know. but it's clear that that is the focus of house republicans, that is the focus of former president trump and that is what the republican party stands for today, unfortunately. and so we want to ensure abortion care, with he want to ensure women's -- we want to ensure women's reproductive health and abortion as health care. that is what we stand for and we're willing to have that discussion as we make our way to november. mr. lieu: donald trump campaigned on overturning roe v. wade. he then bragged about overturning roe v. wade. and republicans now want to put a national abortion ban. democrats want to codify roe v. wade. the two parties are not the same. mr. aguilar: in the back. reporter: [indiscernible] --

mr. aguilar: we're concerned, we want everybody to -- [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] >> we'll leave this program now for live house coverage. following order. passage of h.r. 529. motions to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4824, h.r. 4877, h.r. 6093, h.r. 3738, h.r. 4016, h.r. 1767. dering the previous question on hse resolution 1173. adoption of house resolution 1173, if ordered. the first electronic vote ll be conducted as a 15-mite vote. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, remaining electnic votes will

be conducted as either five-minute votes or twminute votes. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of h.r 529,n which the yeas and nays are ordered. . h.r. 529. a bill to extend the customs matters of the united states from 12 nautical miles to 2 natticles miles from the baselines of the united states consistent with predential proclamation 7219. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a5-minute vote. [captiong made possible by then, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the clod-captioned coverage of the house proceedis for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 402. the nays are six. the bill is passed. witht objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinish business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. cas, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4824 as amended. which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 4824, a bill to amend the energy policy act of 2005 to require the secretaryf energy to carry o terrestrial caon sequestration research and development activities, and for other rposes. the speaker pro tempore:ed question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning instute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 364. the nays are 44.

2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished businesis the vote on the motion of the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4877, as amended. on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report t title. the clerk: h.r. 4877, a bill to amend the energy policy act of 2005 to direct the secretary of energy to carry out a research development and demonstration program with respect to abandoned wells, and for other purposes. thspeaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device.

this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commerci purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 333. the nays are 75. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, th rulesre suspeed, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.

pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. lucas, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 6093, as amended, on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title. e clerk: h.r. 6093, a bill to improve the national oceanic and spheric administration's weather research, support improvements and weather forecasting and prediction, expand commercial opportunities for the provision of weather data, and for other rposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possiblby the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned covera of the house commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by e u.s. house of

presentatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 394. th nays are 19. 2/3 being in the affirmative the rules are suspended, the bill is passed. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentleman from illinois, mr. bost to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3738 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered the clerk will report the title.

the clerk: h.r. 3738, a bill to amend 38 united statescode to accomplish the department of veterans affairs, veteran economic opportunity and transition administration and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 403. the nays are 10. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed. and without objection, the motion toeconside is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the the gentlenfrom illinois, mr. bost to suspend theules and pass h.r. 4016 on which the yeas and ys are order the clerk will report the title. the clerk: unionalendar 397, h.r. 4016 a bill to amend title 38 of the united statescode to amend secretary of veteran affairs misused by a fiduciary. the speaker pro tempore: the

question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [ctioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation wh the united states hoe of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote, the yeas are 413, the nays are zero. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rul are suspended. the bill is passed. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the thible. -- table. pursuant to cuse 8 of rule 20, the the unfinished business is vote of the motion from illinois, mr. bost, to suspe the rules and pass h.r. 1767 as amended on which yeas and nays are ordered the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 1767, a bill to amend title 38 united statescode to provide the educational assistance paid under the

department of veterans affairs educational assistance programs to an individual who pursued a course of education that was terminated for certain reasons shl not be charged against the entitlement of the individual and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members ll record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceengs for political or commercial purposes is expressly ohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vo, the yeas are 406, the nays are 6. 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without jection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the

table. pursuant to clause 8 of table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the vote on ordering the previous question on house resolution 1173, in which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will rort the title of the resolution. the clerk: has calendar number 73, house resolution 13, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 5, to prohibit the sectary of the interr and the secretary of agriculture from pribiting the use of lead, ammunition, or tackle on certain federal land or water under the jurisdiction of the sectary of the interior and the secretary of the agriculture, and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 2925, to amend the omnibu budget reconciation act of 1993 to provide for security for tenure for use of

mining claims for ancillary activities, and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3195, to rescind public land order 7917 to reinstate mineral leases and permits in the superior natnal forest, to ensure timely review of mine plans of operations, and for other purposes. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 764, to require the secretary of the interior to reissue regulations removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the endangered species act o 1973. providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3397, to require the director of the bureau of land management to withdraw a rule of bureau of land management relating to conservation and landscape health, providing for consideration of the hill h.r. 6283 ever 5, to ratify and approve all authorizations,

permits, verifications, extensions, bye buyological opinions,ncidental statements, and any other approvals or orders issues pursuant to federal law necessary for the establishment and administration of the coastal plain oil and gas leasing program, and for other purposes. and providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 6090, to provide forhe consideration of a definition ofnti-semitism set forth by the internation holocaust remembrance alliance for the enforcement of federal anti-discriminatio laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question on the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the unitedtates house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 209. the nays are 205. on this vote the yeas -- the previous question is now ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many asre in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. leger fernandez: mr. speake- the speaker pro tempore: for what reason does the gentlewoman from seek recognition? ms. leger fernandez: mr.

speaker, i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commerci purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this te, the yeas are 209, the nays

are 205. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider i laid on the table.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota, mr. stauber, seek recognition? mr. stauber: pursuant to house resolution173, i call up house solution 3195 andsk for immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman wish to call up h.r. 3195? mr. stauber: correct. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar 308 h.r. 3195 a bill to rescind public land order 7917 to reinstate mineral leases and permits in the superior national

forest to ensure timely review of the mine's plans for operations and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the amendment in the fate of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended is considered read. the bill as amended shall be debated for one hour, equally dided and controlled by the chr and the ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources or their respective designees. the gentleman from minnesota, mr. stauber, and the gentlewoman from california, ms. porter, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mr. stauber. mr. stauber: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend tear remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 3195.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. stauber: i rise in support of h.r. 31 # 5 superior national forest restoration act of 2024. the district i am proud to represent, minnesota's 8th congressional district is blessed with mineral wealth that would allow america to lead in the 21st century. we are home to the duluth complex, one of the largest mineral deposits in the world which includes eight billion tons of coppe nickel, cobalt and other platinum group metals. this deposit is the world's second largest copper deposit with 34% of the united states' total reserves and world's largest nickel deposit with 95% of the total reserves. these minerals are experiencing large upswings due to battery storage and electric vehicles and other expandingectors.

domestic production of these minerals is critical to our national secury and supply chain security. the deposits in northern minnesota could provide enough copper for over 70 million electric vehicles and nickel for 3.5 million battery packs. the duluth complex and abundant resources lies under the superior national forest and throughout the iron range. the superior national forest is a working industrial forest where timber harvesting and mining are desirable activities. regrettably, in january of 2022, the biden administration caved to radical antijobs ant thy mining activists by cancelling two decades old mineral leases. at the same time, the biden administraon began the withdrawal process on nearly a quarter million acres of land in

the region. the finalizedded withdrawal of 25,000 504 acres went into effect in january of 2023 and prohibits the extraction of any mineral including copper, nick, cobalt, platinum and iron ore for the next 20 years. northern minnesota home to the historic iron range has been mining iron ore for over 140 years. this is the iron ore that provided the military might to the united states and allies to fight and win world war ii. the mine accounts for 80% of the united states' domestically produced steel. the biden administration even wants to restrict iron ore mining in northern minnesota. they have gone too far. these two actions taken by the biden administration are in immediate opposition to its

stated campaign goals to increase domestic mining to meet demand. they are disregarding years of environmental review, a pending mine plan of operation and abundance of support from union workers, local residents, school builds and miners. in doing this, president biden has made his real positn on mining known. would rathe rely on foreign adversaries like communist china instead of union workers who stand rea to deliver minnesota's mineral wealth under the strongest mineral and labor standards in the world. this is morally irresponsible as china is the world's top polluter and relies on child slave labor in their mines in the democratic republic of the congo and that is a fact. they use child slairve labor and imagine the national security crisis we would face should

china decide to withhold these resours. if the biden administration's actions are allowed to stand their objections to the mining industry will not only make our nation less safe but also cripple a sector that provides an economic benefit to northern minnesota. the national importance of the duluth complex is only matched by its significance to our local community. twin metals signed a project labor agreement with the local iron range building and trade association guaranteeing local union jobs during the mine's construction. the economic benefits would be felt throughout our state as mineral development provides funding to every single school district in minnesota through the permanent school trust fund. the superior national forest restoration act would revitalize an essential pillar of northern minnesota's economy, provide for the production of critical

minerals, secure our supply chain, strgthen our national security and bolster the entire domestic mining industry. i urge all my colleagues to join me in support of h.r. 3195 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. porter: i yield myself such time as i may consume is. mr. speaker, welcome back to the show. unlimited drilling and extinction of wildlife brought to you by the g.o.p., a subsidiary of big oil. this reach target the boundary waters in northeast minnesota, a pristine wilderness that is the most visited designated wilderness area in our country. and it's the most visited for good reason. it's -- its beautiful landscapes, crystal clear waters

and abundant wilife make it a haven for outdoor recreation and supports an economy with hundreds of thousands of annual visitors and tens of thousands of jobs across northeastern minnesota. in fact, the boundary waters is so popular that an overwhelming majority of minnesota voters oppose building new mines near this federly protected wilderness. this region and its resources are resources have been under threat for years and are being threatened again today. in 1966, the bureau of land management issued two mineral leases coverg 5,000 acres of the sprr national forest just outside of the boundary areas. there was never mining on either lease, never mining. yet they were renewed in 1989

and again in 2004. in 2012, twin metals, minnesota, a wholly owned subsidiary of a chile mining company requested another extension of those two expired leases on forest service land in the boundary waters watershed to build a copper ne. in 2016 after extensive environmental review process which included public input and scientific analysis, the forest service concluded that copper mining which is significantly different from the mining that the region is used to could result in and i quote, ereme and serious and irreparable harm in the watershed of this wilderness area. the watershed flows north meaning it would flow past the

mine and into our protected wilderness. the forest service found that any spills, leaks or pollution would be all but impossible to contain putting the entire ecosystem and watershed at risk. this should have been the answer. no to this sulphite or copper mine because that's what the scientists say, that's what the community wts and that is what the law means. but a wilderness area is protected from severe harm. but foreign companies wanting to mine and the politicians who answer to them were too enticed. as soon as president trump came into office, his administration ignored the science and community input and reinstated twin metals' leases. the department of interior solicitor under the current administration found that president trump improperly

renewed those leases. thankfully after another review and rounds of community input and tribal consultation, the biden administration finalizedded 20-year protections for 225,000 acres around the wilderness area making that area ineligible for mining. but this bill seeks to undo all of that. this bill would mandate the withdrawal be overturned and the leases be reinstated and no judicial review allowed. . . .. this means it won't matter if the water and air become poisoned and the surrounding trib and communities become severely ill. no one will be able to take those concerns to a judge and ask that they revisit the decision to mine in the boundary waters. you'll hear today that americans have to choose between minin

for minerals to secure our clean energy future or protecting the health of our families and vulnerable ecosystems. that is simplyot the case. we all understand the need for mining as part of our clean energy future. but america is already a top producer of copper and is already invested in a circular economy with treuforted trading -- with our trusted trading partners for cobalt and for nickel. so if we're going to build a sustainable, enduring, modern mining industry, we have to do that while respecting sound science and community input, including tribal consultation. look, i deeply respect the workers and their families who mine and the way that that tradition has contributed to the backbone of industrial america. but they live and work in

locations where mining is appropriate, where there is minimal to know harm to the environment or hum health. unfortunately this bill disregards all of that and seeks to destroy now and deal with the ramifications, not later, not at all. i oppose this legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentlelady reserves, i'm sorry. the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chair. i'll just share with you, congressman james oberstar, democrat, for 36 years in the minnesota eighth congressional district. mr. stauber: supports mining and timber harvesting. in fact, the 1978 -- in 1978, when the wilderness legislation was enacted, he didn't originally support it. but he said, if you're going to do it, do not take away our opportunity to mine outside the boundary waters canoe area and

outside the buffer zone. he was right then because he knew that we would be here today. mr. chair, i want to afford two minutes to my good friend from florida, mr. gimenez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gimenez: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of my friend, representative stauber's, bill, h.r. 3195, the superior national forest restoration act. throughout this congress, the work has shown what many of us already believe, that the threat of communist china looms larger than ever before, casting a shadow over our nation's security and our prosperity. as an compile who was forced to -- exile who was forced to leave my native cuba after the communist takeover, i understand this threat firsthand. that is why i am urging my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill which would reverse the biden administration's plan to cut off minnesota's mineral deposits containing 88% of america's cobalt and 95% of america's

nickel. 75% of the world's cobaltnts for supply. these mines are c.c.p.-owned. communist china party-owned. and massive perpetrators of illegal child labor. these minerals are then shipped to communist china for refining. president biden's putting america at risk by failing to combat communist china's subversive tactics, including undermining america's defense industrial base. we must obliterate the c.c.p.'s monopoly over rare earth minerals critical to development of batteries and 21st century technology. h.r. 3195 is an amazing step in reassuring and reasserting america's industrial might. we work more efficiently, guarantee fairer wages and extract these minerals cleaner than any other nation in the world. what the biden administration is doing makes absolutely no sense. we cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the c.c.p.'s cynical vision and their relentless

pursuit of dominance in the global arena. h.r. 3195 is the epitome of made in america and i urge its passage on the house floor. thank you and i yield back. mr. stauber: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from california is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from minnesota. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. minnesota stands and represented land of sky blue waters. and so i rise to oppose this unnecessary harmful piece of legislation but before i talk about the legislation directly, i want to just take a minute to loop back to the discussion that's taking place on the floor about national security. mr. speaker, i am the ranking member, former chair of the defense appropriations committee. and i take a back seat to no one in making sure that our

industrial base and that this nation has the minerals and the capability to reshore and to make things happen here at home so that we have an efficient supply chain. ms. mccollum: but this piece of legislation doesn't do that. one of the things that i want to clear up is this misnoemer somehow about how mining this copper through a foreign-owned chilean company, is somehow -- that somehow this copper all magically stays here in the united states. it doesn't, mr. speaker. in fact, when this ore is mined, that company has most of its contracts shipping their mined copper to china for smelting. and then it's sold on the open market. so this is not circular where these particular minerals are going to be mined in minnesota,

let alone smelted in minnesota, or here in the united states. they will be sold on the open market. so, the other thing this bill does is it talks about restoring the national fores superior national forest. i served with congressman oberstar. i knew him well. and i would say to you, mr. speaker, that congressman oberstar at the time, he was talking about mining and forestry, we were talking about iron ore mining. i support iron ore mining in minnesota. pieces of legislation to protect the boundary waters, i've -- in my legislation made sure that we do nothing to harm iron ore mining because that is the backbone, that is something that's mined and the steel is produced here in the united states and does go, if we want to talk about defense, back to our industrial base here. but mr. oberstar's not here to

discuss copper sulfite ore mining, or these particular leases and what we know now about this company's mining record. this would -- this piece of legislation would revoke key protections for watershed that contains some of the purest, freshest water in the nation. in the world. this is water that when you're in a canoe, you can dip your hand into it and you can drink from it and worry about nothing happening to you. it's that pure. in fact, the superior national forest contains 20% of all the freshwater in the entire region in the u.s. national forest system. you know, being from minnesota and having served on the committee that has the bill before us today, the natural resources committee, i often hear and colleagues joke about we want your water. why? wars will be fought over water.

water's a precious resource. so what this bill does is it reinstates two mineral leases for which the forest service denied their consent because theseines pose an unacceptable risk to this precious preserve of clean water, which not only enjoys a wilderness for today but will be there for future generations. this would rescind a mineral release that the biden administration finalized last year to withdraw these minerals, by prohibiting mining for 20 years in the watershed of the boundary waters canoe wh wilders area. 20 years. it'sot permanent. it's 20 years. maybe technology does change can but right now these mines fail and they will fail to protect the water. the federal action that was supported by the robust environmental assessment had 19 accompanying resource reports. when the trump administration withdrew -- undid what the obama administration had in protecting

this water, i was chair of the interior resources committee. and you know what, i asked -- they said they were going to do -- they promised they would do a study. i asked for the study repeatedly and repeatedly and repeatedly and when i finally did get the study, which was never completed, mr. speaker, every single page was redacted. every single page was blank. now, i have enough of a security clearance being on the defense committee that they could have shown me and i could have gone in and read it. it was blank because it was a bogus, bogus study. th bill ignores this documented scientific consensus that is proven now. this bill to support a mineral withdraw. this would overturn all the public input, the overwhelming public input in protecting this unique watershed.

and to make matters worse, it also strips away the judicial review as representative porter mentioned. in favor of pro-mining policies. further silencing the voices of those who want thwart shed protected -- thwart shed -- this watershed protected. for these reasons alone, these reasons alone, we should not support this bill. so i want to make sure that instead of undermining a 20-year mineral withdrawl, this amendment -- withdrawal, this amendment that i will offer later in the form of an m.t.r. would protect the boundary waters canoe wilderness aa. it would ensure that public lands and waters, not only of the bwca, but of voyagers national park, will never be polluted by toxic drainage from sulfite ore mining. i will ask unanimous consent to

insert into the record the text of the amendment that i will be offering. i hope my colleagues will support and join me in my amendment that was not allowed in committee, but as an m.t.r. i will offer it to substitute the language with the boundary waters wilderness protection and pollution prevention act. i thank the representative for yielding me the time and, mr. speaker, with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the request is granded, without objection -- granted, without objection. ms. porter: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. stauber: thank you very much, mr. chair. i will just underscore this. when the undersecretaries of defense and energy were asked if china stopped selling us their critical minerals today, what would it do to the united states? they said it would be devastating and dangerous. we cannot allow china to continue to dominate the critical mineral space when we have the opportunity right here. and by the way, mr. chair, i live, work and play in northern minnesota. as i said, this is the district

that i'm privileged to represent. i know clean water. nyou know why? because the cleanest water is in the heart of mining country in the great state of minnesota. mr. chair, i want to offer two minutes to my good friend, representative finish back, -- fischbach, from our state of minnesa. gentlelady is recognized.the mrs. fischbach: thank you, mr. speaker. let us be very clear about what this bill does not reduce any environmental protections. it simply tells the secretary of the interior to do her job. and complete the necessary environmental and regulatory reviews. apparently president biden and congressional democrats are so opposed to mining here in america that they won't even allow a company to prove that they can mine in an environmentally safe way. by opposing this bill, democrats are allowing mines with unregulated labor practices and environmental standards to control the critical minerals

market. republicans are for american jobs, economic security, supply chain security and protecting the environment by mining her in the united states where we have more environmental protections than anywhere else in the world. thank you to my friend, mr. stauber, for his enduring work on this important issue. and i look forward to voting to re-establish mining for vital minerals in minnesota's superior national forest. i yield back. mr. stauber: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. porter: we are hearing a lot about america and america's mineral supplies. but what we're not hearing about is the truth about the chilean mining company who is pursuing these leases. and their mines in -- in their mines in south america, the minerals are shipped to china for refining and smelting and

then sold on the global market. i have seen no evidence, because there is no evidence, that this company won't do the exact same thing here. extracting our publicly owned minerals from pristine wilderness, paying no royalty for them, and then selling them abroad. leaving americans with all of the mess and no benefit. ... i want to talk about the environmental effects of this mining. sulphite oe copper minin not iron mining. sulphite ore copper mining, that is what is being proposed. that sulphite ore copper mining poses a unique threat and that

is different. what happens is that the ore that can that is extracted are metals that are bound together with sulfur. this ore discharges acid drain age into the surface water. it would have drainage for hundreds of years at least. and just so everyone knows, these facts are available information studied and reported by scientists with some who have published their findings at universities including the university of minnesota. proponents of this mine say that their facilities would be safe from leakage. we hear that every time about every environmental extraction proposal. but the facts are clear here.

the forest service fnd that 100%, 100% of sulphite ore copper mines in the united states experienced pipeline spills or accidental releases. all of them. so it is a near certainty that is what will happen that we will have a pipeline spill and have irreparable severe environmental damage if this sulphite ore copper mine is allowed to occur on this forest service land and infect and pollute the boundary waters and unable to reclaim our beautiful pristine wilderness. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. stauber: in the united states, we have the strongest environmental labor standards.

any mine that mines in minnesota or other states must follow those standards. twin metals, the mine's underground constction and dry stack tailings which there is no potential and it was recommended for this mine plan of operation. mr. chair, i would like to introduce -- mr. speaker, i would like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. tiffany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tiffany: i rise in support of this legislation today because we have a very simple question that lies before us, is the 21st century going to be an american century or chinese century. we know the history of the 20th century a we left, america was that shining city on the hill. now as we go into the 21st

century, the question needs to be asked, whose century will and one of the ways chinese do it to control minerals that are traded around the world. so we stand here today -- and this is one of the small decision points we are going to make. it's no different than right across from northern minnesota. there is a natural gas plant that is being held up by the biden administration and a few small select group of local people to prevent a natural-gas-fired plant from being built making one of those small decisions, are we going to be dependent on other countries? because if we are dependent, we will not be that shining city on the hill. i think about the goals this administration has stated. they have talked about american manufacturing.

and i hear itrom both ses. we must have american manufacturing. how are you going to have american manufacturing iyou don't produce some of the minerals and the metals that come out of the grod, how are you going to have american manufacturing if we don't produce some of that in america? i hear that this administration wants to make sure that you use union labor. there's a project labor agreement that is in place to be able to build this mine. this is going to create union jobs. one of the goals of this administration. and certainly they have talked about electric try fix. we want to he can try file our vehicle fleet as well as get rid of natural-gas-fired stoves. how are you going to get there if you don't have t minerals that produce those devices that are going to be able to provide that? because remember, in every toyota prius, there is 60 pounds

of copper, 60 pounds of copper. how are you going to electrify the vehicle fleet without producing minerals right here in america? january 20 of 2021 and first action that this administration took in saying they are going to shut down keystone xl making it clear we are going to be energy independent. what happened to the price of oil? 60 to $100 a barrel, enrhing putin who has used it to wage war in eastern europe. that's what happens when we do not utilize our natural resources, whether it's our forest resources, our mineral resources or oil and natural gas resources. we end up being dependent on other countries. i hear consistently from the other side that i'm all for

mining, but then i pose the question to them, where? where do you support new mines? it's easy to say, well a mine that be h has been there for hundred years and being able to support it and the jobs that come with it, but where do you support new mining in america? the opposing side's witness could not answer that question in our hearing and i still don't hear an answer fromhem yet. where do you support mining in america if you support mining? twin metals went through an exhaustive process and they have been proving they can do this. let them fish the process here of the rigorous environmental permitting that we have not just at the federal level but at the state level because living in minnesota's neighboring state wisconsin, i know how rigorous the state of minnesota is,

mining regulations are. so we have a choice befores today. are we going to allow dirty mining around the world to be able to provide our natural resources in america or respect the health of people, which we have the best health standards of anyone in the world. we have the best safety standards. go to the congo and see the safety standards that are there with eight year olds mining in the congo. environmental standards.and best if you want workers to be safe and want them to be healthy and have the highest environmental standards, then you will support american -- you will support american mining. i would just close with this, in 1960, john f. kennedy went to my district to the montreal mine, thousands of feet down in that mine. he said to those miners, you did

as much to win world war ii as i did on pt-109. are we going to have a 21st century that is an american century or a chinese century? i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. porter: i just heard that republicans now support a clean energy transition? i hope people heard that, because that is wonderful, wonderful news. i want to be the first to welcome you to the clean energy transition club where we support investments for states and municipalities and tribal governments to purchase clean energy technology like solar panels, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, wind turbines, all of which and until today apparently, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle opposed. so as the newest members of the clean energy transition club, i

want to give my colleagues on the other side of the aisle a breve lesson of where the u.s. stands with mineral production and trade, which is needed for the construction of clean energy technology, as my colleagues have correctly pointed out. first the united states is among the top five producers of copper in the world and according to the u.s. geological survey has a low disruption potential. second, while we do not in the united states have a significant amount of nickel or cobalt, we do have close trading relationships with our allies who do. those allies are canada which is lead in nickel. japan, norway and finland and what would twin metals produced. if this project by the chile company was to go forward, pollute our wilderness and shift

the jobs to china and sell it where in the world, what would it complete even if they were to sell all of it to us, and there is no guarantee that would choose to sell any of it in the united states, it would produce 1.5% of cobalt. 2.3% of copper. 3.6% of nickel, according to 2019 annual consumption, the most recent figures i could find. i want to emphasize, there is no guarantee that the minerals produced at this proposed metal mine would wind up back here in the united states. but you know what we absolutely are guaranteed to end up with? pollution, contamination, the destruction of beloved wilderness lands. that's what's at stake here. i also want to emphasize that

the bill, h.r. 3195 would undo the withdrawal of 225,000 acres in the superior national forest. and what that would do in removing these lands from the protection from mining, what it would is violate the will of indigenous communities. the boundary waters and superior national forest are traditionally known as the oshnabi land. the people have occupied this area since 1,000 c.e. and used for thousands of years. by 1830's the united states government began removing indigenous people from their lands in the upper midwest in exchange of millions of aes of land they agreed to pay $35,000 each year for 20 years and the

tribes were granted the right to hunt, fish and gather on those ceded lands. in 1848 copper was discovered on the north shore of lake superior. mining companies pressured the government to open the land to mining which required another land cease is which is the boundary water wilderness area. in 1985 and 1989 they won confirmation of the tribe's right to hunt fish on those lands. to further protect these trey rights the minnesota tribe supported the administration's withdrawal and they support my colleague representative mccollum's bill to permanently protect this region from mining. because of their support for permanent prokses, the tribe has faced boycotts from interest groups who boycotted their

casinos, events and restaurants. that is a ridiculous and cruel response to a tribe that is trying to protect its waters and land from toxic pollution. to add insult to injury, this bill restricts judicial review of the reinstatement of leases. the u.s. government deciding on permits without allowing the tribes to address their concerns in court is an egregious overreach of legislation in general, but also of particular concern to tribal governments that would be directly affected and unable to address their concerns and the only legal means that they currently have. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent t enter a lter from th minnesota tribe in support of permanent protection of the boundary waters. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. porter: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the georgia -- jay is

mr. stauber: the united states imports 46% of the copper we consume from foreign nations the step to securing our mineral pply chain must be to allow and support domestic mining and h.r. 3195 does just that. i yield three minutes to the the gentlewoman from from wyoming, good friend, ms. hageman. . . . . ms. hageman: i rise in support of this act. northern minnesota has a long, proud legacy of responsible mining that was pick of toll in our nation -- pivotal in our tion's victory in world war ii. as we enter io greater strategic competition with china, we are presented with a similar challenge. we can either source american criticalinerals such as those contained in the superior national forest ourselves, or become even more dependent on or chief adversary for our mineral

and energy needs. america has the most stringent environmental standards in the world and we are being forced to source minerals from dictators and despots who use child labor and who are without concern for the illegal -- ecological impact. we have abundant resources here at home, including the abundant duluth complex. despite the benefits of these minerals, the obama and biden administrations have consistently worked to block exploration and development of these lands. this bill will reinstate the mining leases for the world's largest untapped copper nickel deposit and help our nation dominate the critical mineral second quarter while providing hundreds of reliable, well paying jobs. this is an economic issue and a national security iss. we can either be beholden and reliant on a foreign nation that seeks to supplant us or we can be a global leader in the critical mineral industry. i support the twin metals project. i support this bill. and i encourage all of my

colleagues to do the same. thank you and i yield back. mr. stauber: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. porter: i want to talk about what's good for our economy. there have been studies showing that what is best for the economy, including of this area, is to continue to protect these public lands. i'd like to enter into the record, mr. speaker, a study by james stock and jacob brant, harvest economists, outlining the regional impact impact -- economic impacts of two scenarios. the first being the finalized withdrawal and the second is if this mine is allowed to proceed. if mining were permitted, these economists find that there would be an initial but temporary net growth in employment. but over time any economic benefits of mining would be outweighed by the negative impacts of mining on the existing recreational industry and on folks moving to this

area. under any scenario where sulfide-ore copper mine something allowed, it leads to a boom and bust cle where the local economy is left worse off than before. look, these leases sat for decades and decades witho mining used. now when it's economically convenient, they want to mine. that illustrates that this is a boom-bust economy. and what will be destroyed, though, of sent doerring -- is of enduring, lasting economic value. by protecting this region and this land that will help preserve and grow the 22,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in annual visitor spending, including its small businesses, which is essential for a strong and robust diversified economy. the other choice, the alternative, is to allow a chilean mining company to pollute our land, take our

minerals without paying royalty, ship them overseas to china, smelt them and sell them on the global market, including to our competitors. what is best for our american economy is to protect the strong recreational economy we have now in this area and continue to protect these public lands. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. stauber: mr. speaker, the gentlewoman from california is right. the united states does produce a lot of copper. but it usesven more. in 2016 the united states was only 29% import-reliant on copper. eight years later, that number has risen to 46%. this trend cannot continue. we must support our new domestic mines to meet our own demand and, mr. speaker, my colleague just referenced a study that was not pure re-- peer reviewed, it

was t harvard study she brought forward that was not peer reviewed. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. collins: thank youmr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding and i also want to thank mr. stauber for his commitment. not just for your district, not just for the communities in your district and the industry, but the communities and industry across this whole country. you know, we had the opportunity last year to visit your district, hold a field hearing. as a matter of fact, mr. speaker, there was not a single person, colleague from the other side of the aisle that attended that field hearing. if they did, they would have learned a few things. number one, that's one of the largest deposits of critical minerals in the world. that federal land sits beside state land that does have permits for mining. the same thing -- for mining the same thing. theederal land is bng held up. as a matter of fact, 80% of all critical minerals that are mined

in this country are sent over to china to process and be processed because we have shut down smelters in this country. we're down to three. my colleagues would have also seen the look on the communities' face up there. the face of people in a community that's being devastated and they're worried no just about them but for the generations that are to come. these are people that set the standard for mining around the world. so, mr. speaker, this bill is one more step in overturning and untangling this web that these out-of-control federal agencies have placed on a good industry, a great industry in our country. and i encourage all of my colleagues please, vote for this bill. with that, i yield back. mr. stauber: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman researches. the gentlelady is -- reserves. the gentlelady is recognized.

ms. porter: i'd like unanimous consent to enter into the record the following. a letter from the wilderness society in opposition to this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. porter: a 2022 poll citing a 2-1 margin of minnesotans opposing sulfide-ore copper mining on the edge of the boundary waters. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. porter: and testimony in opposition to the legislation from becky rahm, national chair of the campaign to save the boundary waters, a coalition of businesses, conservation greupts and outdoor reck -- groups and outdoor recreation organizations. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman is recognized. stawb taub thank you, mr. chair -- stawb taub thank you, mr. chair -- mr. stauber: thank you, mr. chair. i would like to say that my colleague from california just mentioned temporary jobs. when we first started mining iron ore, 145 years ago, the family thought they were going to be just temporary jobs as well. i would like to yield three minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. bergman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bergman: thank you, mr. speaker. and thank you to my friend and

colleague from northern minnesota. we share a lot of commonalities. one is our love of the outdoors and of our national treasures. i rise in favor today of h.r. 3195, the superior national forest restoration act. for those of us in the north woods of michigan, minnesota and wisconsin, mining is a core part of our history, economies and wa of life. from the long heritage of copper country in the upper peninsula of michigan, to the millions of tons of iron ore that come from minnesota each year, it's a treasure. the abundant resources in our region are now more important than ever, with sources of nickel, cobalt, titanium and now even helium being discovered and poised to play a huge role in the growth in renewable energy technologies and mineral independence. at the same time those of us in the great lakes region are

fiercely protective of our forests, waters and wilderness, which is why i'm a proud supporter of programs like the great lakes restoration initiative and the north american wetlands convation -- conservation act. it's the job of the bureau of land management and the forest service to properly balance responsible resource extraction with the protection of our natural treasures. instead of balance, the biden administration pushed a 20-year ban on mining on more than 200,000 acres of land entirely outside the boundary waters canoe wilderness area. this decision ignored a very simple truth. environmental conservation and utilization of our natural resources are not mutually exclusive. projects should be approved or disapproved based on their individu merits and risks after proper environmental reviews are completed, not just banned wholele.

this abrupt cancellation also goes directly against the biden administration's efforts to secure domestic supply lines for critical minerals that go into solar panels, batteries and other renewable energy infrastructure. the united states cannot lead the world in clean energy while at the same time being reliant on the minerals produced by countries with absolutely no regard for environmental standards like china and russia. this reliance on foreign adversaries for our domestic mineral, manufacturi and energy supply lines also poses significant risk to our national security. we are blessed to have abundant natural resources within our borders and we have the responsibility to protect the environment while we secure america's mineral and energy independence into the future. i strongly urge all of my colleagues to support the bill and i yield back. mr. stauber: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. porter: how much time remains, mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. ms. porter: thank you. i want to start by noting that the harvard study was in fact peer reviewed. and as a forr professor i am very familiar with the peer review process. it is a reliable study and what it shows is what is best for the economy of this region is to protect these public lands and waters. let me ask, what is the value of clean water? water is also a valuable resource. it is also a resource in scarce supply around the country. if this bill moves forward, it would allow for the irreversible pollution of this pristine and incredibly valuable landscape. remember, the forest service concluded after scientific study that there is a virtual certainty of severe and irreparable economic harm. all 100% of the sulfide-ore copper mines in this country

have had leakages and environmental contamination. that is what will happen here. this will be the decimation of local economies that depend on visitation. this is the most visited wilderness area in our country. it belongs to the people of the united stes. it does not belong and should not belong to a chilean mining company which under our outdated mining laws will pay no royalty at all to the american people. if the u.s. wants to reduce our demand for copper, which is increasing, then we should invest in recycling, in reuse, in manufacturing improvements. that would create jobs domestically and not risk special places like the boundary waters. when this water, if this mine proceeds, and if thwart is contaminated -- if this water is contaminated and destroyed,

there is no known remediation strategy. it cannot be undone. the u.s. forest service has conducted an environmental review, they have consulted with communities, they have consulted with tribal members and they have relied on cutting-edge science and they have concluded that these mines should not go forward. the science is done here. it just doesn't line up with the answer of my colleagues' donors. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. stauber: mr. chair, first off, they've never completed an environmental review. i want to be very clear. there will never be mining th boundary waters or the buffer zone around it. that was decided in 1978. this bill will not circumvent or shortchange environmental review in any way. we are not requiring any permits or mine plans be approved.

we are simply requiring that they go through the review process the way any other project would move forward. mr. chair, i now yield two minutes to the majority whip from minnesota, representative emmer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. emmer: thank you for yielding. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to support the superior national forest restoration act. for the last three years, the domestic mining industry in minnesota and around the country has been under assault. mining supports good paying jobs and it's critical to our economy and national security. but rather than putting minnesota miners to work, those opposing this legislation would rather rely on china and russia to supply our critical materials, making us less secure and causing greater environmental harm. this bill strengthens minnesota's economy while promoting a safe and clean energy supply. thank you to congressman stauber for h relentless work on this

issue and i urge all of my colleagues to support his bill. i yield back. mr. stauber: mr. chair, how much time remaing for us? -- is remaining for news is the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 5 1/2 -- remaining for us? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 5 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. stauber: mr. chair, i want to reiterate the fact to the american people. there will be no mining in the boundary waters and there will be no mining in the buffer zone around the boundary waters. that was settled in 1978. that n 1978. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arkansas, chair of the full natural resources committee, mr. westerman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. westerman: i rise in support of h.r. 3195. i want to thank the chairman of

the subcommittee on energy and mineral resources, mr. stauber, for his leadership in this area. since his first day in congress, mr. stauber has fought tirelessly for his disict and done an excellent job representing the people in the iron range. this bill is a culmination of meetings, hearings and hard work to ensure that those living in northern minnesota are heard in congress and the white house. i have been to northern minnesota many times even with mr. stauber's predecessor rick nolan and i have seen how important the mining industry is to the region as it has been for over a century and even american mining companies producing essential minerals with regard to employees, and environment. in doing so, u.s. domestic mines set the global gold standard for

responsible resource compliance. it contains one of the largest deposits of minerals in the world and the world's second largest deposit of copper and according to snap global market intelligence, copper is expected to double in the next decade but the push to electrify. output from the twin metals production would produce wind, turbine power or solar power. yet from 2022 to 2023, u.s. copper production dropped by 11% as our net import reliance, the copper we have to buy from foreign sources rose 4. the duluth contains world class reserves such as cobalt and nickel. restrict access to scaresons to minerals does not make sense for our national security, for the people of northern minnesota --

mr. stauber: 30 seconds, mr. chair. mr. westerman: the biden administration's actions to restrict access to vital and scarce minerals does not make sense for our national security, for the people of northern minnesota or president biden's goals to build out energy production and achieve zero emissions. i urge support of h.r. 3195 and the rights to access abundant resources, i yield back. mr. stauber: mr. speaker, i have no further requests for time and continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from california. ms. porter: i would like to respond. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. porter: the boundary waters are not a bathtub, the water flows from one pla to the

other. in this case the watershed flows north, meaning it would flow past the mine and into the protected wilderness. my colleague said thereould be no mining in the boundary waters, but there would be waste, there would be pollution in those waters because of the watershed. this is exactly why we should rely on the scientific process and the conclusion of the forest service that this mining would cause severe and irreparable harm. itch heard no rebuttal that every sulfide-ore copper mine has 100% of them, have leakages and environmental harm. i reserve the balance of my me. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. mr. stauber: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized to close. ms. porter: thank you, mr. speaker. we have been having hearings,

markups and floor votes on this issue for years and administrations have canceled and reinstated these leases and canceled them again. the biden administration, unlike the previous administration, took the time and effort to do the process right. and they came to the considered decision based on science, to cancel the wrongly reinstated leases and to protect the boundary waters for the next 20 years. that decision is not just based on some science, it is based on community input, robust tribal consultation and at the end of the day on the best interests of the american people, because that is who these public lands belong to. that is who should benefit from these public lands. but a foreign company and politicians who bend to their interests don't like it.

and as i made clear in this congress, their priority is not putting science first or protecting communities. their priority is putting corporate polluters' profits above all else by any means necessary. my republican colleagues say that the toxic mining industry needs certainty. well, this is certainty, the boundary waters watershed is off limits. i welcome the tune to work across the aisle to reform the mining lawfor example, to require royalty payments and build a sustainable future for the industry. but that part of the conversation supportive mining needs to recognize that some places are too special and too risky and some types of mining are too risky to do. because at the end of the day, who would you choose, your child's health, our lands,

wilderness, endangered species, tourism jobs, local economy or would you choose a foreign company who wants to mine in a location that would hurt the environment, our economy and our health? i know what i would choose. i urge opposition to this bill. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. stauber: biden administration's mining policies anywhere but america, any worker but the american worker. the republicans refuse to allow child slave labor to happen. we refuse to allow them this great country to purchase minerals mined by child slave labor in the congo. we will not turn a blind eye to

the atrocities and the slave labor happening in the congo where this administration wants to purchase its minerals. in closing, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3195. the bottom line is you can't be a proponent of national security and proponent of fair labor and be against domestic mining at the same time. congress voted to spend billions of dollars and increase renewable energy development, all of which require enormous of nickel, cobalt and other minerals that can be sourced right here in the united states of america in my home state of minnesota. issuing directives to purchase energy development while at the same time denying access to manufacture the products does not make sense. the international energy agency achieving net zero by 2050 would

require six more mines than are currently operating today. while the u.s. is blessed mine production minerals, those defined that are essential for tional security decreas by 25% from 2022 to 2023 forcing the u.s. elsewhere to source these materials. we cannot rely on our allies to access these vital resources. china has global production over halff the minerals. biden's policy anywhere but america must be stopped. we can mine these minerals domestically. we know this all too well in northern minnesota where mining is our past, our present and our future. if we get the politics out of the way, our mining future will

be bright. the people of minnesota know how to do it. and i urge adoption. and i yield back. pursuant to house resolution 1173, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to rescind public land order 7917 to reinstate mineral leases and permits in the superior national forest to ensure timely review of mine plans and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition initiation? ms. mccollum: i have a motion to recommit. the clerk: mismccollum moves to recommit the bill to the committee on natural resources

pursuant to 2-b of rule 19, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it and the motion is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? ms. mccollum: i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady request the yeas and nays? ms. mccollum: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the a significant number will rise. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman, seek recognition? mr. westerman: pursuant to house resolution 1173, i call up h.r. 764 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill.

the clerk: h.r. 764, a bill to require the secretary of the interior to re-issue regulations removing the gray wolf from the list of threatened wildlife under the endangered species act of 1973. the speaker pro tempore: the bill is considered read. the bill shall be debated for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on natural resources or their respective designee. the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman, and the gentleman from california, mr. huffman, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlemanfrom arkansas. mr. westerman: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 764. the speaker pro tempore: without objection mr. westerman: i rise in support of h.r. 764 sponsored by my

colleague congresswoman boebert of colorado. it instructs the fish and wildlife service to re-issue the final rule delisting the gray wolf from the danger dangered species list in the lower 48 states. this is crucial not only for species but also for land owners. understanding recovery goals and measuring progress informs management to improve a species health and habitat. when a species is a candidate to be delisted, the achievement should be celebrated. by every definition, the gray wolf is a recoveredpecies and should be celebrated as an e.s.u. success story. they are healthy and thriving in every regn where they are found. the great lakes region last the largest concentration in the lower 48 states with 4200 wolves that inhabit michigan, minnesota

and wisconsin. the recovery plan and this is clear. the region must have a stable or increasing population of wolves in minnesota and 200 wolves outside the minnesota population. according to the former wildlife billingist at the wisconsin department of natural resources, these goals have been met since at least 1994. he went on to say, quote, it is remashable given the natural life span of wolves, every one was born after recovery goals were met, ungoat. backing up this record the service announced it denied two petitions, one calling for the wolves to be relisted in the northern rocky mountain ecosystem and another for the wolves to be listed in the entire western united states. in denying these petitions, the service stated wolves are, quote, not at risk of extinction

in the western united states now or in the foreseeable future, unquote. the service also stated wolf populations in the western united states had a healthy abundance, retained genetic diversity, had the ability to adapt to the surroundings. most wolves are in states where they've been delisted and shows states are responsibly managing their wolf populations. mr. speaker, this is not the first time the house of representatives has debated wolf management. in 2011, congress we can'ted the service to rein-- directed the service to reinstate a define wolf that delisd wolves in indiana and montana. in fact, delisting the wolf in the lower 49 states has bipartisan support. in 2013, the obama administration proposed delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48 states and the biden administration is currently appealing the federal court

orders. that are preventing the 2024 delisting rule from taking effect. this is a rare occurrence where the biden administration is defending an action taken by the trump administration. in 2018, the house of representatives passed language similar to the bill befor us today with the support of nine democrats, some of whom are still in congress. yet we're here again pursuing a delisting that should have been accomplished long ago. i urge my colleagues it to celebrate the recovery of the -d reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> before i turn to my opening remarks, i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from virginia who is one of the most pangsity and knowledgeable champions for wolf populations, mr. buyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. beyer: rather than celebrate the endangered species act and manyf the species our conservation legislation has saved, house republicans have relentlessly targeted the e.s. is a. and the wildlife it has protected. as co-chair of the congressional endangered species caucus, i'm deeply concern how house republicans have proposed to weaken this popular bipartisan framework with rich diversity. this bill iconically named trust the sigh especially act ignores what the scientists are recommending to preserve the gray wolf species and allow them to reach adequate recovery. the protection of the e.s.a. has allowed wolf populations to stabilize and regain strength. if delisted nationally, gray wolves will once again be hunted and trapped to extinction. where the wolves have been delisted in states, 90% of the

wolves have been killed already. we've seen proof of in idaho, montana, and wyoming. trophy hunting of these wolves has been reintroduced in wisconsin with states like michigan and minnesota ready to follow suit. "the washington post" reported photos of muzzled wolves have gone viral worldwide inundating complaints.in department with the gray wolves made progress in the recovery but wolves in the rocky mountains are killed in dramatic numbers even the yellowstone national park gray wolves. why? to protect livestock. wolves kill 9-1000 in america. they normally feed on deer and elk and not farm animals and prefer habitats with high coverage. in colorado where wolves were recently reintroduced, so far

they've killed one calf. yet we don't is say all good dogs should go to the gravel pit when dogs kill twice as many cows than wolves. in this environment it puts a national wild target on gray wolfpacks. i love my dog. i've seen the emotional complexity of canine consciousness they inherited from their ancestors. if you love your dog, thank a wolf. wolf families are more like human families than any other species. they mate for life with their partner and keep their children in the pack until they're old enough to look for a mate. please read farley's "never cry wolf" to see how intelligent and charismatic these animals are. we're in the midst of a biodiversity crisis rather than to save the carnivores that strengthen our ecosystems. we should support all scientific efforts by fully funding the agencies that carry out.s.a. preservation work. i know appropriation deadlines if you don't like species being

delisted, i have a letter you can join. i urge my colleagues to reflect on the successes of the endangered species act so far, a 90% success rate is one of the most effective pieces of our legislation in our history and why allocating adequate resource is essenti to promoting species recovery and monitoring. instead of mocking science, we should embrace if. here's a scientific fact for the fearful among us. not a single human being in the wer 48 states has beenilled by a wolf in the last 100 years. urge my colleagues to oppose h.r. 764 and i yield back. mr. hoffman: i thank my colleague for his eloquence and thoughtfulness which stands in such contrast of the kristi noem school of animal welfare we see reflected in the relation before us and i reserve my time. the spear pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recogniz.

i. >> though accusations have been made that hunting would adversely afft the population of wolves, that's contrary to proven data that we have from all species that are hunted. mr. westerman: in particular, in each state where wolves have been delisted there's a state management plan in place that's been proven to be effective in managing wolfe populations. each state recovery plan calls for wolf populations to remain well above recovery goal and science from the u.s. fish and wildlife service prove wolf populations remain healthy post delisting. while states may vary on population size management, they all plan for and set policies to have a sustainable and secure population. just to be clear, a reduction in population size is not the same as eliminating a population. each state recovery plan calls for wolf populations to remain well above recovery goals. and with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield five minutes to

the gentlewoman from colorado, the sponsor of the legislation, ms. boebert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. boebert: thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, stand here today celebrating the success story of the endangered species act, seeing the gray wolf has been fully recovered. i also stand today, mr. speaker, in defense of our farmers and our ranchers, just like the farrell family in grand county, colorado, who has lost up to five of their cattle in a 10-day span in colorado from wolves, from wolves attacking their ranch in grand county. in my home state of colorado, out-of-touch denver and boulder leftists voted to reintroduce gray wolves. since 10 wolves -- since then, 10 wolves were reintroduced in december and eight have

confirmed wolf dive stock depredations and six separate incidents involving wolf attacks in colorado just this month. my trust the science act delists the gray wolf from the federal endangered species list and returns the issue of the wolf management to states and tribal wildlife agencies. again, a success story that we should be celebrating here today. specifically, my bill requires the secretary of interior to reissue the 2022 department of interior final rule that delisted gray wolves in the lower 48 united states and ensures that the reassurance of the final rule will not be subject to judicial review. gray wolves were first listed under the endangered species preservation act in 1967. that's 57 years ago. in 2009, the obama administration upheld the decision to delist gray wolves

when their interior secretary, ken salazar, a democrat from colorado, announced the decision at a press conference that the fish and wildlife service decision to delist gray wolves was a, quote, a supportable one, scientists have concluded that recovery has occurred, end quote. in 2011, congress directed usfws to reinstate a rule to delist the gray wolf in the northern rockies ecosystem. in 2013, the obama administration proposed delisting gray wolves in the lower 48 states. in november of 2020, scientists and nonpartisan career employees at the department of interior once again found gray wolves were fully recovered and once again issued a rule that returned management of gray wolf populations to state and wildlife and tribal agencies.

once again frivolous legislation was filed by extremist groups and an activist california judge subsequently pandered to these groups by vacating the 2020 rule and ultimately relisted the gray wolf by judicial fiat. in april of 2022, the biden administration appealed the ruling of this california activist judge in support of the 2020 rule that delisted gray wolves in the lower 48 united states. in february of this year, the biden administration announced a not warranted finding for two frivolous petitions that tried to list gray wolves under the e.s.a. and the northern rocky mountains, and in the western united states. in the 115th congress, the house of representatives passed similar legislation to my bill by a vote of 196-180 with nine

democrats voting in favor of passage. state and tribal wildlife agencies have a proven record of successfully managing gray wolves. in fact, montana's successful state management resulted in gray wolves being 500% above fish and wildlife service recovery goals, idaho's successful management resulted in 700% above recovery goals. there are now, as estimated, up to 6,000 wolves in the lower 48. furthermore, there are an estimated 7,000 to 11,000 gray wolves in alaska, and there are an estimated 30,000 gray wolves in canada. again, an endangered species list success story. let's do as my bill says, trust the bipartisan science and pass this bill so we can finally delist the recovered, fully

recovered, gray wolf and focus scares taxpayer funding on endangered species that actually need help being recovered. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. >> i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. throughout in congress my republican colleagues have tried at every turn to weaken our bedrock environmental laws and the endangered species act has been one of their favorites to attack. once again, republican leadership has taken an opportunity to vilify an endangered species here today on this floor, to sacrifice it to their special industry groups. guns, oil, and polluters has come to be what the g.o.p. stands for, at least in this congress. last summer, they rushed to the house floor with bills to increase the extinction risk of the lesser prairie chicken.

and the northern long eared bat. but today it's the iconic gray wolf. do the republicans have nothing else to do with the time of this body? we should be working on issues that make a difference to everyday life in america. but this congress has been mostly about republicans fighting with each other in a circular firing squad, and the only time they seem to take a break from that is when they want to do something to enrich the wealthiest americans, harm the environment, or now to kill wolves. this bill is falsely named. it's called the trust the science act. and it would legislatively delist the gray wolf in the endangered species act in the lower 48. that is not something that's done based on science. it is something this bill would do by political fiat. the gray wolf is one of america's most iconic species. and while it is making a comeback, the science and the facts on the ground tell us that

it still needs help. this bill would make it so that not a single gray wolf in the united states, in the entire country, would be protected by the endangered species act. yes, it is true that the yellowstone national park wolf reintroduction is one of the great success stories of the e.s.a. we saw that as apex predators, wolves helped to rebalance and revitalize vibrant ecosystems and flourish wildlife population in one of the ground cruels of our national park system. the e.s.a. has kept the wolf from going extinct. we've gone from only several hundred wild wolves in america, inhabiting the northern parts of michigan and minnesota, to approximate 7500 wolves today with populations in at least 1 states. ... . it's a great success story.

that doesn't mean we declare mission accomplished. certainly not when folks who took wolves to the brink of extinction are ready to refresh -- ref up the wolf -- rev up the wolf killinggain. wolf numbers have grown in the western united states. but the e.s.a. warriors more than just population counts otherwise we can devolve where we started. there is still a lot of factors that grow into species recovery, habitat destruction, disease, recovery efforts by states that would have to take over management of the species if it is delisted. and a lot more. the e.s.a. requires that the wildfires use the -- fish and wildlife service use the best available science to assess all of this, not just population numbers, before they make any delisting decisions. more important the fish and wildlife service must -- importantly the fish and wildlife service must consult with tribes. right now the service is following these processes and developing a recovery plan, but

if this bill was signed into law, all of that would be skipped. they would have to ignore any scientific evidence of remaining threats to the wolf. and this is the danger of legislatively delisting a species. while i believe my colleagues are capable of going on to google and pulling up some population numbers on gray wolves, it is brazen to suggest that they as members of congress are more qualified than the scientists and experts with years of training to determine if a species has recovered of the the ultimate goal of the e.s.a. is recover species and set them up for success post recovery. we need durable, not temporary, outcomes, passing this bill would simply call wolves recovered. that does not make it so. the bill ignores science and it sets a species back down the path to extinction by reinstate ago trump-era delisting rule that the courts have overturned

because it violated the endangered species act, as well as the administrative procedure act. this ignores the analysis of the u.s. fish and wildlife service over the past year. it ignores the fact that although wolf populations are doing well in someplaces, they haven't met recovery goals in others. it does nothing to require federal consultation with tribes. and on top of that there is nothing in the bill to push states to improve their conservation measures for wolves. when wolves were delisted in 2011 and 2021, some states raced to approve the killing of significant portions of their wolf populations. even using harvest quotas. states in the northern rockies actually incentivized hunting. they paid hunters to kill wolves. this does not demonstrate a commitment to conserving the species. all of these state policies would simply further villainize wolves and reward the killing

that caused the population to crash in the first place. so, no. a simple -- simple head count is not a scientific basis for declaring open season on the gray wolf. my republican colleagues know that what they are trying to do will never stand up to scrutiny in the courts t would never stand up to consideration of the best available scientific and commercial data. that's why this bill prohibits judicial review. that really gives the game away. if you really trust the science, then you shouldn't be afraid of a little scrutiny. based on the talking points that we have heard throughout this legislative process, this is all just so people can shoot more wolves. why would congress invest millions of taxpayer dollars in recovering this iconic species to turn around and let states start killing them all over again? we'll hear a lot in debate today about how these apex predators, which are vital to our

ecosystems, are scary, cold killers. that is ancient ignorance. not science. if we are lucky we may even hear some of the wild conspiracy theory that is we have heard in previous debates about larger, faster, more aggressive canadian gray wolves. we have heard everything except the claim that these canadian wolves have laser eyes. congress shouldn't be overriding conservation decisions made by scientists. fortunately, we have this type of extreme baseless language, we heard it a few years ago, as dozens of republicans made these claims during debate. i urge my colleagues and fellow conservationallists -- conservationists to trust science. vote no on this trust the ignorance act. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: mr. speaker, the only rule -- science that this bill would maybe not hold up to is the political science that's

being pushed back and forth in this chamber today f you look at the real wildlife management, we know that maintaining healthy populations of wolves also affects other species. i would say if you could talk to an elk or deer you might ask them if a wolf is a violent killer. or talk to somebody's cattle. because they do kill. they are apex predators. we need them in the ecosystem, but we have to manage those numbers. just because a species hasn't been recovered in its native range doesn't mean that that species should be on the endangered species lis f that were so we would have black bear and elk on the endangered species list. the real science, the data, shows that delisting the wolf and letting states manage the wolf population, we are not talking about whopping out the wolf population, maintaining it at healthy levels, that's what would be best for the wolf and all others concerned. with that i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from wyoming,

mrs. hageman. miss hagga:man:-- mrs. hageman: thank you. delisting the wolf does not mean we don't monitor situation. the opposite is true. this bill allows state agencies who know their land and wildlife best who have management plans in place to manage wolves in way that protects life and property and allows all species in the ecosystem to thrive. minnesota has the largest population of wolves in the lower 48. there are over 6,000 wolves in minnesota. they refer to the northern part of the state as the dead zone because wolves have largely wiped out all other wildlife. the deer, must contracts -- must contracts, peeves, etc. -- beavers. the record of success demonstrates the species manage s-more effective when carried out by state and local agencies.

it is state management agencies not the federal government that recovered and delisted the gray wolf in 2020. only to have radical environmental activists sue to keep them listed. for years populations throughout the west have been well above the recovery thresholds prescribed in the act. yet officials in the department of the interior being beholden to radical environmental n.g.o.'s continually shift the recovery goal post to keep species like the gray wolf and greater yellow stone ecosystem grizzly bear enlisted as endangered, preserving their budget and control over western lands. instead of wasting taxpayer dollars on a recover species, the fish and wildlife service should focus its time and efforts on species at risk of becoming extinct. the science demonstrates how successful state management plans for the gray wolf have been. the and the fish and wildlife service's only research has stated gray wolves, are quote, likely to retain a healthy level of abundance, end quote, and

quote, do not meet the definition of an endangered species or threatened species, end quote. mr. speaker, i believe it is our state management officials, those who are on the ground and in the community, who are about equipped to manage our wildlife and conserve our environment. not unelected officials working from concrete buildings in washington, d.c. wyoming, montana, and identify hoe are classic examples. all three have maintained a recovered wolf population for well over 20 years. contrary to what my colleague on the other side would say that this -- the plans that have been passed by the states would, quote, never pass judicial muster, the fact is the opposite. in fact, it was the circuit court of appeals in d.c. that ordered the fish and wildlife service to delist the gray wolf in the state of wyoming. i thank ms. boebert for interdurings this commonsense bill and encourage my colleagues to vote for its passage. with that i yield back. mr. westerman: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized.

mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. when you call a bill the trust the science act, you probably shouldn't rely so heavily on narratives that seem like a mix of little red riding hood and youtube conspiracies about the chew macabra. you should listen to wildlife managers and scientists. you should also be thoughtful about lessons we learned in the past. when federal delisting led to state management that adopted many of those stubborn anti-predator myths. we know what happens in many of these states when federal delisting occurs n2021 idaho passed legislation allowing for 90% of their gray wolf population to be culled by nearly any means, including killing pups. in wisconsin, one hunting season alone wiped out over 30% of that state's gray wolf population. in upon tonya, they allowed increase bag limits, hunting of

wolves -- just outside of national parks, a quota of 40% of the state's wolves. these states in the foreign rockies pay hunters up to $2,500 per gray wolf. they have authorized expanding killing methods, including tr traps, snares, night vision equipment, bait, and motorized vehicles. using dogs to track and kill wolves. states have legalized the hunting of wolves under the guise of predator control. and with this designation, malice towards wolves is precluded from animal cruelty laws. this has led to some disgusting acts of torture and abuse. just last month we saw that a man in wyoming hunted down a wolf, struck the animal with a snow machine, and then muzzled the maimed wolf with duct tape, brought in to show his buddies in a bar while it was suffering. this is the kind of tender mercy that apparently my colleagues across the aisle suggest for

thoughtful management of the gray wolf. the punishment of this individual, a $250 fine. not for the gruesome abuse of an animal but wrongful possession of live wildlife. if he killed it there would have been no punish. wolves in wyoming can be hunted year-round without a license. the identity of the hunter who kills the wolf is protected by state law. and hunting down the wolf and purposefully hitting it with a vehicle, that is also considered just hunting in wyoming. house republicans love to point to state management as the solution to our biodiversity crisis. i think we all can agree we should celebrate when species are successfully recovered and management is returned to states. however, this bill would turn over management to states that have proven an unwillingness, stubborn unwillingness, to conserve the species further that. would put wolves at risk in the

lower 48 states. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: mr. speaker, running down any kind of animal and running over it with a vehicle is not considered hunting in any jurisdiction that i know of. that's illegal. it should not be tolerated and shouldn't be used as an example why wolves shouldn't be managed using traditional hunting methods and letting states manage those populations. with that i yield four minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. stauber. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stauber: mr. chair, i want to just rebut my colleague from california. he put up a picture, devastating picture, alleging that republicans would do that to an animal. i utterly reject that type of behavior on the house floor. he knows better.

i thank my colleague from colorado for bringing h.r. 764, the trust the science act to the house floor for consideration. this legislation would have an enormous and positive impact on my state of minnesota where the gray wolf populations has more than recovered. the minnesota department of natural resources estimates minnesota's gray wolf population to be roughly around 2,700, which greatly exceeds the endangered species act recovery goal for the state. however, many experts, hunters and farmers, with boots on the ground estimate the real number to be anywhere from 5,000 to 6,000. and the majority of minnesota's gray wolf population resides in the district i represent in northern minnesota. placing the burden directly on the people i represent. in the meetings i have held throughout my district, i am constantly hearing from my constituents who are fed up with the dramatic rise in the wolf population.

whether it's the hunters who have been reporting low deer numbers, farmers and ranchers who have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of livestock, or grief stricken families whose pets have been killed by a gray wolf. the overall consensus is something needs to change. administration after administration have attempted delist this species, only to have well funded activist groups come out of the woodwork to challenge these efforts with litigation. .. most recently a judge ordered the biden administration to relist the gray wolf. the trust the science act would delist the gray wolf in the lower 48 and determine it is not subject to judicial review eliminating the constant back and forth we've seen play out in the courts over the years.

and contrary to what some may argue, this bill does not throw out protections for the gray wolf. it simply turns management of the species over to wildlife managers in each of the individual states. states then will be able to enact fit for purpose protections for the specific needs of the species in each respective states. as the title of this bill appropriately conveys, we need to trust the best available science which considers the gray wolf to be an endangered species act success story. we cannot continue to allow activist judges and radical environmentalists to weaponnize the endangered species act in the expense of other species and the communities we represent. mr. speaker, minnesotans treasure wildlife while we celebrate the recovery of the gray wolf. we also believe it should be our right to responsibly manage our

state's population. it's time to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list once and for all. i ask my colleagues to join me to get the federal bureaucracy out of the way and allow state agencies to create wolf management plans that meet the unique circumstances and conditions in each state. the people we represent think that we should also do that. mr. chair, i yield back. >> i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: the gentlelady from colorado brought up tribes in her opening remarks and i'm glad. we should be talking about and thinking about tribes on this subject. tribes are not interested in scaring people into killing wolves. for many tribes, wolves are

sacred, an integral part of the land base entities that shape their customs. like wolves, bears are considered closely related to mans by many tribes and the origin stories of some northwest coastal tribes tell of their first ancestors being transformed from wolves into men. in shoshone mythology the wolf plays the role of the creator god. and in other mythology, the wolf character is the brother and true best friend of the culture hero. among the pueblo tribes the wolves are considered one of the six directional guardians associated with the east and the color white and associated with protection, describing to them both healing and hunting powers. wolves are also one of the most common clan animals in native american cultures. tribes with wolf clans include the creek, cherokee, chippewa, along with the shawnee and the iroquois tribes, plains tribes

like the osage and the pueblo tribes of new mexico and northwest coastal tribes. it's essential the united states government uphold its trust responsibilities to engage in meaningful, good faith consultation with all affected indian tribes. unfortunately, but not surprisingly, tribes were not consulted as the trust responsibilities require when the trump administration delisted the gray wolf. that's unacceptable, ignoring tribal voices erodes tribal sovereignty. after the wolf was delisted, tribes sued the state of wisconsin for violating tribal treaty rights by authorizing the hunting of hundreds of wolves in 2021. no wonder this bill attempts to bar judicial review. tribes should be allowed to lead in identifying conservation measures for the wolf population that are culturally sensitive. if this legislation is enacted, tribes will have been left out of the process yet again, and

they will face further violations of their treaty rights by state actionss. during the hearing on this bill the fish and wildlife service reaffirmed its commitment to consulting with tribes during its species status review. i was glad to hear this commitment. i believe the united states government's relationship with tribes and the conservation of wolves will both be better for it. this bill, which reinstates the trump rule, which tribes opposed and were not consulted on, would further erode our government's trust responsibilities to tribes while putting the draw wolf at risk. we should reject this political attempt to sidestep science and federal trust responsibilities and instead, let the fish and wildlife service do its job, go through a species status review in meaningful consultation with tribes and follow the best available science. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: i yield five minutes to the chairman of the

subcommittee on water, wildlife, and fisheries, the gentleman from oregon, mr. pence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pence: thank you, chair westerman. you know, i don't think i've encountered such an amazing display of ignorance regarding the nature of a wolf until this afternoon. mr. bentz: a wolf is not a pet dog. it's not some schnauzer or gold en retriever or other dog. it kill things to eat them. it does not kill them in a kind and humane fashion. it's a wolf. we would be led otherwise to believe by what we've been hearing from the other side of the aisle. it's obvious to me that those who suggested that ranchers are apparently not to be concerned about. having grown up on a ranch, as did i, they don't have a clue what it's like to have to get up in the middle of the night to

try to go out and protect your livelihood from nocturnal killers like wolves. they don't get it. they don't want to get it or understand it because they don't have to. the people i understand do have to deal with wolves back in oregon. and in some of the most ago ward situations. highway 395 cuts my district basically in half. my district, cd-2, in oregon, is bigger than the state of washington. it's biselected by this highway. on one side the wolves are listed and on the other are not. in some places this highway runs right through the single ownership ranch. you can imagine the wolf kills an animal on one side and runs to the other where it's not, or vice versa. hardly a situation that benefits folks trying to make a living. to suggest such is a balance in yellowstone, you haven't read the most recent report about yellowstone, apparently. you should. there's some argument that the wolf brought some sort of natural balance back to

yellowstone. not true. read the report. mr. speaker, i have a question, how many wolves is enough? we have about 250 something like that wolves in oregon, 25 packs. that's been determined to be adequate for the survival of the wolf. that's enough under the e.s.a. but we have 2500 to 3500 in minnesota. that's a few more than i think is necessary, don't you, mr. speaker? we have 60,000 wolves in canada, 60,000, and the number is growing because it's almost impossible to slow the growth down. we have 5,000 to 6,000 wolves in alaska. so, mr. speaker, how many wolves is enough? that's the question we should be asking. the endangered species doesn't allow an abundance of these natural born killers, but requires enough we still have them around. no one is disputing that. to suggest 90% of the wolves were killed in idaho, not true. there are over 1,000 wolves still in idaho to this day. the exact count is difficult. wolves are smart.

they're intelligent creatures. they learn. and is so it becomes more and more difficult to control them. the reason they need to be delisted is so that we have some means of controlling an apex predator. one of these things that once you have them, they're very hard to control. being listed makes it almost impossible. it's odd when we have language in the report from the u.s. fish and wildlife service that states unequivocally -- i'll read you page 15 of the report dated february 1, 2024, specifically now and into the foreseeable future, wolves are likely to retain a healthy level of abundance given the assumption in our model. our analysis predictions indicate there's no risk of quasiextinction in 100 years in any of our future scenarios. under any -- this is our u.s. fish and wildlife talking.

more specifically for the protections that incorporates idaho, montana, and wyoming. there would be at least 739 wolves throughout idaho, montana and washington for the next 100 years. mr. speaker, of course we need the delisting. it's the way we're going to be able to protect, if at all, and control the number of wolves that now inhabit the united states. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. >> reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. my friends across the aisle have a pretty selective interest in numbers. they seem to want to take a single aggregate number for the wolf population in the united states and legislatively delist that population in a way that contravenes science, contravenes the way the endangered species act is supposed to work but ignore a lot of other numbers. let's talk about some numbers. first of all, when we try to

scare people about wolves, we should probably acknowledge that you are far more likely to die falling out of bed than from a gray wolf attack. my colleague, mr. beyer, explained not less than 100 wolf attack in the united from a states. wolves rarely attack people and in the majority of documented cases, which are very few, humans ended up provoking the wolf or feeding it to cause that encounter. further, wolves are a minimal threat to livestock despite the huen cry we hear about this. wolves are responsible for the loss of fewer than 200th of a single percent of livestock every year. dogs and coyotesre responsible for far greater numbers of livestock losses, and even those losses fall well behind losses due to illness or weather. while there is inherent risk in raising livestock in wolf habitat, the losses are small.

and importantly, ranchers are compensated for any financial loss due to wolf credation. we need to consider delisting on all other management on science, not based on myths and political whims. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlemafrom arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. tiffany. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. tiffany: mr. speaker, what a success we're celebrating, the endangered species act and it worked with the wolf. it's recovered. we should be celebrating that here today. and don't take our word for it, take these 26 scientist nas right behind me. so we've heard repeatedly today about how we should be trusting science. scientists are not saying that. i will put these scientists,

these wildlife biologists, up against any scientist in america that are in the upper great lakes states. they sent a letter to the fish and wildlife service 10 years ago saying delist the wolf. it is recovered. and you're going to endanger the endangered species act if you don't delist a recovered species. so the fine state of wisconsin, which i represent, the seventh congressional district, was impugned, in particular the hunters of the state of wisconsin. we've had three successful wolf hunts, 2012, 2013, and again in 2021. each time the numbers rebounded right back to where they were before or even grew even more. that's a sign of having a successful hunt. that you're managing the population in an appropriate manner. one of the most imminent predator biologists appeared before our committee last year

and spoke about that, how up to 30%, 29% being the exact number, but up to about 30% of take can happen of a particular species, and it still will recover. that is peered reviewed science and why you see these 26 imminent wildlife biologists saying that the wolf should be delisted. i'm going to talk a little bit about dead animals and killing cattle. it's not the cattle that they kill that causes the harm to a rancher or farmer. it's the reduction in production. it is the reduction in the amount of milk that a dairy cow produces when they're stirred up by wolves tracking them. it's the reduced rate of gain for a beef farmer. that's what puts farmers out of business in wolf country, not the actual killing of the animal.

so you can cite these arcane statistics like this. that does not get at the heart of the harm it does to farmers. it's time to let the states manage the wolf population. because there are other species, as was said in our hearing that perhaps we should be dedicating time to. so if you have a recovered species and additional time and effort by the fish and wildlife service into a species that's already recovered like the wolf, we aren't able to deal with other species. . . it requires additional resources for species that may be headed in that direction. as these 26 wildlife biologists said in their letter they sent 10 years ago, the ultimate danger in not delisting the

wolf, a recovered species, is that you're going to endanger the endangered species act and diminish its value. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. huffman: i have no -- mr. westerman: i have no further requests for time. prepared to close. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. the legislation before us would take a significant step backward and protecting gray wolves from extinction by legislatively delisting the species across its entire range without any scieific analysis. as i said before, every one of us in this room probably has an opinion on whether wolves should be delisted, but in many ways that shouldn't matter. congress has no business listing and delisting species. we aren't scientific experts. tasked with assessing population numbers, recovery goals, and continued threats to those species. unfortunately, if congress delists the species, states that have so far demonstrated a

stubborn unwillingness to conserve the species will be left responsible for leading recover'and management efforts, the gray wolf was nearly elimb named from the landscape because of these types of anti-predator laws decimated the population, leading to the delisting of the species under the e.s.a. in the 1970's. for this reason at the appropriate time i will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee f house rules permitted i would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill to provide a necessary backstop if congress legislatively delists the gray wolf. at the very least the infrastructure needs to be in place to stop excessive killings or any other threats to wolves if they start decimating the population and sending it back toward extinction. my language would create that backstop. it's simple. if the population declines too much then emergency list the species, providing 240 days of protection while the service conducts a status review.

i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the text of this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. huffman: the clerk of the house: my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. huffman: i'm prepared to close, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to reject h.r. 764. as we have heard today this is a bill based on fear, ignorance, and conspiracy theories, it condones the inhumane killing of wolves. our republican colleagues have made it clear that they intend to convince the nation that wolves are just cold killers. maybe that's good politics in someplaces to vilify wolves. the to stoke the inhumane killing of wolves. running them over with snowmobiles and trucks,

trapping, torturing, shooting them maybe after you put duct tape around their mouth and brought them in as a trophy to show your buddies at a bar. all that have might work in someplaces, but most americans understand the value of wolves. they understand that these creatures are foundational to ecosystem functions. they keep prey in check. most americans admire the intricate social structures of the wolfpack. they want to live in balance with nature. including predators. this bill ignores the science, turns a blind eye to tribal treaty rights, and removes judicial oversight of the delisting process to reinstate a faulty trump era rule. the gray wolf was enlisted as endangered because predator control methods of the past had nearly eliminated the wolf from the landscape. reinstating the trump era delisting rule will bring those anti-predator laws and policies right back into action and put us right back on the path to extinction. i urge my colleagues to vote no

on this sham legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: mr. speaker, the facts are cle. the gray wolf is a recovered species. the administration is ignore the facts. they are -- ignoring the facts, they are derelict in their duties and time for congress to act the impacts of an unmanaged wolf population are growing and will continue to grow as long as the administration doesn't take action and that is why congress must take action. i want to emphasize that passing this bill does not declare open season on wolves as some would have you to believe. rather it puts the management of wolves where it should be, with state game and fish departments. they are the one that is are best able to manage the wildlife in their states. my colleagues across the aisle talk a big game about supporting state fish and wildlife agencies, but as we see here today, when the rubber meets the road, really talk is all that it

is. today by passing this bill congress would celebrate an e.s.a. success story and confirm what three successive presidential administrations of both political parties have tried to do. it is time for every member of this chamber to reject the political science, examine the facts, trust the facts, and delist the gray wolf. i want to thank congresswoman boebert for her leadership on this legislation. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. pursuant to house resolution 1173, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill requiring -- to issue regulations removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the endangered species act 1973. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek

recognition? mr. huffman: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. huffman of california moves to recommit the bill h.r. 764 to the committee on natural resources. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 19, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mr. huffman: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the question are postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas seek recognition? mr. westerman: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1173, i callp h.r. 615, and ask

for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 164, h.r. 615. a bill to prohibit the secretary of the interior and the secretary of agriculture from prohibiting the use of lead ammunition, or tackle on certain federal land or water under the jurisdiction of the secretary of the interior and secretary of agriculture, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1173, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resources, printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted an the bill as amended is considered as read. the bill as amended shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on natural resources or their respective designees. the gentleman from arkansas, mrn from california, mr. huffman, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman. mr. westerman: i ask unanimous

consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 615. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. westerman: mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 615, sponsored by my colleague, congressman wittman of virginia. this commonsense bill protects hunters and anglers' able to continue to use cost-effective lead ammunition and fishing equipment in our wildlife refuge system. it gives the fish and wildlife service the flexibility to make targeted decisions on lead use based on sound science in coordination with state, fish, and wildlife agencies. in the united states sports men and women participation in crucial in success to wildlife conservation. the north american model of wide life conservation operates on seven independent principles. embedded in them are sound science, active management, and access to hunting and fishing. this model is a success story

that is best characterized by the millions of dollars paid by hunters and anglers for wildlife conservation each year throh exize taxes on the equipment they use. in fiscal year 2024, the service apportioned nearly $1 billion in seats from excise taxes on firearms manufacturers. of of that $800 million targeted to wildlife restoration. similarly $381 million was generate interested excise taxes on fishing equipment for fish conservation. last year, after significant pushback from stake holders and members of congress, the fish and wildlife service denied a petition from far left environmental groups to ban the use of lead ammunition and tackle throughout the system. however, the fish and wildlife service is still pressing ahead with refuge specific lead bans. in its 2023, 2024 hunting and sport regulation force the system. the service is banning the use of lead ammunition and tackle in

eight refumings. it tries to lessen the blow by expanding access for hunting and fishing, and three others with this exsanction also includes a lead ban. why does this matter? it's about access and how the service's actions are limiting access n2021 the national shooting sports foundation concluded that lead free hunting ammunition is on average almost 25% more expensive than lead. not only are alternative materials such as copper more expensive, but this administration also continues to push policies that prohibit mining such resources here in america. their led bans -- lead bans will result in decreasing participating except for the wealthy. instead of regulating hunters and anglers off our federal lands, the service should be working with state managers, conservation organizations, and sports men and women. where lead has shown to cause harm to wildlife populations, it

should be addressed accordingly. a system wide man, refuge by refuge ban where no scientific link can be made is the wrong approach and undermines wildlife conservation. i urge my colleagues to support this bill. i reserve the balance of my t time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in opposition to h.r. 615. a bill that incorrectly claims in its title that recreation access is threatened by efforts to protect wildlife from lead poisoning. instead, this legislation could actually reduce the areas opened to our sports men and women because it is a wrong-headed attempt to take away a commonsense tool for allowing sustainable hunting and fishing. specifically this bill would ban the fish and wildlife service, the b.l.m., and forest service, from prohibiting or regulating the use of lead ammunition or tackle on federal lands made

available for hunting and fishing. lead regulations and bans actually makes sense. when wildlife forage for food, they consume spent shot or tackle that is left in the environment. this lead accumulates in animal tissue where it causes neurological and immune system impairment and anemia slowly poisoning these animals until they die when one animal dice of lead poisoning, the lead accumulated in the tissue becomes a hazard to savage ago -- savaging animals. we see these in the bald eagle and california condo. scientific evidence shows over 130 animal species, including humans, have been exposed to or killed by lead shot or ammunition, whether indirectly or ingesting prey poisoned with lead. 20 million birds and other animals die each year from lead poisoning. we know it's a neuro toxin and the science is clear many

species are neglect live impacted. a study from the usgs almost half of all examined bald eagles exhibited sims thames of lead coxcies at this time. the condor was nearly driven to extinction by lead poisoning, leading the republican governor of my state, california, to implement lead ammunition restrictions in condor habitat. some states such as maine, vermont, and california have instituted lead ammunition and fishing tackle restrictions. this bill could make it ext extremely difficult for federal ran managers in those states to simply carry out those same logical beneficial restrictions on federal lands. manning lead products when we know they pose harm is not a radical idea. we have banned lead in paint, pipes, household items because we know lead poisoning is a serious problem. and scientists are continuing to discover further evidence of its

harm to people and wildlife. here's the thing, there are ample alternatives to lead-based tackle and ammo at virtually the same price. people can and do use these alternatives in areas where lead is banned. no one is losing access due to lead bans. but our wildlife and habitats are safer because of them. it's a win-win. so why are republicans pushing this bill? .. i can't say for sure but at the hearing on this bill, republican members and witnesses didn't have much to say about lead bans causing problems for hunters and fishers. what they aired was their ideological opposition to anything that regulates firearms in any context for any reason, including ammunition. let's not pretend this bill is about solving a problem for sportsmen and women. this bill likely would result in

closures of hunting and fishing areas. national wildlife refuge system's mission is to restore wildlife and habitats for future generations. in the face of a changing climate, habitat loss and disease, our wildlife increasingly relies on the protection and resources of the refuge network and why by law, refuges cannot be open for hunting or fishing in doing so is not compatible to those refuges. and they are created to conserve endangered species. in rescued managers can no longer restrict, imagine when they open up an area to hunting or fishing and not opening it if they're concerned lead based gear could jeopardize threatened or endangered species, the most likely outcome would be to not

allow any hunting and will have no choice but to close off these habitats to hunting and fishing. you have to think through the consequences of poorly written legislation like this. now committee democrats have been pointing this out for months but house republicans are forging ahead full speed. preventing the federal management of pollutants does nothing to protect or even maintain access, and it is in direct opposition to the conservation goals shared by sports men and women and federal land managers. the hearing on this bill shed a lot of light for me on the thinking behind it. when it comes to guns and now ammo, any type of restriction is too much for republican ideology. even if it means closing off hunting areas for actual gun users. but that's where we are and that's why they refuse to move forward on commonsense gun safety regulations and assault weapon bans and other things the

american people overwhelmingly support. and that's the problem. house republicans need to listen to the people instead of pushing an ideological agenda that americans are not asking for. the entire house schedule this week misses the mark. it elevates right-wing eology over the actual needs of the american people. and it tells us once again what the g.o.p. has devolved to, it stands, unfortunately, for guns, oil, and polluters. i urge my colleagues to reject this bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: let's be clear, the rule this administration put out has absolutely nothing to do with protecting wildlife with wildlife conservation or with protecting human health. and as the gentleman alluded to, i believe this bill probably is more aimed at restricting the

sell of ammunition and any kind of attack they can take on our second amendment rights. this bil will hurt conservation, it's senseless, based on no facts. the fish and wildlife service can't produce a document that shows why they should ban lead ammunition or lead fishing tackle. it's simply another move by and ad administration that wants to write the law instead of letting congress write the laws and them enforce the laws. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from virginia, the sponsor of the legislation, mr. wittman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. wittman: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise as a lifelong hunter and recreational fisherman to support my bill h.r. 615, protecting access for hters and anglers act. the hunters and anglers are the contributors that put a tremendous amount of resources into protecting the resources we all enjoy. why would we want to restrict their access? america is blessed with a

abundance of natural resources. these refuges belong to the american people. why want we want them to use them to the maximum utility for everybody, not just for a small group that decides they want to go to court? the trump administration opened up 2.3 million acres for the refuge system for the owners of the system. gosh, that makes some sense, doesn't it? in response, anti-fishing and hunting groups sued claiming led ammunition and tackle would negatively impact endangered species on the national wildlife refuge system. certainly there are limited instances you can show an association there but not carte blanche. you can't just say we're closing the whole thing down because of some isolated incidents. in 2022, the biden administration reached a settlement and pretty much said hey, listen, we're going forward with the lead ban for fishing tackle and for ammunition. and for those that said oh, it's not a big deal because you can substitute other materials and it's kind of the same price are people that never have gone to hunt and fish before and don't

know what the heck they're talking about. if you take a lead sinker you've now replaced with tongues continue -- tungston, it bosts a significant more than lead. and if you have a family suffering from higher fuel prices and biden economics, and they're paying more for a dozen of eggs and you say by the way, we're going to have government charge you more in is something that can be avoided and then for them to say oh, we're making it difficult for the feds to regulate, isn't that our job? shouldn't we make sure our federal government is doing its due diligence in regulating? no, we want to have a side that says we want more cost to the american people. we don't even want them to enjoy their pastimes. we want them to suffer at the pump, we want them to suffer at the grocery store, and now we want to make them suffer by not being able to enjoy the lands that belong to them. how ironic is that? add more suffering on more

suffering. we, lord for bid, don't want to make it difficult for the government to regulate. where are we? this is an alternative universe. we want to make sure that we are ensuring these lands are accessible to the people that own them. and these are sportsmen that put in a tremendous amount of money to the system, the duck stamp act, the dingell-johnson act, the pittman act, put millions into the system every year. hundreds of anglers help protect these assets. they protect the natural resources on these public lands. i want to make sure that we are able to support them, make sure that we don't add to the cost of them being able to enjoy those lands. this bill ensures that federal agencies have to do their due diligence. it doesn't stop them from limiting lead use on these properties but assures they have to use the science and demonstrate in these instances, in these specific situations they have the science behind limiting lead use, not just

carte blanche bans. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. westerman: i yield the gentleman 30 more seconds. mr. wittman: i want to make sure the secretary of the agriculture have to do their due diligence to make sure there is a scientific purpose behind these lead restrictions. we want to effectively manage our lands and natural resources in ways that, keep in mind the american citizen. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. westerman: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. just a reality check, no one lost hunting or angling access because of lead ammunition or tackle restrictions. that's not happened. but if you take away this management tool from fish and wildlife managers and you allow lead pollution and lead poisoning to continue to build up, you will start to see the loss of that access. this ready, shoot, aim approach

to wildlife management is actually going to hurt the people the gentleman says he wants to protect. with that, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield six minutes to the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. dingell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentlewoman is recognized for six minutes. mrs. dingell: thank you. i'm a proud member of the congressional sportsmen caucus, and in fact a past co-chair and am dedicated to expanding access to hunting and fishing opportunities throughout the united states. sports men and women are some of the country's leading conservationists, and i applaud their work to protect lands and wildlife for current and future generations. however, this bill before us today is not a conservation bill. in fact, it drives a wedge in the deep partnerships between sports men and women and federal land managers who have worked together for decades to identify

strategies to allow hunting and fishing in ethical ways that help fish and wildlife population thrive. federal land managers have the authority and the mission to manage their land in a way that contributes to the conservation of wildlife, and they must ensure that any actions that occur on the lands that they manage do not cause jeopardy to endangered or threatened species. this bill conflicts with the endangered species act, the migratory bird treaty act, the national wildlife refuge administration act, and other land management laws by prohibiting any regulation of lead ammunition, or tackle. even when scientific analysis conducted under those laws determined that lead is causing a decline in a population of animals or is not compatible with the uses of the wildlife

refuge. particularly for the national wildlife refuges, this bill is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how hunting and fishing are managed on wildlife refuges. under the national wildlife refuge administration act, the refuges are closed to hunting and fishing until they're opened by the annual hunt, fish regulations. the fish and wildlife service publishes. and those regulations, the fish and wildlife service identified the places, the types of hunting and fishing available, the restrictions, such as no hunting or fishing at night, no motorized boat, etc., and the times those opportunities are available. this regulation is published after careful analysis of whether such actions are compatible with the goals and purposes of each refuge.

and the fish and wildlife service also assesses if the regulation has any impacts under the endangered species act, the national environmental policy act, and other laws. so if we play out this bill before us today, one can easily imagine scenarios where the best available science under the endangered species act shows that hunting or fishing with lead ammunition or tackle will lead to a decline in the listed species. at that point, the fish and wildlife service has a choice to make. do they allow hunting or fishing with lead ammunition or tackle in violation of the endangered species act? or do they close off that area to hunting and fishing? they've already been sued for allowing the use of lead in violation of the e.s.a. they would simply avoid lawsuits by keeping that area closed to future hunting and fishing.

this bill is going to be counterproductive to the goals of the sponsors. it is likely that it will result in less lands available for hunting and fishing, limiting access to sports men and women. for this reason, at the appropriate time, i will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. if the house rules permit it, i would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. this amendment would ensure that sports men and women won't be harmed to reduced access to hunting and fishing if this bill is enacted by tasking the fish and wildlife service and its partners with analyzing the likely outcomes of this legislation and assessing whether they would have to close areas to hunting and fishing to comply with this bill and other laws such as the endangered species act and the national wildlife refuge administration act. it's common sense to asss the possible outcomes of legislation

before it takes affect. and in this case, democrats have been asking these difficult questions with little response from the republicans. i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the text of this amendment. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. dingell: i hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. mr. huffman: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: i serve as co-chair of the congressional sportsmen caucus and would like to point out not only does the congressional sportsmen foundation endorse this legislation but so do organizations such as the mule deer foundation, the american sports fishing foundation, ducks unlimited, delta waterfowl, the who's who of sports men and women organizations support this legislation. and i ask unanimous consent to

submit this list of endorsements. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. westerman: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today to speak in support of h.r. 615, the protecting access for hunters and anglers act of 2023 let by my friend, mr. wittman of virginia. in 2022, the national fish and wildlife service proposed to ban lead ammunition and tackle in seven national wildlife refuges by 2027. . to put it plainly this rule makes no sense whatsoever. it's another example of the biden administration giving in to radical environmentalists who do not hunt nor fish in our national refuges. america's hunters and angle efforts contribute over $1 billn a year in conservation funding via taxes on outdoor equipment like ammunition and

tackle. on top of that, lead products are significantly cheaper than their lead-free counterparts, often costing 2525 -- 25% more. with prices rising on everything thanks to bidenomics, everything from gasoline to fishing tackle, why is it that this administration tries to limit access to wildlife refuges and jeopardize critical wildlife funding dollars. hunters and anglers are the original conservationallists. without regulation, based on science, this rule does nothing but hurt the environment it is attempting to protect. i urge my colleagues to support this measure and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from florida, mr. rutherford.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rutherford: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman from arkansas for yielding and i thank my colleague from virginia for introducing this bill. the protecting access for hunters an anglers act of 2024. this is a poorly decided agreement on a court case when the u.s. fish and wildlife services as you just heard was sued by the center for biological diversity, sued the department of interior, and this agreement was, well, we'll just throw them seven of our national wildlife refuges to get them to go away. that's not the best science. it's not based on science at all. in fact, it's best regulated by

the states and our colleague across the aisle even said, some states have actually shut down areas because of lead issues. that's what all of these states should be doing. managing these resources themselves, not from some bureaucrat in washington, d.c., trying to settle a lawsuit and throwing away people's rights to because millions of americans including mysf are avid outdoors men and women who greatly enjoy hunting and fishin and we rely on reliable cess to these lands and waters. that's why a ban on the cost-effective, traditional lead am moe and tackle is so concerning. it will affect hunters. it will afft recreationally

commercial -- recreational and commercial anglers and it will increase the cost which will reduce the participation by those who enjoy these two american pastimes. and we will lose, as you heard earlier, from my good friend fr georgia, it's a 25% higher cost for the nonlead ammo versus the traditional lead ammo. and when you start cutting that you're going to cut the excise tax that actually provides money for wildlife conservation here in america. states already have the ability as i mention earlier to regulate lands for conservation purposes. instead of these federal mandates we should be leaning on the states. they know whatreas conservation -- they know an area's conservation needs wetter

than anyone else. public-private partnerships are better than federal mandates that do not take into consideration site-specific science to make these decisions. in fact the center for biological diversity, in their suit, they said that lead hunting and fishing on these lands might or could create lead issues. could. might. there's no science there, mr. speaker. none. none. this is strictly a top-down land grab. so i want to urge my colleagues to vote yes on this important bill. we must protect our hunting and fishing on our national wildlife refuges. let's leave it to the states and local authorities to decide what can and can't be used on public lands and keep the biden administration's green new deal agenda out of these great american pastimes. with that, mr. speaker, i yield

back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman pointing out some important facts about how this rule came to be from this administration that's anything but transparent. it's an administration that rejects any kind of oversight. i couldn't even start to tell you how many -- how much information they're behind on sending to the committee that we've requested just so we can do oversight. but i can imagine how this meeting probably went down. you know, the radical environmental groups go over to the administration to have a meeting and the administration says, well we have no -- there's no facts, no scien, nothing that supports what you're wanting to do. but you know, wink, wink, if you were to sue us and we went to court then we could set that will and you know, maybe we'll give you a half dozen to a dozen refuges we'll ban lead on and that would make their friends happy. i think that's exactly what happened. and that's why we're here today.

with the bill in congress to say you can't do that. enough is enough. manage these lands for the public, not for your special interest radical environmental groups. and i think congress has to take the lead on this. with that, i yield -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm continually puzzled by the thing misfriends across the aisle embrace and seem to hold sacred from toilets that require five gallons for every flush to inefficient incandescent light bulbs that even the market and consumers want nothing to do with aning of today we hear this love affair with lead. mr. huffman: i think it is important to remember that the science is really clear. lead is harmful to both humans and wilife. it causes neurological,

behavioral, muscular and cognitive impairment. the centers for disease control state there's no acceptable amount of lead exposure, none. in my home state of california and many other places we have almost lost iconic species, the california condor in our case, because of lead ammunition and the way it bioaccumulates in the environment. especially for scavengers like the condor. we cannot save the condor even though we've had a very successful reintroduction, even though there are signs that we could recover this species, but we can't do it if we have this stubborn rule that restrictions on lead ammunition are off the table because of republican ideology. so look. we have hundreds of studies documents that lead ammo and tackle cause both acute and chronic lead poison, its impact on hundreds of species and millions of vginias is not even debatable. and yet this bill requires a completely unworkable standard

for fish and wildlife managers to even consider. restricting lead. it would require the secretary to determine, quote, a decline in wildlife population at the specific unit of federal land or water. it would have to determine that lead is the primary cause of that decline. and they would have to use field data from that specific unit of federal land or water. this this is a completely unworkable standard. that's why the national wildlife refuge association has pointed out that it is functionally impossible. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: i have no further requests for time, i'm prepared to close. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. huffman: i too am prepared to close, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. huffman: mr. speaker, a lot of points have been made about this bill but i think the one that needs discussion in my closing remarks are the fact that this bill seems to have achieved the unthinkable. it is bad for literally everyone. it is bad for wildlife. as it restricts land merges ability to limit harmful lead pollution in the environment. it conflicts with the endangered species act. migratory bird treaty act and land management laws such as the national wildlife refuge administration act. it's bad for states. it is unclear whether federal landing mores could even carry out state laws that ban the use of certain types of lead ammunition or tackle on neighboring federal lands. and it's even bad for hunters and anglers who will be left with less land and water available for hunting and fishing because of this

wrongheaded legislation. and you might think that this bill would be a boon for the gun industry but even there it's hard to see how land available for hunting would somehow lead to greater gun and ammunition sales. most hunters and anglerses want to contribute to improving wildlife conservation in this country but this bill makes their efforts more difficult. so at the end of the day, the only thing that this bill does is score a few cheap political points by yet again villainizing doing its job.overnment for in this case for carrying out key wildlife conservation laws and keeping hunting areas open. i urge all my colleagues to reject h.r. 615 and yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: mr. speaker, hunters and anglers are the packbone of american wildlife conservation efforts and are invested in the long-term health of wildlife. it is important that congress

comes to their defense against ideologically driven and unscientific decisions that limit access to our public lands. now mr. speaker, if the big, bad government was really basing their actions on science, why did they pick -- randomly pick seven wildlife refuges? why didn't they propose this across the nation? again this is a classic sue and set. they got sued by their friends in the radical environmental groups and decided to settle and give them a little consolation prize of a few wildlife refuges. thinking we might just turn our packs and say it's just a few refuges, they're just giving a little gift to their friends in the radical environmental movement, let's go on and work on something else. but you have to stop these actions with they start. and to be clear, this bill doesn't prevent the federal government from banning the use of lead ammunition and tackle but it does say that any ban must be supported by

site-specific science showing the use of lead is harming wildlife in that refuge. it also requires that states be properly consulted when the federal government proposes to ban the use of lead. if some of my colleagues have an issue with that, they must ask themselveses if they consider states to be partners in conserving wildlife or stake holders who they can ignore. i believe a true partnership between states and federal government and wildlife conservation is the best path forward and this bill is a step in that direction. i want to thank congressman wittman for his leadership on this legislation. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. pursuant to house resolution 1173, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on gross -- is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. aye ail. those opposed, no. the ayes have it third reading. the clerk: a bill to prohibit the secretary of the ierior and secretary of agriculture from prohibiting the use of lead

ammunition or tackle on certain federal land or water under the jurisdiction of the secretary of interior and secretary of agriculture and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from michigan seek recognition? mrs. dingell: i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mrs. dingell moved to recommit the bill back to the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. mrs. dingell: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having risen the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 further proceedings on this question are postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman, seek recognition? mr. westerman: i call up h.r. 3397 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 309, h.r. 3397, a bill to require the director of the bureau of land management to withdraw a rule of the bureau of land management relating to conservation and landscape health. the speaker pro tempore: pursuan t to house resolution 113 in nature and in lieu of the act by the department of resources and existing of 113 3-32 should be considered as adopted and the bill as amended is considered read and the bill shall bede