. 1450 is the Treating Tribes and Counties as Good Neighbors Act introduced by my colleague from Idaho, Representative Fulcher.

This bill updates the Good Neighbor Authority program to update the incentives for Tribes and counties to partner with the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management on restoration projects designed to enhance resilience and promote healthy landscapes.

As climate change intensifies, it is crucial that land managers utilize collaborative, consensus-driven tools such as Good Neighbor Authority to facilitate conservation, restoration, and resiliency of Federal lands and neighboring lands.

However, under current law, only States are authorized to retain revenues from timber sales and contracts executed through this program.

This legislation provides parity for Tribes and counties to increase community participation in the restoration of our public lands.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Perez), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. It creates parity and access for two significant constituencies, counties and Tribes, and creates parity for them. I think at the end of the day, it creates a collaborative effort that is more comprehensive and more extensive.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3389, the Emergency Wildfire Fighting Technology Act, was introduced by my colleague, Representative Valadao of California.

The bill requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior, in coordination with the National Interagency Aviation Committee and Interagency Airtanker Board, to complete an evaluation of the container aerial fighting system to support wildland fire mitigation and suppression.

In 2011, the Forest Service conducted a study and determined that this particular delivery system did not meet existing standards and posed safety risks to our communities and forests.

However, there have been technological advancements in the decades since the initial report, and this bill aims to kick-start research that could promote the use of under-utilized technology.

The climate crisis is clearly increasing the severity and the duration of the wildfire season, so it is imperative that we continuously research and re-evaluate any emerging technology.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority for their willingness to work with us on amending the bill at markup. The updated text that we are considering today ensures that the Forest Service retains the decisionmaking authority with respect to the use of this particular tool.

This is an important safeguard for the safety of wildland firefighters and the communities impacted by the wildfire crisis.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3324, introduced by my friend from California, Representative Huffman, would extend the Forest Service's existing authority to collect and retain marina fees in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest.

The chairman has outlined the content of the legislation, and I won't repeat that again. It is a good bill and it is essential to the operation and the management of the recreation area. It is a critical tool that needs to be extended.

The continuation of this authority has been an ongoing priority for the Forest Service and the surrounding communities. I thank and congratulate Mr. Huffman for his leadership on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to this resolution. There was a lot I could say and thought about saying about this resolution and the one that we will see after it. I could talk about

how badly these two measures undermine conservation efforts for species that are endangered and threatened across our Nation and across the globe.

I could talk about how these resolutions give industry and not science the upper hand in making decisions about our endangered species.

I could talk about how this latest offering from team extreme takes the GOP's vendetta against the Endangered Species Act to a level that should offend us all.

Nevertheless, as I thought about it, I realized that what is more offensive than these resolutions themselves is the fact that these resolutions are on the floor right now today.

We are about to leave the House for 6 weeks. By the time we come back, summer will be nearly over. If the current temperatures stay on track, it will have been one of the most brutal summers in this country's recorded history.

In my home State of Arizona, Phoenix has now broken records with what is now a 27-day streak of more than 110-degree heat. In Florida, the ocean heat wave has warmed the waters to 5 to 7 degrees above normal. That level of heat is a disaster for corals, marine life, and all the local businesses and economies that depend on them.

Tragically, last month a heat wave in Texas was so oppressive it claimed 13 lives. That also happened to be the same month that was awarded the grim honor of being the hottest June ever on record. July isn't looking any different.

Climate change isn't about some distant warning about melting ice caps in the far-off future. The climate crisis is here. It is now. People are suffering, and people are dying, and the GOP isn't doing anything about it.

This year, in the Natural Resources Committee, the Republican majority has had zero hearings on climate change. They have introduced zero bills to seriously address climate change. They have introduced zero bills to help communities being hurt by climate change, and they have accepted zero Democratic amendments to include climate change in any of their legislation.

Today, Republicans have decided that the most important thing they could do before we leave for 6 weeks would be a couple of resolutions to kill off the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat.

We are about to go back to our districts where our constituents will have questions about what we are doing to protect their homes, their businesses, and their livelihoods from the increasing threat of climate change.

I have to wonder if my Republican colleagues think that bullying chickens and bats would be a sufficient answer. I don't agree, and I am certain our constituents won't agree either.

Fortunately for Democrats, we can assure our constituents that we passed the country's biggest ever investment in climate and clean energy through the Inflation Reduction Act last year and that the Biden administration is working to get that funding out the door as quickly and as equitably as possible against ongoing efforts in appropriations to defund those initiatives and to dismantle, as we see today, existing environmental protections.

Unfortunately, the Big Gas and Big Oil industry in this country is making Americans more and more dependent on fossil fuels as their source of energy and thus increasing the climate crisis that we are experiencing now.

Common sense says that the new party in charge of the House would want to keep that historic momentum going, but sometimes common sense ain't that common.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this resolution. I urge my Republican colleagues to come back in September with a better plan to help the American people than a couple of go-nowhere resolutions that beat up on bats and chickens, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, during the markup of this particular bill, the chair of the Natural Resources Committee agreed with the Democrats that these CRA resolutions are extreme. He said:

The CRA process is an extreme process because it does take

that ability away from a Federal agency, and if we enact this

resolution, the agency can't take those steps again.

That was repeated right now by my colleague who spoke.

I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are taking this extreme step what their plan is. When the lesser prairie-chicken or the northern long-eared bat slips closer to extinction, what is the backup?

There is no backup. The CRA is permanent, and extinction then becomes the only avenue and the only probability.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that 99 percent of the species that have been listed on the Endangered Species Act continue to exist. That is the track record that should be highlighted, and that is the track record, on this 50-year anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, that we should all be proud of.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, oil and gas companies raked in record profits last year, but it appears that House Republicans aren't done trying to give them handout after handout.

This week, they are trying to give them a free pass to avoid conserving the lesser prairie-chicken and the Endangered Species Act in and of itself.

H.R. 1, their top priority, the polluters over people act, lays out a blueprint on exactly how to reward the industry, how to make those handouts permanent, how to undermine and dismantle protections and laws that have been put in place for 50-plus years in reaction to the need to conserve species and, more importantly, to protect the American people and their health.

Going forward, we have to understand that while these two resolutions we are dealing with today are part of it, there is a bigger agenda, a bigger blueprint, that talks about turning over the public policy and legislative arm of Congress to the oil and gas companies, to the big corporate interests that are raking in profits, ensuring that we continue to be dependent on their source of energy and not develop the renewable and clean energy the American people need and want and that is cheaper and will create jobs. That is what is on the agenda, as well.

As we debate these two particular resolutions, let's not forget or ignore the underlying reality of what we are talking about in terms of energy policy, period, in this country.

Let's not forget that, during the hostage taking on the debt ceiling, the principal point and the principal attack was against those fundamental environmental laws, again moving us in a direction that increases dependence on polluting industries and lessens our ability to respond to what the American people need, and that is a safe, secure environment for themselves and their families.

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

Mr. Speaker, 1 million species globally are at risk of extinction, and one of the main drivers is climate change. Let's stop picking on these species and instead start addressing the real issue of climate change.

E.O. Wilson, the father of modern biodiversity, estimated the world is losing three species per hour. We have a biodiversity crisis on our hands, and we have a climate crisis on our hands, but House Republicans decided this week is a good time to legislate the extinction of a couple of species.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to rural America and the important role that they play in this great Nation of ours, I am patiently waiting with, I hope, good expectations that if the agriculture appropriations bill ever gets done that it will reflect that commitment to rural America, that electric co-ops will continue to function, that nutrition will continue to be important in this America, that women and children will receive the nutrition that they need, and that the loan program for rural America's small farmers continues to be intact. Let's see. Sometimes pronouncements that are not followed with action are just that, political banter.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this resolution and the other resolution to follow will be the last items, as was predicted, that this Congress does before it goes on recess for 6 weeks.

The agriculture appropriations legislation is not done yet, and so rural America can hold its breath until the Republican majority satisfies an extreme agenda on the part of their Members, and we all wait.

However, we are going to vote on these two resolutions, resolutions that are not necessary, minor, almost petty, while the American people wait for some real solutions and some real actions on the part of the Republican majority.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. To be clear, I agree that the lesser prairie-chicken is important. All threatened and endangered species are important. We are in the midst of a biodiversity crisis, as we speak.

What I find patently unimportant is this resolution that doesn't respect the science, doesn't respect our imperative to protect biodiversity and slow down climate change, and certainly doesn't respect the important things that the American people have sent us here to do that are not being done.

This resolution is a polluter-requested, partisan attack that my Republican colleagues seem to be able to defend only with opinions, anecdotes, and industry talking points. I will remind us all; it will go nowhere. Good policy is not built solely on opinions. It is built on science, facts, and the needs of the American people.

The fact is that climate change, not the chicken, is killing Americans and costing us hundreds of billions of dollars each year. I urge my colleagues to oppose S.J. Res. 9.

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to the resolution, but before I go into that part, I was thinking. Today doesn't feel like it is a day that we are debating chickens and bats. It feels strangely like Groundhog Day and that we are doing this over and over again.

Anyway, Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. Like the one we just saw, this resolution doesn't do anything the American people have asked for.

In my 20 years in Congress, no constituent has ever asked me what we are doing to put the northern long-eared bat on the brink of extinction. I suspect I am not alone.

That raises a question. If the Republicans aren't answering to the American people with these absurd resolutions, who are they answering to?

Unfortunately, the answer is the same as it has been since the beginning of this Congress. Nowhere is the answer clearer than on the Natural Resources Committee, where we see countless hearings and bills just like this one that attack the Endangered Species Act and our other fundamental environmental protections like the National Environmental Policy Act.

To put it simply, the GOP's environmental and energy agenda is designed for one constituency and one constituency only--the polluting industry.

If you have any doubts, let's just do a brief recap. Starting back in January, after they finally finished the 15 votes it took to elect a Speaker, the Republican majority wasted no time in getting H.R. 21, their first and apparently last open rule bill, to the floor.

That bill was a shameless giveaway of our public lands to Big Oil. Despite the fact that they already have millions of acres of leases and they don't even use them, it was still the first important bill for the Republican majority.

Next, we had H.R. 1, fittingly dubbed the polluters over people act. Bill number ``H.R. 1`` is typically reserved for the majority party's most important and visionary piece of legislation. In this case, it seems the GOP's vision for America is a desperate and deliberate attempt to give oil, gas, and mining companies every handout and every loophole they can dream up.

H.R. 1 lowered royalty rates, repealed interest fees, reinstated noncompetitive leasing, weakened public health and safety guardrails, and, of course, systematically gutted NEPA.

Given the bill's unpopularity and the grim outlook anywhere beyond this extremist House majority, Republicans decided that the only way to pass it would be to hold the American people hostage with their MAGA- manufactured debt ceiling crisis and make the polluters over people act part of that ransom note.

Unfortunately for all of us, that wasn't the end of their pro- polluter crusade. Industry's favorite GOP enablers have already signaled that they are planning to use the next must-pass legislation opportunity that they have, likely our appropriations bills, as the next hostage situation.

I guess a policy agenda that only polluters want isn't something you can pass through regular order in this House, which brings us back to where we are today.

These resolutions attack the Endangered Species Act, one of the country's most beloved and successful environmental laws. In the 50 years since it was signed into law, the ESA has protected 99 percent of listed species from extinction.

No time is more important than now, while we are facing the compounding

crisis of climate change and biodiversity loss. We should be strengthening and supporting ESA science and implementation, not pecking at it in order to destroy ESA.

Before we go further, we heard from Republicans in the previous debate about how it is hurting energy and Big Oil. We have heard a lot from my colleagues about how the lesser prairie-chicken and the northern long-eared bat are supposedly hurting oil and gas development.

I want to take a moment to assure my Republican colleagues that they don't need to worry about Big Oil. Last year, the top oil companies-- BP, Chevron, Equinor, ExxonMobil, Shell, and TotalEnergies--more than doubled their profits from 2021.

Combined, these companies raked in $219 billion in just profits. That is not revenue; it is just profits. This windfall of cash allowed these companies to pay out a record $110 billion in dividend buybacks to investors and CEO bonuses.

Needless to say, Big Oil is doing okay. The chicken and the bat are not a threat to them, and any crocodile tears about their dire circumstances are just that. Let's remember we work for the American people and not these industry polluters.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, this week in the Rules Committee, we heard one House Republican say: Long-eared bats? I hope the white-nose syndrome wipes them all out and we don't have to worry about it.

A vote for this resolution is a vote for the extinction of the northern long-eared bat.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse), the ranking member on the Federal Lands Subcommittee of the Natural Resources Committee.

Madam Speaker, supporters of this resolution, my Republican colleagues claim that protecting these species will upend timber industries and forest management and a list of economic activities. That is simply not true.

What specifically about forest management practice would be altered by the rule, especially given the preemptive consultations that the southern and eastern forest service regions completed last year.

Last year, in anticipation of these new listing statuses, the U.S. Forest Service preemptively completed consultation on thousands of permits to ensure that they faced no delays in ongoing or previously approved projects with the new listing status.

In addition, my colleagues and I secured over $1 billion in funding last year for Federal agencies to hire staff and expedite Federal permitting, but Republicans voted against that effort and are now pushing extreme CRAs to worsen the dire state of America's wildlife.

It should be noted that bats are critically important to U.S. agriculture and timber industries. Bats have provided up to $53 billion yearly in pest control services to the U.S. agricultural industry. The northern long-eared bat provides these services throughout the 37 States that it inhabits.

We keep seeing the signs about modernizing the Endangered Species Act. Republicans keep saying that they just want to modernize the Endangered Species Act, but this giveaway to dirty oil and gas looks like they want to monetize the Endangered Species Act.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, a comprehensive review of all 88,000- plus ESA consultations from 2008 to 2015 found that no project was stopped or extensively altered as a result of Fish and Wildlife finding jeopardy or adverse modification during this period, and that the medium consultation duration is far lower than the maximum allowed by the Act.

Setting the record straight on that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we end this debate on this particular issue, I had mentioned in the previous debate that let's not forget the underlying issue here. It is about energy policy. It is about energy development policy, and it is about a transition of dealing with the climate crisis and making the transition to renewable and clean energy across this country that is cheaper and is provided equitably. That is the goal. That is where we need to be.

The effort on the part of Republican majority is to continue to grow the dependency on fossil fuels and polluting industries that have contributed significantly to this climate crisis that we are involved with.

We see it around us every day. We are all going to go home to our States and our districts to deal with the issues of heat, drought, wildfires, et cetera, lack of water availability and nutrition availability.

To continue to go on a path where we reinforce the past practice by picking at and beginning to dismantle fundamental issues like clean air, clean water laws, Endangered Species Act that deals with preserving biodiversity that is critical to our lives, and the public's right to know and to participate with the National Environmental Policy Act, that is the agenda.

To reward Big Oil and big industry one more time, to build a dependency, maximize their profits, and then somewhere down the line, when the crisis of the climate is so untenable for the American people, we will deal with it. At that point it will be expensive, it will be painful, and people will suffer while we get to that point.

At the Rules Committee hearing earlier this week, one of my Republican colleagues admitted that he hoped the white-nose syndrome wipes out all the northern long-eared bats so that we won't have to worry about it. It was a pretty bold thing to admit out loud, and a little shortsighted, I might add.

The northern long-eared bat, like every species of bat we are fortunate that we have left, is critical to our ecosystem and the agricultural industry. So if these bats are wiped out, I want to point out that we actually do have to worry about it.

I also can't help but be struck by the similarities between my Republican colleagues' let's call it unique wildlife conservation strategy and the approach they are taking on many of the other issues facing the American people right now, ignoring the facts, ignoring the science, and just letting the damage ensue that has become an all-too- common GOP policy plan.

Climate change, of course, is one of the most pressing issues where the GOP plan is all too clear.

So as we wrap up here and head back to our districts, I leave my colleagues with some final thoughts. If the northern long-eared bat goes extinct, we need to worry about it. If the lesser prairie-chicken goes extinct, we need to worry about it.

If the climate crisis keeps barreling forward over these next 2 years, while our Republican colleagues refuse to do a single thing to protect communities, local businesses, and our health, we most certainly need to worry about that.

The issue for me is not singular to these two CRAs. It is about a very coordinated and deliberate effort to undo protections for the American people and for species, and to deny and to avoid dealing with the monumental crisis that we have before us, which is climate.

If we prepare in transition now, we can make it an equitable and less painful process. If we continue to pass resolutions like this and continue to follow a Big Oil, Big Gas agenda that the GOP presses upon this Congress and the American people, then that climate crisis is going to be painful, expensive, and costly to both humans and to our economy.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the work of Graciela Garcia Candia.

Graciela Garcia Candia is an esteemed educator and leader who has dedicated 41 years of her life to Jobs for Arizona's Graduates, a program that empowers youth to achieve academic, personal, and professional success in Arizona. Raised in Arizona after her family immigrated from Mexico when she was only three years old, Graciela's personal journey fuels her passion for championing the educational needs of the state's youth.

Graciela's connection with Jobs for Arizona's Graduates began in 1982 when she joined as the Program Coordinator at Tolleson Union High School. Her exceptional performance garnered numerous local and national awards, highlighting her commitment and effectiveness in helping students succeed. In 1999, Graciela took on the role of Program Manager, where she played a pivotal role in enhancing program management and services for the organization.

In 2003, Graciela's unwavering dedication and desire to make a lasting impact led her to assume the position of president of Jobs for Arizona's Graduates. It was under her leadership the program flourished. Graciela has been instrumental in securing millions of dollars in financial support, establishing valuable partnerships, expanding program sites, and forging strong relationships with key stakeholders such as businesses, government entities, educational institutions, and community leaders.

Graciela's genuine ``students come first'' attitude has been a guiding principle throughout her career. Her unwavering commitment to serving and providing quality services to underrepresented students in Arizona has been the driving force behind Jobs for Arizona's Graduates' success. Her leadership has propelled Jobs for Arizona's Graduates to receive the highest honor awarded by Jobs for America's Graduates for the past 21 years.

As Graciela Garcia Candia enters a well-deserved retirement, her profound impact on the lives of countless young individuals in Arizona

will forever be remembered. Her legacy as an educator and leader will serve as an inspiration for future generations, and her dedication to empowering underserved youth will continue to shape the future of education in Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding.

I happen to represent every border community and every port of entry along the Arizona-Mexico border. It is my home, where I grew up, and that is where I live. That is where I have lived, in those borderlands.

I don't need a photo op tour for me to understand, to feel, and to respect the fact that these communities and this area of our Nation have been left behind not just by policy but by intent.

H.R. 2 is not serious legislation to address our urgent need to fix our broken immigration system, to respond to the pending humanitarian crisis on our border, and to combat the deadly flow of fentanyl and human exploitation by organized crime syndicates. It won't do that.

What H.R. 2 will do?

It will devastate our affordable food supply by eliminating up to half the

workforce in agriculture, farming, and ranching.

It will dramatically increase the economic hardship of border communities and the borderlands.

It will fund the Trump memorial wall, a piece of useless government waste.

It will demonize children and unaccompanied youth.

It will provide Republicans with fundraising tools, and it will also provide them with the means to create division, fear, and chaos in preparation for the 2024 elections.

My Republican colleagues hope that voters will overlook the growing extremism and their failure to deal with real issues in this Congress, one of them being immigration.

The lifting of title 42 challenges Republicans in this House to do more than political posturing. Indeed, it challenges the Biden administration not to allow the pending humanitarian crisis to become desperate and punitive.

I want to also take a little historic look and remind the body of the schizophrenic, anti-immigrant underpinnings of H.R. 2. The echoes of past immigration debates in this Chamber are with us today, and let me quote from the Congressional Record.

In 1884, Congressman Henley of California spoke on the floor of the need to preserve a White man's government from dark and yellow-skinned people.

In 1924, Congressman Wilson of Louisiana said: ``Two things are certain. One is that America cannot exist with a large percentage of mongrel communities with discordant views and aspirations.''

That same year, Representative Robsion of Kentucky said: ``Let us send out the slackers and undesirables. Let us clean up America and keep America clean,'' for the real Americans and for the real country.

I mention those historical realities and facts from previous debates to underline the point that H.R. 2 must not be a means to grow the worst nativist impulses that we might have in this Congress or to accept ethnic and racial prejudices.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Thompson for yielding me time.

All to further hardship and accept ethnic and racial prejudices as criteria in our immigration laws and policies, bringing to life those echoes of the past.

The values and the common ground that must be found in order to effectively deal with the issue of immigration, with the issue of asylum seekers and refuge seekers, requires real solutions. It requires humanitarian relief, but it also requires an enforcement focus that deals with the issues that have been talked about by the other side: fentanyl, drug running, and human exploitation.

It also requires that all of us in Congress, and particularly those who represent the borderlands, be included in those discussions to the point that we can bring the real voices, the real impulses, and the real needs of those communities.

H.R. 2 must be defeated because it is against our values, and it promotes a mythology that everything that happens on that southern border is bad, unhealthy, criminal, and un-American.

That is wrong. Vote ``no'' on H.R. 2.

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

Mr. Speaker, the default on America act is foolish. It is harmful. It is a harmful piece of legislation offered to appease the Republican Party's most extreme fringe.

The Republicans' plan to handle the debt limit is not a plan at all. It is a ransom note that threatens aggressively to take our country backward, and everybody loses.

Either Republicans force default, which results in skyrocketing student loans, veterans losing out on hard-earned benefits, and countless other incomprehensible effects that will hit the most vulnerable the hardest but will hit working-class folks and middle- class folks hard, as well.

Republicans can enact their tone-deaf economic agenda, giving a huge windfall to billionaires and oil barons, while cutting food assistance to poor families, children, and older people.

If Republicans had their way, they would strip our communities of the right to fight back against polluting industries while padding Big Oil's pockets.

They cut funding for climate science while reversing the progress the Democrats have made on clean energy. They do absolutely nothing to address emissions.

In fact, they give companies free passes to pollute while cutting funding to fight wildfires and provide drought relief.

They say they will help American families, but it slashes already underfunded Tribal education programs and Indian child welfare programs. Their budget would make it harder to tackle wildfires and drought in the West.

This bill is not what the American people want. Our communities want clean air and clean water. They want to be able to put food on the table. They want good, stable jobs, and they want the Federal Government to face climate change head on.

I urge my colleagues to stand up against the default on America act. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, the underlying legislation would already roll back all the positive reforms Democrats have made to the oil and gas leasing program in the Inflation Reduction Act.

For too long, Big Oil paid the taxpayers a pittance for publicly owned gas and oil they extracted and sold for an enormous profit. In the IRA, Democrats fixed our outdated royalty rates, bringing them in line with the royalty rates charged by States. Studies have shown that this will have no impact on gas prices, but it will bring a fair return to the taxpayers.

Republicans want to repeal our reforms and lower royalty rates-- again, a giveaway to an industry that clearly doesn't need it. These low royalty rates are part of the reason this bill increases the deficit.

So much for that fiscal responsibility and restraint.

Big Oil doesn't need the giveaway. The rich are getting richer.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, let me remind everyone that Big Oil giants reported their largest profits in history in 2022, together making over a trillion dollars in sales, all while American families were struggling.

We can't continue to rely on the decades-old Republican ``drill, baby, drill'' mantra to lower prices for Americans. Policies that make us more dependent on fossil fuels will keep subjecting Americans to the whims of dictators and global market shifts, which always means higher energy prices.

Instead, we can invest in clean energy here at home. We can reach our true energy independence, bring stability to the American family, and fight climate change all at the same time.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to, once again, remind everyone that H.R. 1 is the pinnacle piece of legislation for the Republican majority. This bill, as the debates have shown throughout these last few days, is a boondoggle. It is a giveaway.

H.R. 1 puts us back into the position of less protection for the American people and less protection for our environment, and it sets us back in the struggle with the ticking time bomb of the climate crisis. H.R. 1 and this amendment continue that pattern. I urge a ``no'' vote.

As far as H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, if this is the pinnacle of legislative effort on the part of the Republican majority, one can only wonder why we are not concentrating on giving time to the gun violence that is all around us in this country and the recent deaths of children and adults at the Christian church.

That is not an issue with this Republican majority. In fact, they have said they can't do anything about it, that the sacrosanctity of the Second Amendment prevents them from doing anything.

Yet, H.R. 1, the pinnacle, the zenith of their legislative effort, undercuts basic protections for the American people, fundamental, core environmental laws that have protected the American people since the 1970s.

H.R. 1 and this amendment deserve to be defeated.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition, though I am not opposed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

During our markup of this bill in the committee, Representative Gosar offered a similar amendment to this one, though it applied only to oil and gas, not mining. I asked if he would consider adding mining to that ban, but that was declined.

I also had an amendment to this bill to include mining in this ban, which was not made in order. However, this Republican amendment, which is very similar to my own, was made in order.

I am glad to see that at least some Republicans have come around to the point of including mining as part of the ban.

If we don't want the Chinese Communist Party developing oil and gas leases on Federal land and water, then we shouldn't be supportive of the CCP mining our publicly owned minerals.

It isn't hard to find that many foreign-owned parent companies have terrible records of human rights abuses, environmental degradation, harming indigenous communities, and destroying sacred sites.

Some foreign companies, specifically several owned by the Government of China, are known to have horrible records on all of these fronts, yet they can operate freely on our Federal land, including in my home State of Arizona, through their subsidiaries.

I have repeatedly heard from my colleagues that we agree that human rights and environmental abuses are wrong, but so far, they have refused to address the problem.

As the demand for these minerals increases, let's not rush to open our lands to just anyone who wants to mine. Let's take a closer look at who is operating on our Federal lands and work to raise the global standard.

Let me remind Members that under our outdated 150-year-old mining law, mining claimants do not pay a cent, not one penny, for the public's valuable resources that they extract and turn around and sell--nothing. That is a better deal than even oil and gas get.

We absolutely should not be handing our public mineral resources over to the CCP with no fair return to the American people, no return to the American people at all, where the result would be simply just to destroy our lands.

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

Mr. Chair, let me just give one important example of what this amendment addresses.

In my home State of Arizona, at Oak Flat, an area sacred to the Apache people and other indigenous Tribes in Arizona and in New Mexico, there was a deal made to give Federal land to a foreign-owned mining company, Rio Tinto. It is a domestic, local subsidiary but owned by Rio Tinto, which is also partially owned by the Chinese Government. This company has a horrible track record around the globe.

In 2020, it demolished a 46,000-year-old Australian aboriginal site, an irreplaceable cultural site, an artifact and sacred site, to expand an iron mine. This amendment stops rolling out the welcome mat for these mining companies.

Mr. Chair, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed.

Mr. Chair, I rise in support of this amendment.

Environmental reviews are how we learn about a project's potential impacts on our lands, water, and public health. They are a critical safeguard against harmful industry practices.

The section of the bill this amendment amends says that project sponsors can fund their own environmental reviews. The entire section is wrong, and this amendment begins to recognize that.

It would ban the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Interior from accepting funds for environmental review from the Chinese Communist Party.

But my question is: Why stop there?

What about other foreign adversaries?

What about the entities that have committed human rights abuses?

What about the entities that have lobbied the Federal Government?

How do we ensure that any outside funding will be clear of conflicts of interest?

From my view, we can't.

The Federal Government should have the sole responsibility to conduct unbiased environmental review, because the Federal Government is responsible for protecting its citizens.

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

Mr. Chair, I concur with much of what Chairman Westerman said. I support the amendment. I don't think it goes far enough.

I think that as we confront the question that he brought up of Chinese communism and their influence and their participation in activities on our public lands and waters, that we need to make sure that that doesn't occur.

But I would extend that further. I would extend it to cronyism. I would extend it to insider trading. I would extend it to large corporate interests, many times foreign-owned companies, dictating our energy policy and production for this country.

The point that we have here, as Representatives of our constituents and the Federal Government, is to protect the American people. To protect the American people is to make sure that their public health and their right to know and their right to seek redress is protected.

H.R. 1 does not do this. This amendment is a step in that direction, but the underlying bill does not.

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

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment requires the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service to do very basic reporting on funding that the agency would start receiving under the bill from outside groups for processing permits.

The agencies would only have to report at the end of each year how much money they got from which outside groups, not which permits that money funded. This won't do much, if anything, to prevent conflicts of interest and corruption in permitting.

The section that this amendment amends is very, very bad. To me, this amendment demonstrates that some Republicans are noticing the absurdity.

Instead of requiring after-the-fact reporting on outside money influencing our permitting process, why not prevent conflicts of interest in the first place?

Again, the Federal Government should have sole responsibility to conduct unbiased environmental reviews, because the Federal Government is responsible for protecting its citizens.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, there is a way to speed up and deal with the backlog. We, Democrats, in the Inflation Reduction Act fought for and included $1 billion to deal specifically with NEPA and the review process to bring it up to capacity and staff it. The same can be done for the other agencies that do species reviews, marine reviews, et cetera. It can be done and it needs to be done by the government.

I think the Federal Government should have the sole responsibility to conduct unbiased environmental reviews. That would deal with the backlog. With the $1 billion under NEPA, we will reach that 2-year threshold that the Trump administration wanted, that the Republican majority wanted, and Senators, including Manchin, wanted. We can do the same with the other agencies as well.

It is about backlog. It is not about continuing a self-fulfilling prophesy. The prophesy has been to starve these departments so that you can claim that things are not being done in a timely fashion.

This is an opportunity. The President has recommended it in his budget to fully allow the transfer of money from the IRA to this review process with other agencies, not just NEPA.

I think this amendment is redundant in the sense that we establish a dependency on outside funding from potential claimants to leases and permits within our Federal lands and waters and depend on them to be able to deal with that backlog.

If we are going to speed this up, let's do it correctly. Let's do it with the taxpayer and the American public's rights and public health in mind and fund them fully. We should allow the President and the departments to transfer money to the areas in which they are needed. That is what speeds it up.

What we are doing today in terms of requiring a report will have no real effect on the backlog and opens the doors to conflicts of interest and corruption in our permitting process.

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, this amendment says that if the Secretary of Defense takes any action under the Defense Production Act related to solar panels or electric vehicles, it can't be treated as a covered project under FAST-41. I have my own concerns about FAST-41, specifically around ensuring that communities have proper input in project permitting. This amendment is a blatant attack on clean energy infrastructure, and I cannot support it.

Mr. Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I would be remiss, after the chairman's acknowledgement of his staff, not to do the same.

I thank the Democrats on our committee for their hard work and their effort to keep the worst from happening with H.R. 1. Their work has been phenomenal and all of us on the committee, as members, are very appreciative.

Let me just go back to polluters over people act, H.R. 1. H.R. 1 is supposed to be the pinnacle, the apex of legislative action on the part of the Republican majority. While we are having this discussion, looming over the Nation is the default--the debt ceiling--and the negotiations being promoted by the Republican majority and the cuts that are being promoted to the basic services and programs that the American people not only depend on, but rely on for their lives.

We are not talking about that. All we are hearing is that if permitting doesn't happen the way that the industry wants it in terms of changing the basic laws that protect the American people, their health, and our environment, then we will make that part of the hostage-taking in any discussion and any negotiations that we have around the debt ceiling.

We will continue to work hard, the Republican majority are saying, to gut NEPA, to gut basic environmental and public health laws in this country because that is the zenith of the effort.

H.R. 1 is not a legislative effort; it is a giveaway. It is empowering Big Oil and Big Gas to once again control the energy policy of this Nation, ignore climate change, and cost the American people more and more through the cuts that are being anticipated and through the fact that we are not concentrating on their needs and concentrating on the needs of Big Oil and Big Gas--an industry that doesn't need our attention, doesn't need our help, and certainly does not need the handouts in H.R. 1.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the Government Accountability Office to study the sufficiency of the current environmental review process for offshore wind projects.

I think we can all agree that offshore energy projects, including offshore wind projects, need to be studied thoroughly before being built, and the National Environmental Policy Act helps us do that review. However, H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, guts the National Environmental Policy Act.

If I lived in a coastal community, I would be pretty nervous about how H.R. 1 makes it harder for stakeholders to weigh in on projects that might affect my community. This amendment scrutinizes the environmental review process for renewable energy development, but the underlying bill guts the review process for all offshore development.

As we have seen in the Gulf, the infrastructure needed for oil and gas drilling has decimated wetlands, and oil spills like the BP disaster close beaches and kill wildlife.

Scientists have found that seismic surveys for offshore oil exploration are far more damaging to marine mammals than surveys for offshore wind.

A couple-page GAO study on whether environmental reviews of offshore wind are strong enough doesn't make up for the cuts to those reviews in H.R. 1. A better path forward is to reject the polluters over people act and, instead,

make sure Federal agencies have the tools, capacity, and resources they need to complete reviews in a timely fashion.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), who is our leader in the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Chairman, as we finish the amendment process under the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Committee, let me just close by saying that the polluters over people act, H.R. 1, has one distinct and sole purpose, and that is to dismantle, weaken, and eliminate basic laws and legal protections that have been in place for over 50 years around important issues of public health and environment.

What we have heard today is rationale regarding permitting reform, rationale regarding energy independence and dominance, but the sole purpose of these concepts is dog whistles. They are dog whistles for climate denial and no action. They are dog whistles for having corporate dominance, not public interest, in charge of the most vital natural resource, and that is our people.

H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, is a basic assault on public health, public interest, and it prevents us from dealing with the reality of climate change and the need to take action now.

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

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. While I recognize the amendment's underlying goal is to make it easier to obtain a Clean Water Act permit, not all permits have the same potential impacts on water quality.

We need to take care to distinguish between those permits that can be expedited because of their minimal impact on the environment and those that need additional attention and scrutiny.

The Clean Water Act already authorizes the use of general permits to allow a more expedited process for activities in the wetlands that will cause only minimal adverse environmental effects when performed separately and will have only minimal cumulative adverse effects on the environment.

Current EPA regulations also allow the issuance of general permits for point source discharges that involve the same or substantially similar types of operations, such as construction-related activities, urban stormwater, and the western and central Gulf of Mexico offshore oil and gas activities.

The amendment attempts to codify existing EPA regulations on general use permits for point source discharges without the safeguard that the activities have only a minimal impact on the environment. The amendment does not prescribe how these new requirements will interact with existing general permit authority.

Conflicting standards may have the opposite effect that the Representative intends. It may restrict EPA's authority to determine which activities are eligible to use the more streamlined process of obtaining general permit coverage and those activities more appropriately reviewed under a more rigorous individual permit authority. Bogging down the EPA with layers of rules will not make obtaining a permit easier.

The amendment also expands who can apply an expired general use permit onto new projects. Under current law, current permittees who file a notice of intent to be covered under a general use permit scheduled for reissuance remain covered by the previous permit, even if there should be a lapse between expiration and reissuance.

The amendment requires the new applicant also be allowed to use an expired permit regardless of whether or not the permit is likely to be renewed. Allowing automatic expansion of permits that have not been renewed for legitimate concerns will not improve water quality.

I stand ready to work with Representative Graves or any other colleague who seeks to achieve sensible permitting reform while continuing to uphold our Nation's water quality. However, this amendment does not uphold our Nation's water quality, and that is why I will oppose it.

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

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

Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chair, House Democrats filed several amendments to H.R. 1 that would help mitigate some of the outright damage to our climate, our communities, and our economic future that this bill would cause.

Unfortunately, only 7 out of 95 were made in order to get an open debate and an up-or-down vote.

Some Republicans have also filed amendments that I support. But I am afraid that at the end of the day, there is ultimately no path forward for making H.R. 1 any semblance of a legislative proposal that the American people, not polluters, deserve.

The polluters over people act will actively and aggressively take us backward regarding emissions and in our

transition to clean energy. It guts our bedrock environmental laws and takes communities out of the permitting process entirely, the public's right to know. Some of the Republican amendments add to that mess.

To start, I rise today in opposition to this amendment, which would make a harmful bill even worse by arbitrarily eroding community protections under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA.

This amendment greatly expands the limited environmental review standards of the 2015 FAST Act to a series of coal waste extraction activities that can cause significant environmental damage and warrant strong environmental review standards.

There is already a deliberate process in place under the FAST Act to expand its limited environmental review standards to new types of projects under certain conditions. This amendment is a legislative end run around that deliberative process that inappropriately curtails public input, environmental review, and judicial review under NEPA.

At its most basic level, NEPA simply requires government agencies to assess significant environmental and public health impacts before a decision is made and potentially harmful activities like coal waste extraction begin. NEPA doesn't stop these activities. It simply assures that their impacts are considered and that the public knows.

This amendment undermines the basic purposes of NEPA. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would further restrict access to the courts to hold polluters accountable when they violate the law and unlawfully harm public health and the environment.

The underlying bill already bars additional review of a permit, license, or approval under all Federal laws unless filed within 120 days. This amendment reduces judicial review times even further to 90 days for major infrastructure projects that can greatly harm communities.

By contrast, judicial review under most of our Federal environmental and public health laws is generally 5 to 6 years.

Congress included a judicial review period of this length in most of these laws because often serious public health and environmental effects aren't known within the first 120 days and certainly not within 90 days.

Judicial review is a key enforcement mechanism for most of our major environmental and public health laws. This amendment doubles down on the underlying bill's effort to gut the enforcement of our Nation's laws and to give polluters a virtual blank check.

I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, it is simply a public right that the public has an opportunity to seek redress in the courts. To limit that should not be part of this legislation. I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment attempts to accelerate pipeline construction, and it does so by undermining informed decisionmaking and meaningful review which falls under the National Environmental Policy Act and other established bedrock laws.

We have an extensive record showing that NEPA is not a meaningful cause of energy project delays, period. When a delay does occur, it is usually because of the permit applicant who is causing the delay or because of the lack of funding for agency staff and resources at permitting offices.

While we cannot do anything about applicant delays, we have already addressed the other core issue, and we should be celebrating that. Democrats fought to get more than $1 billion in the Inflation Reduction Act to staff up Federal agencies' permitting offices so they would be able to efficiently and effectively process permits.

The Council on Environmental Quality has also now told us that because of what Democrats delivered, even the most extensive form of environmental review will, in most cases, take 2 years or less. By the way, that was the target timeline of industry, Trump, and Senator Manchin.

Democrats are making quick, but high-quality reviews a reality. Republicans simply want to mandate low-quality reviews or none at all.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not necessarily opposed.

Madam Chair, the amendment offered by my colleague from Florida, Mr. Donalds, requires the Secretary to submit a report to Congress that includes the status of uranium deposits in the U.S., information on the quality of these deposits compared to the rest of the world, and policy considerations regarding the use of these deposits.

Although this amendment concerns only the making of a report, I want to take a moment to highlight the history of uranium mining in this country as it relates to our indigenous communities.

One example I will use is the Navajo Nation. From the 1940s to the 1980s, nearly 30 million tons of uranium ore were extracted from the Nation's lands, exposing generations of Tribal members to the contamination that permeated these sites.

After the mining companies were done, they simply left their operations and failed to engage in any cleanup measures.

Today, there are over 500 abandoned uranium mines on the Tribal Nation's lands, and this continues to be a serious concern for the Nation's Tribal leadership as we speak.

As you can imagine, these mines have contributed to chronic health outcomes among Tribal members and have left countless homes and water sources with elevated levels of radiation.

When we consider the status of uranium mining in this country, we must also consider the inequitable history that this industry has imposed specifically upon Tribal communities.

I hope that in addition to the information my colleague would like to be included in the amendment's report, we can also work to include a survey of the industry's historical practices and expected challenges and outcomes to local and surrounding communities.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, my comments about uranium mining and the reports that are requested in this amendment, I am not arguing with the request. My point is that there is a history here of impacted communities.

What do we do with waste? That challenge, the contamination, the cleanup requirements, what are the company's responsibilities? That should all be part of a survey.

If we are aggressively pursuing uranium as a source, then we need to aggressively pursue the protections, information, and intended and unintended consequences of uranium mining, of which we have a history. That is the request.

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

Madam Chair, I rise as the designee of Representative Escobar, and I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, when the government offers up public land for an oil and gas lease sale, the public has a right to challenge the agency's decision.

Challenges can be for any number of reasons, from concerns about air or water, harming cultural heritage, threatening wildlife, or hurting recreational or agricultural businesses in the area.

The polluters over people act puts an arbitrary time limit on these challenges, saying that any claim must be resolved within 60 days so the agency can get on with issuing the leases.

If these challenges have merit, they should be fully considered. The arbitrary deadline shuts the American people out of the decisionmaking process.

This amendment would restore the American people's voice on how their public lands are used.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Energy independence, clean, renewable, safe energy, is what we are all for. This amendment continues to have the public involved in decisionmaking that affects them, their communities, and their families.

Madam Chair, I urge approval of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I am happy to support my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who seem to be taking an interest in supporting our homegrown, clean energy economy.

Unfortunately, there isn't much else in H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, that will help us shift to the clean energy future that we need to combat the climate crisis.

I will also say, I am significantly more concerned about foreign- owned companies buying up oil, gas, and minerals and polluting in the United States without consequence.

This amendment aligns with my efforts to increase transparency around who is operating on our lands and my efforts on raising global standards. Let's make sure we have good actors operating on our lands. We owe that much to the American people.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, we already have a national strategy in critical minerals. The Democratic-passed Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act built on the Energy Policy Act of 2020 to give agencies broad authorities to responsibly decrease reliance on China by diversifying sources, finding substitutes, and, importantly, recycling and reusing, something Republicans often ignore in favor of rushing into new mining.

This amendment puts a focus on new mining without essential protections for communities and the environment.

Many of the minerals we need for a clean energy transition in the United States are within 35 miles of Tribal land, yet neither this amendment nor the underlying bill addresses the impact of domestic mining on indigenous communities at all. It doesn't address the long- overdue need to reform the Mining Law of 1872.

We know there will be increased demand for minerals as we transition to renewable energy. That is why it is essential to reform the mining law, period.

We need to ensure better protections for the environment; a fair return to the American people that royalties be paid, and a seat at the table for Tribal government, as it is dictated in the government-to- government and trust responsibility that Congress holds.

Madam Chair, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and instead work on real, meaningful reform to support the clean energy transition.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, there is a strategy for critical minerals, but whatever we do going forward, the essential protections that are in place for communities, the requirement of the Tribal consultation and being at the table, that is our obligation--our constitutional obligation. Those need to be followed.

The reason they need to be followed is the energy strategy that I am hearing from the Republicans is just going back to the good old days. The good old days created these laws, these protections.

I use the example of Navajo Nation and uranium contamination. The list can go on and on and on. If we are saying that that collateral damage, those bad health impacts, that destruction of a community, that toxic cleanup left to local taxpayers, that that is okay because that is part of the past and that is part of the mining history of the past under the 1872 law, that we should replicate that now? No.

This amendment is wrong-headed. It takes us in a different direction. It cuts the public out of the process. It violates our nation-to-nation consultation responsibility.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, once again, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, which would unnecessarily waive fundamental environmental laws for wildfire mitigation activity adjacent to roads.

Madam Chair, the underlying bill we are considering today is a polluter wish list of environmental shortcuts designed to open our public lands to more and more extraction while cutting the public out of the decisionmaking process.

The bottom line is, I simply do not think that Congress should be in the business of waiving requirements outlined in the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Protection Act.

These laws provide critical protections that guide the management of our public lands and waters--critical protections that do not hinder efforts to mitigate wildfire risk or manage our forests.

In fact, many of the activities contemplated by the amendment are covered under existing categorical exclusions, which allow land management

agencies to carry out routine projects in a fast, efficient, and flexible manner.

I will not deny that carrying out wildfire mitigation projects across our national forest and public land is a critical priority. However, we do not have to cast aside environmental standards to get it done.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, which would change existing guidelines and create a new categorical exclusion for managing vegetation along transmission lines that run across national forests and public lands.

In order to advance the renewable energy future that the underlying bill moves us away from, we do need to prioritize transmission.

That is why House Democrats worked tirelessly to invest billions in new opportunities that the Biden administration is currently delivering across America.

These investments are building out rural electrical infrastructure and will expand access to renewable energy to more and more Americans.

Confronting the climate crisis also means reducing risk associated with transmission infrastructure, which certainly includes wildfire. However, this amendment is a bridge too far.

There is an administrative process to establish categorical exclusions. That is the right way to get them done, not through a fly- by-night amendment on a largely unrelated piece of legislation.

The amendment also sets up unrealistic approval timelines, deeming a permit approved if an agency has not responded within 60 days. We all know that Federal land management agencies are understaffed and underresourced.

The solution is investing in the workforce and building out agency capacity, not creating unworkable timelines designed to ultimately be ignored.

This amendment, however, is not the answer.

Madam Chair, I urge a vote ``no'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

This amendment stops any offshore wind lease sales in the waters around Florida until the Government Accountability Office publishes a report on the impacts of wind energy development on military readiness, the marine environment, and tourism.

I find the amendment somewhat ironic in that H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, guts the National Environmental Policy Act, which is the best tool for thoroughly studying the impacts of major projects like offshore wind.

A robust NEPA process will evaluate the potential impacts of offshore wind projects on military activities, fisheries, marine life, tourism, and coastal communities.

NEPA is the tool our government should use to help identify the best places for offshore wind and how to mitigate any potential impacts.

With all due respect to the GAO, a couple-page GAO study on the potential impacts of offshore wind doesn't make up for a thorough, robust NEPA review.

We need to make sure that coastal communities have the tools that NEPA offers to weigh in on projects that may affect their coastlines and their marine resources.

Speaking of NEPA, my colleague referenced a project. According to Politico, ``But look at the energy project that Republicans are citing as their poster child for the problem sheds light on where their push may or may not help speed project approvals.

``GOP lawmakers focused on delays to the Cardinal-Hickory Creek transmission line during a legislative hearing last month, blaming the NEPA process for years of delay that have stymied a 102-mile power project from Wisconsin to Iowa. Yet, Republican's proposed changes `would not impact' the project, said Rod Pritchard, a spokepersons for the power line's developer, ITC Midwest.''

H.R. 1 guts NEPA, begins dismantling it, weakens it, and cuts the public out of the process.

This amendment protects Florida and their coastline. There are other coastlines and other communities that don't want extraction such as gas and oil.

I mentioned California and States along the Atlantic, and they should be extended. They fight every day to preserve those areas.

Madam Chair, I oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, a frustrated former Republican official who worked for the White House Council on Environmental Quality also said regarding NEPA and H.R. 1, ``. . . we are spending 99 percent of our political capital on a set of reforms that will be of no statistically significant consequence.''

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

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to it.

Madam Chair, I support this amendment. I am happy to support my colleague on the other side of the aisle who seems to be taking an interest in supporting our homegrown, clean energy economy.

Growing a wind industry with domestic supply chains will help us create family-sustaining, good union jobs, support local economies, and help fight the climate crisis.

Madam Chair, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chair, today I rise in urgent opposition to the Republicans' H.R. 1.

Last week, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its final report. Their message couldn't be clearer. We have a lot to do and very little time to do it before the ticking climate bomb we are living in goes off.

I want to emphasize that their message wasn't one of complete despair. There is hope. The hope hinges on two major conditions.

One, we must stop burning fossil fuels, the number one cause of climate change. And two, we must transform our energy system to a cleaner and more sustainable one now.

H.R. 1, the bill before us today, which has earned the fitting title of polluters over people act, will actively and aggressively take us backwards on both those accounts.

Looking more like a nearly 200-page love letter to polluting industries than a serious legislative effort, the polluters over people act is a laundry list of gifts and giveaways to polluting industries.

Let's look at what it does for Big Oil. For example, last year companies shattered profit records across the board by price gouging working Americans at the pump while also hoarding thousands of unused leases on our public lands and waters.

Rather than hold Big Oil accountable for this abuse, the polluters over people act lowers royalty rates, repeals interest fees, reinstates noncompetitive leasing, and forces Federal agencies to hold rock-bottom lease sales all but assuring that last year's profit records will soon be broken again.

Never to be outdone, the mining industry gets its fair share of gifts in H.R. 1, as well. Mining companies, many of which are foreign-owned, already enjoy a free-for-all on our public lands. They make a mockery of Tribal consultation, destroy sacred and special places, ruin the landscape, and leave behind a toxic mess that pollutes our water and hurts our health--all without paying a cent to the American people--not one red cent is paid in royalties.

Now included in this package is that they can use the public land for anything they want, including dumping of toxic mineral waste.

There is more, but suffice it to say, with all these handouts, it comes as no surprise that the Congressional Budget Office just reported last week that H.R. 1 will actually increase the Federal deficit.

Staying true to its name, the polluters over people act also fast- tracks dirty energy projects by gutting our bedrock environmental and public health laws; namely, the National Environmental Policy Act, or

Mr. Chair, we heard the term NIMBY thrown around to describe opposition to this bill. This NIMBY term, not in my backyard, is used to describe local residents, oftentimes very wealthy residents, who oppose development in their neighborhoods, but unfortunately support development of it elsewhere.

This NIMBY term is being used by some to try to discredit opposition to this bill. In reality, the groundswell of opposition of this bill comes from places that look like places behind me, not Martha's Vineyard--places like Cancer Alley along the Gulf Coast, and many other environmental justice communities across the country that millions upon millions of American call home.

Make no mistake, the greatest consequences from pollution giveaways in

H.R. 1 will fall on places like the ones in this photograph that are already overburdened by industries' pollution.

Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

Mr. Chairman, let me remind my colleagues that this bill provides more handouts to foreign mining companies with terrible environmental and human rights records.

For example, Rio Tinto, a foreign-owned mining company, is preparing for a new copper mine in Arizona at a sacred site, Oak Flat. In 2020, the company knowingly and needlessly demolished a 46,000-year-old sacred Australian aboriginal site, an irreplaceable cultural artifact, to expand an iron mine.

This bill rolls out the welcome mat for even more mining by foreign- controlled companies with records of human rights violations, cultural desecration, and pollution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin), who is a valued member of our committee.

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

It is too bad that my Republican colleagues continue to point to Chinese and Russian practices to try to lower the bar for environmental and community protections in our own country. The United States should lead, and we shouldn't set our standards by China or Russia.

The American people want their protections, they want clean energy, and they want the process that allows the American people to know and to participate. This bill does none of that.

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Casten).

Madam Chair, just a reminder. H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, repeals the $4.5 billion home electrification rebate program designed to lower energy bills for all American families.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Ocasio-Cortez.)

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Landsman).

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

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

When we were in the majority, Democrats, we passed H.R. 1. What was that about? It was not about elections. It was about our democracy. It was about protecting that democracy. After January 6, that became urgent.

Now, some might want to deny that--that was just a walk in the park, people taking a stroll. We were here. We knew what was going on, and the American people knew what was going on.

The issue of patriotism has been brought up. It is patriotic for us to oppose polluters over people. It is patriotic because we care and feel that the public health of the American people needs to be protected, that we have to deal with climate and the crisis that we are confronting.

To question the patriotism of those instincts is wrong, and we will continue to represent the American people on their most urgent needs. The future and their destinies shouldn't be turned over to Big Oil and Big Gas and the mining industry, for them to determine that future. They have to have a role, and our statutes and the protections that are in our laws need to be part of that role.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Tlaib).

Madam Chair, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), my good friend.

Madam Chair, the Republicans claim that they will do more to reduce emissions with this legislation than Democrats have done. I remind everyone that this legislation, the House Republican H.R. 1, has no emission reduction targets and the push is to increase fossil fuel production, which is the highest source that contributes to the climate crisis that we are facing now.

Madam Chair, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell), a member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Madam Chair, if you believe in climate change and the climate crisis, vote ``no'' on this legislation. If you believe that regardless of ideology, if you believe that climate change is real and must be dealt with, vote ``no'' on this legislation because it does nothing to deal with that real threat in front of us.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Crockett).

Madam Chair, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lieu).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing.

Mr. Chair, I thank my Democrat colleagues for their comments, both from the Committee on Natural Resources members and other colleagues that came forth to speak against the polluters over people act, H.R. 1.

Republican Members have produced an extreme piece of legislation. As I listened to the rationale today, there were four or five things that were repeated over and over again. It is an extreme piece and a high cost to pay for a speakership, but nevertheless, the rationale today was, as I heard it, patriotism. If you vote ``no'' for H.R. 1, you don't believe in America and you are not a patriot; you support China, Russia, Venezuela, OPEC, and communism. Unfortunately, that is a desperate lie and unnecessary in this debate.

The other rationale I heard: Let the polluters drive energy policy, production, and the safeguards that the American people need. That was one of the rationales.

The other one that struck me is collateral damage. Tribes, poor people, 40 million Americans, communities of color, once again, they get thrown under the bus to satisfy the greed of polluters.

The issues of environmental justice are almost eliminated and downplayed in this whole discussion. That is 40 million people. That is collateral damage that cannot be tolerated and should not be.

You ignore climate change. You blame other nations and ask Americans to accept a lower bar for themselves and give up the opportunity, as we always have, to historically lead in this world of ours.

This act is about taxpayer subsidies to a powerful and rich polluter industry that doesn't need the support. It dismantles fundamental public health, clean air, clean water, NEPA, environmental protections, and judicial review.

We need to remember that this act, H.R. 1, polluters over people, deals with a very consequential issue, and that is the consequential issue of life. H.R. 1 is dangerous to life. The real true act of patriotism, I remind my colleagues, is our responsibility and our oath to protect lives, to extend the future, to deal with fairness and the public's right to know and the public to have a voice in their future. H.R. 1, the polluters over people act, undoes all of that.

Do we want to go back to the good old days when the rivers were burning, we were clear-cutting forests, when it was all right to admit wrongdoing and not have any consequences?

Those are not the good old days that people want to go back to.

If we are going to deal with the climate challenge and the climate action that is needed in this crisis, H.R. 1 needs to be defeated. It is the right thing to do, it is the American thing to do, and it is the patriotic thing to do.

Mr. Chair, H.R. 1 is dangerous and needs to be defeated. I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.