Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 172 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 172 (Wednesday, October 30, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H8622-H8640]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

CHACO CULTURAL HERITAGE AREA PROTECTION ACT OF 2019

General Leave

Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

[[Page H8623]]

may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 2181.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 656 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2181.
The Chair appoints the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) to preside
over the Committee of the Whole.

{time} 1439

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2181) to provide for the withdrawal and protection of certain
Federal land in the State of New Mexico, with Mr. Cuellar in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified
in section 3 of House Resolution 656 and shall not exceed 1 hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the
Committee on Natural Resources.
The gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Haaland) and the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, Du hino-meh. Idza dyu-qe-dza. Svwimi Hanu. My name is
Debra Haaland. I am from the Turquoise Clan and an enrolled member of
the Laguna Pueblo.
I wish to acknowledge that we are on Indian land, and I humbly ask to
speak on this important bill.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2181, the Chaco
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act.
First, Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my colleagues, Assistant
Speaker Ben Ray Lujan, Senator Tom Udall, and Senator Martin Heinrich
for their years of hard work on this important legislation.
This proposal, sponsored by my good friend and fellow New Mexico
Representative, Mr. Lujan, would protect the cultural resources at
Chaco Culture National Historical Park, as well as New Mexico's clean
air, from the impact of oil and gas extraction.
This bill would withdraw land in a 10-mile buffer zone around Chaco
Culture National Historical Park to protect that site and the region's
undiscovered resources from the impacts of further oil and gas
extraction.
Chaco Canyon and the greater Chaco region have been home to my people
for centuries. As a 35th generation New Mexican and a descendant of the
indigenous inhabitants of what is now the Southwest United States, I
can say that there are few places more exceptional than the Chaco
region. Over hundreds of years, my ancestors engineered and constructed
massive multistory structures at Chaco Canyon that became the
ceremonial, administrative, and economic center of the region.
It is a certified International Dark Sky Park, where visitors can
gaze at the same dark sky with myriad stars that my ancestors did over
1,000 years ago.
These sites and the objects they contain tell the history of my
people and connect us to our past.
The Indian Pueblos and the Navajo Nation still have intimate
connections with the greater Chaco region, recognizing the area as a
spiritual place to be honored and respected.
This Congress, the Natural Resources Committee has heard from the
leaders of four Pueblo nations, the All Pueblo Council of Governors,
elected leaders of the Navajo Nation, the National Congress of American
Indians, senior officials in Tribal and Pueblo governments, and a
plethora of Americans, all of whom support H.R. 2181.
The entire New Mexico Congressional Delegation and the Governor of
our State support H.R. 2181.
This bill enjoys broad support on the ground and bipartisan support
here in this Chamber because protecting indigenous cultural resources,
protecting Chaco Canyon, should not be a partisan issue.
This proposal is about respecting our history and protecting our
culture. We owe it to Tribal communities, to the people of New Mexico,
and to people the world over to permanently protect the Chaco region.
Earlier this year, I traveled to the Chaco Culture National
Historical Park with several of my colleagues. While in New Mexico, we
had the opportunity to use infrared cameras to watch plumes of methane
and pollution spewing from oil and gas operations, creating a toxic
cloud the size of Delaware that hangs over the skies of northwestern
New Mexico.
Ninety percent of the Federal lands in this region are already open
to oil and gas extraction, and New Mexicans are all too familiar with
the toxic impacts it has on clean air, clean water, their health, and
the health of their children.

{time} 1445

When you are out there watching the methane plumes and experiencing
the dust, the noise, the light pollution and their impacts, it is easy
to see why oil and gas extraction does not belong next to a sacred
ancestral site of the Pueblo people.
If you don't believe me, you can ask Interior Secretary Bernhardt.
When he visited Chaco Canyon earlier this year with Senator Martin
Heinrich, he definitely was struck by the significance of the park
because he committed to a
1-year moratorium on drilling around Chaco Canyon to allow Congress to
act on proposals like the one before us today.
I thank the Secretary for his efforts, but 1 year is not enough
protection for a site that holds centuries of history and culture. That
is why I ask you all to support Chaco Canyon today, to support the
Pueblo people, the Navajo Nation, and the people of New Mexico by
voting in favor of H.R. 2181.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2181. Mr. Chairman, this
is yet another piece of legislation advanced by my colleagues on behalf
of the radical environmental movement. This bill will unilaterally lock
up oil and gas development on 316,000 acres of federally owned land in
New Mexico.
The Department of the Interior is in the process of drafting a
resource management plan for this area, but this process is still under
review and the resource management plan has not yet been released. This
bill would permanently ban all energy development in the area before we
know all the facts and before a science-based environmental review is
completed.
Decisions made in Washington regarding how to manage federally owned
land have implications beyond the borders of the acreage in question.
Those who own land or operate businesses near federally owned parcels
are oftentimes significantly impacted by poor management decisions made
by the Federal bureaucrats who do not live there or understand the
needs of the rural Western communities.
Similarly, my colleagues claim that this bill will do no harm to
those who own lands and mineral rights in the surrounding area, but
this bill could mean millions in lost revenue for those who own lands
along the proposed withdrawal boundary.
While it is technically true that the acreage off limits to
development under this bill is federally owned, there are lands located
throughout the withdrawal area that are privately owned by the members
of the Navajo Nation.
If you take a look at this map, anything you see in this purple
area--particularly in this area is what we are talking about--is owned
by the Navajo allottees. So when you are looking at the expansion of
this park, it impugns access to that area.
Now, as you see, the Navajo-owned lands and minerals are scattered
throughout and are located outside the withdrawal area. But if these
lands are unavailable for development, they become restricted and
further cut off from access points and from development opportunities.
If the neighboring land can never be developed, as required under this
bill, the economic

[[Page H8624]]

value of these private minerals is diminished and the Navajo owners
will have a harder time attracting investments on their land.
Once again, you see the skirting all the way through this area,
particularly in this band alongside there, so access is critical.
We heard testimony to this fact in the Natural Resources Committee
this summer. Ms. Delora Hesuse testified in opposition to this bill,
stating: ``Our voices as allotted landowners are being silenced by
environmentalists claiming to speak for all of us. These lands were
given to our great-great-grandparents in exchange for citizenship, and
we have rights as citizens and landowners to develop our lands for oil
and gas as we see fit.''
She continued: ``If BLM lands are withdrawn around our allotments,
that means oil and gas companies cannot access our lands, because they
won't be able to access the Federal lands.''
Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record her testimony.

Delora Hesuse, Navajo Indian Allottee, Nageezi Chapter

Testimony Before the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee
on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2181 Chaco Cultural Heritage Area
Protection Act--June 5, 2019

Chairwoman Haaland, Ranking Member Young and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to bring voice to
those Navajo tribal members who are being forgotten with this
bill--Indian allottees.
I am Delora Hesuse, a citizen of the Navajo Nation, Nageezi
Chapter. My chapter is in the Greater Chaco region and near
the Chaco Culture National Historic Park. My grandmother was
a Councilwoman for the Nageezi Chapter for eight years, and
my father was a Navajo Nation Council Delegate for the
Nageezi Chapter for twenty years.
Many people don't understand our Native American heritage
and the fact that many individual Navajo Nation members such
as I own private lands and the minerals underneath them. This
is a steadfast personal property right that sustains our
livelihoods and way of life. H.R. 2181 would put many of our
mineral rights off limits and stop a much-needed source of
income to feed, shelter, clothe and protect our families. I'm
not exaggerating the importance of this income. In 2015, the
Federal Indian Minerals Office distributed $96 million to
20,835 allottees. That's a significant source of income in an
area that continues to struggle with unemployment.
My ancestors were allotted the land and mineral rights by
the United States government many generations ago, and it
pains me to see that my own leaders, both tribal and in the
U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, are supporting a
bill that would put my oil and natural gas rights off limits
and/or seriously prevent my family from receiving income from
the valuable energy resources that we own.
I am not alone. Many other Indian allottees in the Greater
Chaco region agree with me. In fact, I have here a petition
signed by 131 of us allottees opposing this buffer zone bill.
I also have with me another petition signed by many
allottees that states that the environmentalists' voice is
not our voice. Our voices as Allotted landowners are being
silenced by environmentalists claiming to speak for all of
us. These lands were given to our great, great grandparents
in exchange for citizenship, and we have rights as citizens
and landowners to develop our lands for oil and gas as we see
fit.
I also have two resolutions from the Huerfano and Nageezi
chapters signed by our chapter presidents supporting us
Navajo Allotment landowners and recognizing our opposition to
this bill. These chapter resolutions call for a meeting with
Senators Udall and Heinrich so that we can express our
concerns with the bill and how it will limit our rights.
I am disappointed that the Department of the Interior,
which is supposed to manage our mineral rights in trust to
the benefit of my family and all other allottees, has stopped
leasing for a full year. This action delays income to us
allottees in the short term, but more importantly, sends a
strong signal to oil and gas companies that generate the
income on our behalf that investment in the area is risky and
uncertain in the long term.
I have been participating actively in the Resource
Management Planning (RMP) process which is under pressure
from environmental groups and others opposed to responsible
oil and natural gas development in the area. I continue to
feel that the Interior Department and members of Congress are
ignoring the voice of Indian allottees and listening only to
environmental groups like Dine Care and other outside groups
that want to keep oil and natural gas from being developed at
all.
Besides not being realistic, it would deprive my family of
income to sustain our way of life. Our voices should and must
be heard equally along with the environmental special
interest groups. In fact, with the Interior Department's
trust responsibility, our voices should carry much more
weight than that of outside special interests, but that is
not the case with this bill.
The bill would put off limits my mineral rights and the
mineral rights of thousands of allottees. While the bill
claims not to affect my mineral rights, in fact, many
allottee lands are surrounded by federal lands that would be
withdrawn by this bill. If BLM lands are withdrawn around our
allotments, that means oil and gas companies cannot access
our lands, because they won't be able to access the federal
lands.
Furthermore, since the oil and gas is accessed using
horizontal drilling, putting the federal lands and minerals
off limits will mean my minerals are also off limits. Because
of the checkerboard pattern of lands, where allottee lands
are often surrounded by BLM lands, particularly in the
northeast segment of the buffer, if companies cannot access
all minerals along the lateral of a horizontal well, they
will not access any.
Companies will simply be discouraged from developing the
minerals on my behalf because it just doesn't make sense
economically or technologically to pinpoint my small amount
of minerals stranded amongst federal minerals. What may be
small to them, however, is not small to me. Companies will be
discouraged from developing in all areas of the buffer at
all, even on allottee lands.
I too care deeply about the Chaco cultural heritage. After
all, I'm a Navajo who lives right in the Greater Chaco
region. But the Chaco Culture National Historic Park already
protects the Great Houses. Artifacts that may be outside the
park are protected through the National Historic Preservation
Act. Any development of my minerals and the minerals of other
allottees is done in strict accordance with the act, to make
sure they are protected. Not only do we insist upon it, but
that is the law of the land.
I urge the committee not to pass this bill. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify today.

Mr. GOSAR. Further, two chapters of the Navajo Nation representing a
combined 6,000 residents passed resolutions opposing this bill because
it would jeopardize development and potentially ``infringe on their
royalty payments.''
Mr. Chairman, I also include those in the Record.

Resolution of Huerfano Chapter

Resolution # Hue-090-18

Supporting the Navajo Allotment Owners in Opposition of ``The Chaco
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2018'' and Furthermore
Requesting U.S. Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich to meet with
Navajo Allotment Owners in Northwest New Mexico to Explain the Proposed
Senate Bill 2907.

Whereas:
1. Huerfano Chapter is a certified governmental entity of
the Navajo Nation charged with the responsibility to solicit,
promote, and protect the interest and the welfare of the
chapter and its community pursuant to the Navajo Nation
Resolution CJ20-55, December 02, 1995 and Resolution CAP 34-
98, adopting the Local Governance Act (LGA); and
2. Huerfano Chapter has a population of 3000 plus
residents, both registered voters and nonregistered community
members. The chapter is one of the largest land based
chapters comprised of 553,528 acres in Eastern Agency, Navajo
Nation and has nine {09) subcommunities including Adobe,
Blanco, Bisti, Carson, Gallegos, Jacquez, Hogback, Huerfano,
and Otis; and
3. The Navajo Allotment owners met on Jun 12, 2018 at
Nageezi Chapter where over eighty-five (85) attended to voice
their opinions on the proposed ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area
Protection Act'' or Senate Bill 2907; and
4. Navajo Allotment Land Owners expressed their concerns
that the ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of
2018'' might infringe on their royalty payments they are
presently benefitting from oil and gas development on their
allotment lands. The Navajo communities, including the Navajo
Reservation has always been in a very depressed economic
state for many years and such development of natural
resources gives Navajo families benefit for their daily
lives; and
5. Navajo Allotment owners are concern that self-serving
special interest organizations are violating the rights of
Navajo Allotment Land Owners, that such publicized
demonstrations and meetings by these special interest and
outside groups have over shadowed the Navajo allotment land
owners who benefits from oil and development on their
allotment lands; and
6. Navajo Allotment Land Owners do not share opinions of
environmentalists voicing their objectives on natural
resources developments. These are over publicized objectives
by the environmentalists have drowned out and overshadowed
Navajo Allotment Land Owners Rights; and
7. Navajo Allotment Land Owners are truly the impacted
people of the Chaco area. These lands were patented and
allotted to the Navajo People in New Mexico and handed down
through many generations. These lands were given in exchange
for land taken by the U.S. Government in exchange for
citizenships. Therefore, as Navajo People being land owners,
they have the right to lease, develop, or excavate their
lands; Now therefore be it

[[Page H8625]]

Resolved That: 1. The Huerfano Chapter hereby supports and
recognizes the opposition by the Navajo Allotment Land Owners
of the ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of
2018'' or Senate Bill 2904.
2. Huerfano Chapter herby further supports and requests
U.S. Senator Tom Udall and U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich to
attend a meeting with Navajo Allotment Land Owners of the
``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2018'' to
explain the content and reasons of the proposed ``Chaco
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2018''. The meeting
will allow Navajo Allotment Land Owners to express their
concerns of the proposed ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area
Protection Act of 2018'' and how it will limit their rights.

CERTIFICATION

We hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
presented and discussed at a duly called meeting of Huerfano
Chapter, Navajo Nation (New Mexico), at which a quorum was
present, and that the same was passed by a vote of 12 in
favor, 00 opposed, and 08 abstained this 08th day of July
2018.

Motion by: Larry J. Bonney.
Second by: Cecil Werito Jr.
Ben Woody Jr.,
Chapter President.
Irene L. Harvey,
Chapter Vice-President.
Lois Y. Werito,
Secretary/Treasurer.
____

Resolution of Nageezi Chapter--Eastern Agency, District 19

RESOLUTION # NC-18-077

Supporting the Navajo Allotment Owners in Opposition of The ``Chaco
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2018'' and Furthermore
Requesting U.S. Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich to meet with
Navajo Allotment Owners in Northwest New Mexico to Explain the Proposed
Senate Bill 2907

Whereas:
1. Pursuant to 26 N.N.C. Sec. 1(B), the Nageezi Chapter is
delegated the governmental authority to make decisions over
local matters consistent with Navajo Law, Custom, and
Tradition and under 11 N.N.C., Part 1, Section 10, is
delegated authority to make local decisions in the best
interest and welfare of the community members; and
2. Nageezi Chapter with the population of 2500 to 3000
residents, registered and nonregistered voters, is made of up
of nine (09) sub-communities including and not limited to:
Nageezi, Lybrook, Twin Pines, Blanco, Kimbeto, Chaco Canyon,
Escavada, Betoni Wash, Kinnadiz, and Dzilth-na-o-dith-hle,
being one of the largest land base chapters in the Eastern
Agency of the Navajo Nation; and
3. Navajo Allotment Land Owners met on June 12, 2018 at
Nageezi Chapter where over eighty-five (85) attended to voice
their opinions on the proposed ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area
Protection Act of 2018 or Senate Bill 2907; and
4. Navajo Allotment Land Owners expressed their concerns
that the ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of
2018:'' might infringe on their royalty payments they are
presently benefitting from oil and gas development on their
allotment lands. Navajo communities, including the Navajo
Reservation has always been in a very depressed economic
state for many years and such development of natural
resources gives Navajo families benefits to their daily
lives; and
5. Navajo Allotment Land Owners are concerned that self-
serving special interest organizations are violating the
rights of Navajo Allotment Land Owners. That such publicized
demonstrations and meetings by these special interest and
outside groups have over shadowed the Navajo Allotment Land
Owners whom currently benefitting from oil and gas
development on their allotment lands; and
6. Navajo Allotment Land Owners do not share opinions of
environmentalists voicing their objections on natural
resources developments. These over publicized objections by
the environmentalists have drowned out and overshadowed
Navajo Allotment Land Owners Rights; and
7. Navajo Allotment Land Owners are truly the impacted
people of the Chaco area. These lands were patented and
allotted to the Navajo People in New Mexico and handed down
through many generations. These lands were given in exchange
for land taken by the U.S. Government in exchange for
citizenships. Therefore, as Navajo People being land owners,
they have the right to lease, develop, or excavate their
lands; Now therefore be it
Resolved That: 1. Nageezi Chapter hereby supports and
recognizes the opposition by the Navajo Allotment Land Owners
of the ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of
2018'' or Senate bill 2907; and
2. Nageezi Chapter hereby further supports and requests
U.S. Senator Udall and U.S. Senator Heinrich to attend a
meeting with Navajo Allotment Land Owners on the ``Chaco
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2018'' to explain
the content and reasons of the proposed ``Chaco Cultural
Heritage Area Protection Act of 2018''. The meeting will
allow Navajo Allotment Land Owners to express their concerns
of the proposed ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act
of 2018'' and how it will limit their rights.

CERTIFICATION

We Hereby Certify that the Foregoing Resolution #NC-18-077
was duly presented and discussed at a duly called meeting of
Nageezi Chapter, Navajo Nation (New Mexico), at which a
quorum was present, motioned by Delora Hesuse, seconded by
Leon Sam, was voted on with 52 in favor, 00 opposed, and 03
abstained, this 01st day of July 2018.
Ervin Chavez,
Chapter President.
Jessica Platero,
Secretary/Treasurer.

Mr. GOSAR. I should note, these are significant sums which the Navajo
allottees depend on each and every year. According to a 2017 Department
of the Interior IG report, 20,855 Navajo allottees receive a collective
$96 million per year from revenues raised through responsible oil and
gas development on their allotments. Quite simply, infringing on their
right to develop their mineral resources jeopardizes their quality of
life.
Further, oil and gas development has blessed the State of New Mexico
with significant budget windfalls in recent years. Just last week, the
Department of the Interior announced that the State of New Mexico would
receive $1.17 billion in revenues from Federal oil and gas development,
the highest disbursement in the State's history.
2018 was a record-breaking year for oil and gas development in New
Mexico, with State revenues reaching $2.2 billion, total. Roughly half
of these revenues will return directly to the State's schools,
investing in higher pay for teachers and staff, while other funds were
allocated for infrastructure projects and public services.
These funds were provided by oil and gas operations on not only
Federal lands, but on State trust lands, as well. Roughly 8 percent of
the withdrawal area in this bill is owned by the State of New Mexico
and can be developed for the benefit of its citizens. Enacting this
bill will cut off the revenue streams from both Federal and State
energy development, reducing future revenues for educational
initiatives like those signed into law earlier this year.
Mr. Chairman, the Chaco Cultural History Park is already protected
and off limits to oil and gas development. If leasing were to occur in
the surrounding area, it would be subject to a multitude of Federal
laws and regulations before any development could begin, including the
National Historic Preservation Act, designed to protect culturally
significant areas and artifacts on all Federal lands.
Before we declare a permanent ban on energy development in such a
large area, we need to have all of the facts. We need to have a
complete scientific review and stakeholder engagement process that is
already underway. We need to thoroughly weigh the benefits and
concerns, and we need to consider all those who are impacted. Not doing
so could have significant consequences for the Navajo allottees and for
the State of New Mexico's budget and priorities for its citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) in the
previous debate, had some incredible charts that he was displaying. In
it, he proclaimed: The rocks shall set you free.
I was born and raised, and my faith taught me, that the truth shall
set you free, Mr. Chairman. I was also taught that people are entitled
to their own opinions, Mr. Chairman, but not their own facts.
If my colleague from Arizona participated in those hearings, as he
said he did, he heard the witnesses from the Bureau of Land Management,
the witness from the Bureau of Land Management in this direct question
about the rights of Navajo allottees being taken away.
Some of my Republican colleagues will argue that protecting Chaco
will impact the Navajo allottees' right to develop valid rights. This
is blatantly false.
Let the silence sit in. It is false.
The Bureau of Land Management testified before Congress and said that
this legislation ``would not affect Tribal interests or allottees.''
Mr. Chairman, it is critically important that we have a conversation
about

[[Page H8626]]

the importance of protecting Chaco. While we have taken steps to defend
Chaco, Chaco is at risk of being hurt, of being desecrated, of being
destroyed. That is why we have come together.
I would invite my colleague to join us and visit Chaco, visit with
the elders, the women who are there, the children who are in proximity
of those fumes that my colleague, the chairwoman, Deb Haaland from New
Mexico, was able to describe, where you don't just smell the methane;
technology today allows you to see those plumes move into people's
homes.
This legislation, Mr. Chairman, is very clear. It puts in place a
practice by the Bureau of Land Management. It takes out of production
Federal land.
The lies need to stop about telling our Navajo brothers and sisters
who are allottees that this will hurt their access to those lands, that
this will restrict access to those lands.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, just to be thorough, an amendment
that I will offer later today will make it even more clear that this,
in fact, is only about taking BLM land out of production.
Mr. Chairman, with all the work that we have left to do with us, this
is a piece of legislation supported by the New Mexico delegation,
something that, based on the amendment that my colleague from Arizona
(Mr. Gosar) just offered, might understand. It is supported by myself;
the Representative from the district, Congresswoman Deb Haaland, one of
the first two Native American women elected to the Congress--and you
heard the passion in her voice; she is carrying the weight of her
ancestors on her shoulders as she debates the fight to protect this
sacred land--Congresswoman Torres Small, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich,
U.S. Senator Tom Udall, the Governor of the State of New Mexico, and
the Commissioner of Public Lands.
If you need a longer list of elected leaders from New Mexico who
support this bill, I can make it available.
Let's work together, Mr. Chairman.
And the last thing I will say is that I am very proud that this
legislation will pass with bipartisan support. Pray on it. Think about
where our loved ones have been laid to rest. We wouldn't want those
grave sites being desecrated. We don't want this sacred site being
desecrated either.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I love the passion in the gentleman's voice, but, once
again, it is not me. It is the allottees who brought their voice
forward, the Navajo allottees. They have seen, time and time again,
promises made by the Federal Government and promises not kept.
So, once again, who would you rather believe, the allottees or the
BLM? Personally, I would side with the allottees.
When you look at the map, it tells you the story you need to know. If
we are going to make an amendment, we should guarantee access through
any of that application through this area, not just through the BLM,
but all this area, because those are the resources of the State.
Mr. LUJAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. LUJAN. Has the gentleman read the bill?
Mr. GOSAR. Yes.
Mr. LUJAN. If the gentleman read the bill, he would see that the text
has made very clear this takes Bureau of Land Management land out, not
allottee land; and if the gentleman would review the clarifying
amendment, he would also see that, as well.
So don't just take my word for it, look at the text and look at the
advice of your staff.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, once again, it says it
takes it off of mineral exposure, but it doesn't give access.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague's
presentation here. It is clear and concise, and he raises important
points.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2181, the Chaco Cultural
Heritage Area Protection Act, as well.
Mr. Chairman, this is a flawed bill. It is simply another attempt by
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to prevent our country
from taking the next steps in this era of American energy dominance.
What is important here is that American energy dominance is a great
strategy. It is a strategy that helps all Americans, those in this
immediate area and around the country.
The legislation before us will, of course, permanently restrict oil
and gas development in the area immediately surrounding the Chaco
Culture National Historical Park.
Now, bear in mind, of course, as has been pointed out here,
exploration is already restricted within the park; and, of course, that
is rightfully so. But it is bad policy to create an arbitrary buffer
zone for a prohibition on development in the area around the park.
In this Congress, our friends on the other side of the aisle have
made their priorities crystal clear regarding the management of our
country's resources. So far, they have placed moratoriums on oil and
gas production in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, in the Pacific and
Atlantic planning areas, and in ANWR. Apparently, that is not enough.
What we are hearing today is that now we need to ban production in the
New Mexico areas, as well.
Mr. Chairman, at what point do we say enough is enough?
The evidence shows, time and again, that placing restrictions on
energy development only increases prices for American consumers. And
make no mistake, these increases have the largest impact on our most
vulnerable communities.

{time} 1500

I said this on the floor in September--many of us have--and I will
say it again today, the United States is blessed because our land is
filled with an abundance of natural resources. My own congressional
district back in Louisiana is home of one of the largest natural gas
reserves in the country.
We believe, we insist that we have the means and the responsibility
to use those God-given resources to create jobs, foster economic
growth, and pave the way to an era of American energy dominance.
Oppressive policies like the ones before us today have been our own
worst enemy.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of H.R. 2181, the Chaco
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act.
Ancient civilizations called the area around Chaco Canyon home
thousands of years before the earliest settlers of ancient Egypt and
Mesopotamia. In fact, Native American people have occupied this region
continuously since 10,000 BC, creating massive public and ceremonial
buildings, a complex system of roads for trade, and beautiful crafts
and artwork.
Today, there are more than 4,000 archeological sites, millions of
artifacts, and countless sacred cultural resources that provide modern-
day Native people a direct link to their ancestors who lived in the
area thousands of years ago.
Reckless oil and gas development could destroy the fragile
archeological and cultural resources in the area, including ones that
have not yet been discovered or cataloged. In fact, there has never
been a comprehensive Native-led study of the cultural resources in the
Chaco region.
It is fitting that we are talking about protecting Chaco Canyon in
New Mexico and the Grand Canyon in Arizona on the same day. Both are
UNESCO World Heritage sites, and both are national treasures needlessly
threatened by industry to pad their bottom line.
That is why I strongly support the Grand Canyon Centennial Protection
Act debated earlier and why I urge my colleagues to support this bill
and the 10-mile protection zone around Chaco Canyon's archeological
resources and the present-day communities that it creates.
This is sacred ground that we have an obligation to protect for
future generations to enjoy and learn about. We must pass this bill to
preserve this place to teach our children and our children's children
about the rich history and culture of the Native people who lived in
the American Southwest.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

[[Page H8627]]

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 2181,
the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019.
This unnecessary bill would permanently ban oil and gas development
on about 316,000 acres of land in New Mexico. It would also incur $3
million in increased spending costs with no built-in mechanism to pay
for it.
H.R. 2181's proposed landgrab would surround Chaco Culture National
Historical Park. The park itself is already under Federal protections,
including a prohibition on mineral development. This bill would add 10
extra miles of protected area around the perimeter of the park. This
arbitrary addition could have long-term negative repercussions to the
State of New Mexico.
H.R. 2181 would also impact the very Navajo Nation members it claims
to protect. Many of them own lands and mineral rights in the area that
have been passed down for generations, but this bill would make it
virtually impossible for them to develop the energy resources to which
they are rightfully entitled. The complex puzzle of interlocking
Federal, State, Tribal, and private land in the disputed area would
result in significant hurdles for the Navajo Nation, creating a de
facto extraction ban.
In June of this year, a Navajo Nation representative who owns some of
these mineral resources came to Capitol Hill to testify in front of the
Natural Resources Committee on behalf of 131 Navajo Nation members
about how detrimental H.R. 2181 would be to their land. This bill
ignores the request of local landowners and continues the pattern of
government overreach in the West.
H.R. 2181 also completely sidesteps the Department of the Interior's
resource management plan for the area. This plan is currently
undergoing environmental review and will be publicly released at some
point. To permanently ban all future energy developments before we know
all of the facts and research conclusions is uncalled for.
I have stood here at this podium and spoken at length about American
energy dominance and good environmental stewardship because I believe
they can go hand in hand. Every indicator we have shows that energy
production is becoming cleaner, faster, and cheaper by the day.
Refusing to allow safe energy development on Federal land isn't
environmentally friendly; it is just bad science and a thinly veiled
power grab.
As foreign energy sources become increasingly unpredictable, it is
imperative that we tap into our vast domestic energy potential in
sustainable ways and that we don't arbitrarily restrict future
development.
Keep in mind that any leasing in these areas is subject to a host of
Federal regulations and oversight already. Any development must comply
with the National Historic Preservation Act and NEPA. These laws are in
place to protect and preserve historically significant sites across our
country.
But that is not the issue here. Instead, we are debating areas
completely outside the boundaries of the Chaco Culture area. My
Democratic colleagues are rushing to pass this bill without hearing the
concerns of local Navajo Nation members or waiting to read the
Department of the Interior analysis of the area. These hasty
conclusions are unnecessary, with potentially devastating effects on
New Mexico's revenue stream.

I urge my fellow Members to consider the negative implications of
this bill and vote against H.R. 2181.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chair, I simply want to respond to my colleague that
was just speaking.
This area is within those exterior boundaries of the archeological
sites and findings and indigenous lands that we referred to as Chaco.
I would invite my colleague to come out to New Mexico. I will take
the gentleman out there. Congresswoman Debra Haaland would love to host
the gentleman.
My colleague from the other side of the aisle brought up this notion
that this development is subject to Federal law.
The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chair, I yield the gentleman from New Mexico an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. LUJAN. If the gentleman would take a moment and go to the NOAA
website, the gentleman would see that New Mexico has two methane clouds
over it. We have the two worst methane emissions of anywhere in the
country, even though we don't have the most oil and gas production.
I am sorry my colleague is not able to stay for this debate.
Mr. Chairman, right now, there is a theft taking place to U.S.
taxpayers because there is intentional leaking of methane that is
taking place. You can see it.
There is technology, now, that allows you not just to--when you are
out there, Mr. Chairman, you can smell it. But the technology now lets
you see these plumes going into people's homes who live right there.
Let's find a way to be smart about this. I agree with that. But there
are places we have to protect, and this is one of them.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2181, the Chaco
Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019.
One thousand years ago, Chaco Canyon was the center of a vibrant
ancestral Puebloan culture that became the focal point for ceremonies,
for trade, and for political activity in the prehistoric Four Corners
area.
Today, thousands of ancestral sites and cultural resources are spread
across the Chaco region, while at the same time pump jacks, such as the
one shown here, have become increasingly present across the landscape.
Currently, only a small portion of the region's sacred sites and
abundant cultural resources are protected within the Chaco Cultural
National Historical Park, with much of the surrounding land available
for oil and gas development.
The greater Chaco region is a prime example of how sacred sites are
facing increased threats from encroaching oil and gas development and
the Trump administration's energy dominance agenda. The Bureau of Land
Management has already leased over 90 percent of the public land in the
larger San Juan Basin for oil and gas extraction, and under the Trump
administration, BLM has proposed to lease parcels near Chaco on three
different occasions.
Increased fossil fuel extraction not only threatens the region's
cultural resources, it also threatens clean air and water, as well as
the health and safety of surrounding communities.
New Mexico's methane emissions are already the highest in the
country, and it will only get worse if the region is open to increased
extraction. That released methane--a greenhouse gas that is 34 times
more impactful than CO2--is a significant contributor to the
ongoing climate crisis.
I urge my colleagues to safeguard our Nation against the threat of
continued climate change and vote to protect Chaco's unparalleled
collection of ancient ruins and the health of local communities from
the impacts of oil and gas extraction.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would love to engage with the gentleman from New Mexico if the
gentleman would not mind.
Mr. Chair, Members are bringing up this concept of methane capture.
There is an easy solution.
Is the gentleman in favor of providing a pipeline, because what ends
up happening, we can recover almost 100 percent of the methane
emissions when we have a pipeline nearby, because then it becomes
profitable and it becomes something that we can actually utilize.
Mr. LUJAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. LUJAN. Would it surprise the gentleman from Arizona that they are
actually using duct tape to try to seal leaks from methane plumes in
New Mexico? Does the gentleman think that is allowed?
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I would let the gentleman know that I am one of

[[Page H8628]]

these technology nerds. I have been visiting with people who have
revolutionized and have new ideas in regard to pipelines that would set
this on fire.
So if we are looking at technology, we ought to be looking at in the
right way. It is beneficial. We are living longer, not like what we
were at the turn of the 1900s, which was shorter.
My point is, if there is technology out there for pipelines that is
very consistent with almost 100 percent capture, wouldn't the gentleman
entertain that?
I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chair, I think the gentleman and I may actually be
able to find some common ground.
There are available technologies today--as the gentleman may know,
being in tune with modern technology associated with oil and gas
exploration--that can identify leaks, can prevent those leaks, and
actually can eliminate intentional flaring, but first you have to find
them and you have to seal those leaks.

Mr. Chair, I would be happy to work with the gentleman to identify a
funding stream so that we can identify every methane leak across
America, seal every leak, and prevent intentional methane flaring.
I think there is some common ground we can work on, because this is
all about compromise, and this may be an area that--the gentleman, Mr.
Gosar, someone I respect--we might be able to find some common ground.
We will take the gentleman out to New Mexico. We will put the
gentleman's eyes on that camera where the gentleman can see the plumes
moving. And while they may try to fix it temporarily with duct tape--
sometimes on the farm we do it with baling wire, as the gentleman
knows--we should use real technology, eliminate those leaks, eliminate
those plumes, and actually make it illegal to intentionally flare.
Let's find common ground on that.
Does the gentleman know why they flare the methane? That is stealing
from taxpayers.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, reclaiming my time, I have no problem. What I
would ask in return is let's turn around and go back to Petra Nova down
in Texas where we have a coal-fired plant that actually captures 100
percent of any emissions. It takes it down into the gas areas and
actually injects it back in, squeegeeing what the rest of the oil and
gas is, and then it condenses into limestone. It is pretty interesting
technology.
So I appreciate the gentleman for his back-and-forth, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise to have my voice heard in support
of H.R. 2181, the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act.
This proposal that is sponsored by my friend, Mr. Lujan, with the
support of the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on National Parks,
Forests, and Public Lands, Representative Haaland, also from New
Mexico, is another important step towards recognizing and elevating the
voices and the presence of Native communities in this Chamber.
As the chairwoman mentioned in her opening statement, our committee
has heard from Puebloan and Tribal leaders throughout this Congress
about how important it is to protect Chaco. These communities want to
see Chaco, their ancestral homeland, protected from oil and gas
drilling.
This is an important piece of legislation. It is an agreed-upon
proposal that balances regional development with the needs to ensure
that special places and, indeed, sacred places are off limits. It fits
well into the work this Chamber is doing today and has been doing all
Congress. We are listening to diverse voices, protecting the rights of
Native communities, and conserving our public lands for the benefit of
current and future generations.
Mr. Chair, I hope our colleagues will join us in this important work
by voting today to protect irreplaceable sites that are important to
Native communities and supported by folks on the ground and that are
critical to the story of this Nation of ours.

{time} 1515

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Bishop), who is the ranking member of the full committee.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, it is wonderful to be back down
here on the floor again with all of you. I thank Mr. Grijalva for that.
I would have been here earlier had the gentleman not scheduled a
hearing on our committee at the same time as we are supposed to have
all our committee bills here on the floor. But we hit both of those at
any rate.
We have three bills on the floor here today--I'm really sorry I
missed the first one--three bills that are so bad they make the umpire
last night actually look good.
This particular one has one of those problems that still exists. If
the State of New Mexico or New Mexico's leaders want to give away the
$1.17 billion they just got a check from last time from this
development, that is okay with me. Actually, it probably means that
more money is going to come to my State eventually from that pot. But
it is not okay to forget that those people who really understand what
they are talking about, those who live closely in the area, really need
to have their voices heard, specifically.
I have to equate, once again, as has been brought up already, but I
want to reemphasize, the two chapters in closest proximity that really
have an impact on here both voted against this bill. They both sent
resolutions against this bill. Those who actually have seen what it is
like to deal with the Federal Government on that personal basis have
sent resolutions against this bill.
This bill has the potential of disrupting 20,000 Native Americans--
almost all Navajo--who are allottees in this particular area. Even
though some will contend that the Federal Government has said they will
not be a problem, if we look at the history of dealing with the Federal
Government, then, obviously, the concerns that the private sector has
and those citizens who live in this area have for this bill are pretty
obvious. There is historical precedence on when that should take place,
and until there is some kind of verification of that, then we ought to
be very careful in which way we decide to go in this particular order.
Let me also say one other thing here, because this is a frustration I
have with the entire process. As we know, bad procedure creates bad
policy. But the bill that we have just discussed dealt with a park that
has a huge maintenance backlog. Even though changing the mining
procedures around the park will have nothing to do with the water, it
certainly doesn't solve the maintenance backlog. This bill will all
deal with withdrawals from the Bureau of Land Management lands which,
once again, have a huge maintenance backlog. So I am going to say, once
again, to our friends on the other side, if you really want to talk
about parklands in Arizona, BLM lands in New Mexico, and whatever those
lands in Colorado are going to be, all on the same day, and we have
that huge maintenance backlog, then for heaven's sakes, bring that bill
onto the floor. I realize how controversial it may be. There are only
328 cosponsors of the bill. I am sure that probably would be able to go
on suspension.
But until we have actually addressed the maintenance backlog and not
held that up as some kind of sad quid pro quo or sad element of trying
to blackmail for something else or try to attach bad elements to it
that will actually negate the impact of that bill, we are piddling
around here. Bring that bill for the maintenance backlog to the floor.
Let us have a vote. Let us move on to solve real problems instead of
those that we are creating with these three bills that are going to be
before us today.
Are they terrible bills?
Who knows?
Will they result in better quality in other Western States that have
public lands?
Who knows?
Are some of the Native Americans who live in that area very sceptical
of it?
Obviously.
Is there a history of the inability of working these things out?
Obviously.
Should they have worked out the details with the BLM before we
actually introduced land?
Yes, obviously.
But, once again, Mr. Chairman, we have three bills that make that
play on

[[Page H8629]]

first base look really good in comparison.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, as we heard, Chaco Canyon is a UNESCO
World Heritage site, and the reason it is listed this way is because it
is a place of magic and history. Anyone who has slept there under the
stars, as I have, and as I would urge my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle to do, knows what a special and unique place this is and
why it must be protected.
But there are many ways one can damage an historic site. Obviously,
you can damage the very soil that it sits on. But you can also damage
the air quality that the visitors to this site find every year.
Oil and gas development produces smog and gas flares that harm
animals, vegetation, and people who live nearby. It also undermines the
park's pristine night skies that attract thousands of visitors every
year. It emits methane that leads to harmful ground-level ozone
pollution, and it is just not worth destroying this precious treasure.
I support reasonable oil and gas development throughout the West in
my State, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and so many places. But just
because we should have oil and gas development in appropriate places
doesn't mean we should have it everywhere, certainly not near or in
Chaco Canyon. That is why I support this legislation, Mr. Chairman, and
I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like to reiterate a number of
institutions that are against H.R. 2181. To preface that, we set
precedents and we codify precedents. So that is why, Mr. Chairman, you
will have multiple States disagreeing with H.R. 2181.
So for those who are against H.R. 2181, you have the American
Exploration and Mining Association, there is a group letter; Arizona
Liberty, group letter; Arizona Mining Association, group letter;
Arizona Pork Producers, group letter; Arizona Rock Products
Association; group letter; Conservatives for Property Rights, a letter;
Denver Lumber Company, a letter; enCore Energy Corporation; Mohave
County Supervisor Buster Johnson, a letter; New Mexico Business
Coalition, a letter; New Mexico Cattle Growers Association; New Mexico
Federal Lands Council; New Mexico Wool Growers Association; Western
Energy Alliance; and Women's Mining Coalition. These are just some of
the people who are against it.
When we look at this board, we have this designation, you see it here
in Chaco Canyon.
What wisdom did they have when they first put this together?
That is what I want to ask. The dimensions here are for a reason.
Why are we expending this, particularly when there is so little trust
in the Federal Government?
I think we have just realized that we had to move a part of our
government--I think the BLM, if I remember right--out to Grand
Junction, Colorado, so that we actually had some bureaucrats who
actually understood the dilemmas that are out there in Western culture
and in Western States.
Yes, Western States gave up a lot. They gave a lot up compared to our
Eastern cohorts. We gave property to the Federal Government for
stewardship, however, that has been abused. The products that we were
supposed to get off those lands as public lands have dwindled.
Eastern States call us beggars in regard to payment in lieu of taxes
because we can't tax these Federal lands. And we are begging for
pennies on the dollar.
Something is wrong with that.
We are also vested in the community application of the best
management of these resources and getting the highest yield out of it.
It is like an investment.
How do we get the best out of this area?
When you look at this, no wonder the Navajo allottees don't trust the
Federal Government. Tell me when the Federal Government has honored
their promise.
Look at the Navajo generating station in Arizona. This was a promise
to the Navajo and Hopi Tribes to have work that was dependent upon
them, that gave them the benefits of that entrepreneurship and that
reflection of minerals. Sixty percent of the Navajo economy is based
off of the Navajo generating station at the mine. That is gone. Eighty
percent of the Hopis on the mine and NGS. That is gone. So it is no
wonder these Navajo allottees don't trust the Federal Government. I
don't blame them.
Trust is a series of promises kept. Until we can start honoring our
promises, we have got to stop this foolishness. There is plenty of land
there. I want to see my sites, but I also want my energy, too. There is
a way of going about it.
We engaged with the gentleman from New Mexico. It is going to be a
wonderful aspect to start talking about technology in regard to
recouping 100 percent of the methane and anything else that comes out
of it.
I do come from northern Arizona where I can see the stars. I don't
want to ever lose sight of that, because I think it was Buzz Lightyear
who said: To infinity and beyond. That is the way we should also be.
But it is not about victimization, it is about empowerment. I believe
these Navajo allottees deserve their rights to make sure that the
government honors their promise. I want cultural sites to be honored.
But I wonder what the difference is when this site is held in this
parameter and why we are going about the business to expand it even
further.
Once again, enough is enough.
Mr. LUJAN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, because
one of the resolutions from the two chapters was raised, and think it
was raised by the gentleman as well, so I just wanted to make sure we
had a chance to review that.
So if that resolution is reviewed, if the gentleman would look at
paragraph 4, which is where the concern that was brought up by the
allottees to the very distinguished and honorable chapter leaders was
raised, what it says is this: ``Navajo allotment landowners expressed
their concerns that the `Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of
2018:' might infringe on their royalty payments they are presently
benefitting from oil and gas development on their allotment lands.
Navajo communities, including the Navajo Reservation, has always been
in a very depressed economic state for many years and such development
of natural resources gives Navajo families benefits to their daily
lives.''
The Bureau of Land Management did provide assurance that there would
be no impact to those royalty payments.
So to answer the question of might infringe, the Department of the
Interior and the Bureau of Land Management have said absolutely not
would there be any infringement. So I appreciate the gentleman's time,
and I appreciate the clarification.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman
for that. But, once again, trust is a series of promises kept.
When has the Federal Government held their trust up to the Tribal men
or even allottees?
It doesn't matter if they are Native American. We have had a number
of mining claims that have been stymied because the Forest Service or
the BLM will not give them access, even though they have allowed and
stated that they would have access to that claim.

So, once again, it is a hollow promise; and, once again, I beseech
individuals until the government starts honoring promises, they are not
entitled to the hierarchy of trust. That is just it. I trust people
more than I do the government. A government that can give all can take
all. I'm not for that. I'm for empowerment. I'm not for victimization.
What I have seen, I don't like. I have seen that the promise to the
Navajo people and to the Hopi people is lame.
We are going to take these good-paying jobs in northern Arizona, and
we are going to give them welfare?
How discouraging is that?
Does that lift a person's spirit?
No, it doesn't.
It doesn't give them upward mobility. I thought that was the American
experience. It is sad that we are at this point in time. I think we
need to have

[[Page H8630]]

more dialogue on these bills. We need to have more discussions. Yes,
the ranking member made the comment: good process, builds good policy,
builds good politics. None of that exists right now. None of that
exists.
Until we get back to the civil debate on this, it continually won't
exist.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill, and I
yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1530

Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, H.R. 2181 is a broadly supported proposal to protect the
cultural resources of Chaco Canyon. This bill has the support of the
All Pueblo Council of Governors, the Navajo Nation, the entire New
Mexico delegation, and the New Mexico Governor, not to mention any
number of elected officials across our beautiful State.
This proposal has been worked on for a very long time. Over many
hours, weeks, and years, many voices have been heard. If we are serious
about lifting up Tribal voices and responding to the priorities of
Native American communities, we need to listen to the Tribal leaders
who are asking us to protect Chaco Canyon. The people of New Mexico
know the impacts oil and gas development can have on clean air, clean
water, and the health of our children.
Mr. Chair, 90 percent of the San Juan Basin is already available for
oil and gas leasing. We can protect this sacred land because gas and
oil doesn't need to take up every single inch of our State. This
proposal is about protecting a small sacred area for Tribal communities
that have a connection to this special place and still use this area
for ceremonies to pray and to worship.
There may be dissenting voices, as there always are when we make
changes to land management policy, but we must listen to the elected
leaders who represent these places. Quite frankly, the majority of New
Mexicans support this legislation on this issue.
The delegation, the Governor, and the elected Tribal leaders have
spoken in a unified voice and asked us to protect Chaco Canyon. I thank
Representative Lujan for his hard work.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2181, and I invite
anyone to come to New Mexico and visit this beautiful place and know
for certain why it is that we are fighting so hard to protect it.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I include the following letters in the Record.

Western Caucus, Chairman Paul Gosar

Opposition to H.R. 2181

So far H.R. 2181 is opposed by: American Exploration &
Mining Association (Group Letter), Arizona Liberty (Group
Letter), Arizona Mining Association (Group Letter), Arizona
Pork Producers (Group Letter), Arizona Rock Products
Association (Group Letter), Citizens For America (Group
Letter), Conservative Coalition of Northern Arizona (Group
Letter), Conservatives for Property Rights (Letter), Denver
Lumber Company (Letter), enCore Energy Corp (Letter), Mohave
County Supervisor Buster Johnson (Letter), New Mexico
Business Coalition (Letter), New Mexico Cattle Growers
Association (Letter), New Mexico Federal Lands Council
(Letter), New Mexico Wool Growers Association (Letter),
Western Energy Alliance (Letter), Women's Mining Coalition
(Group Letter).
____

July 16, 2019.
Hon. Raul Grijalva,
Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop: I write
to you today to express my strong opposition to H.R. 2181,
the ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act of 2019''.
This bill permanently bans oil, natural gas, coal and other
minerals from federal leasing and future development on
316,000 acres in New Mexico while also permanently
terminating leases in the area that have yet to go into
production.
H.R. 2181 places our economic and energy security at risk
by putting an area rich in oil and gas resources permanently
off limits to production. This bill will harm tribal members,
reduce general fund and education revenues infringe on
private property rights and negatively impact local
economies.
The area in question has proven to hold large reserves of
oil and gas resources. BLM recognized the potential in this
area and proposed to include several parcels near Chaco
Canyon in its oil and gas lease sale on March 28, 2019.
The so-called ``buffer zone'' imposed by this bill is
completely unnecessary, as oil and gas production has taken
place in this area for decades, with no damage to the
national park. In fact, the expressed purpose of the park was
to protect the culturally significant ruins and great houses
of the Chaco people, and the boundaries of the park were
drawn for that very goal.
H.R. 2181 will harm education. In fiscal year 2018, oil and
natural gas production generated $2.2 billion for New
Mexico's general fund and accounted for one-third of all
revenue in the fund. More than $820 million of these funds
flowed to k-12 schools, providing enough revenues enough to
cover the salaries of nearly 11,500 teachers.
It was clear from the manner in which the committee treated
this bill that the voices of tribal members were not
adequately considered. In fact, no allottees were invited to
speak at the site visit or at the subcommittee hearing in New
Mexico discussing this legislation.
Delora Hesuse, a Navajo with private mineral rights in New
Mexico, claims the concerns of Indian allottees have not been
heard and that the proposed 316,000-acre ``buffer'' is a
solution in search of a problem. According to Western Wire,
Hesuse stated, ``How come we don't have a voice in this? . .
. Environmentalists and others claiming to speak on their
behalf have `not even consulted us or asked our permission .
. . Her fellow allottees were passed over for [opponents] and
environmental activists and not included in the panel
discussions at the field hearings. We oppose the buffer zone
because it's never been an issue. Everyone knew their
boundaries. She said residents near Chaco have been receiving
royalties since the 1970s and they don't want that critical
income to go away.''
H.R. 2181 imposes an assault on Indian allottees that hold
private mineral rights in the withdrawal area and tramples on
property rights. This bill makes their assets worthless,
taking away valuable royalty payments from these impoverished
communities. To put this in perspective, in 2015 alone, the
Federal Indian Minerals Office distributed $96 million to
20,835 allottees throughout the country.
Allottees in the Chaco region have consistently expressed
opposition to this proposed withdrawal. Instead of listening
to all local voices, the proponents of this bill have
pandered to environmental groups who claim to represent all
the relevant stakeholders on this matter, but clearly do not.
There are already numerous federal and state laws and
regulations on the books that adequately protect the Chaco
National Park. The oil and gas industry has both a legal and
moral obligation to protect the artifacts of the Chaco
people, as well as avoiding impacts on newly discovered
artifacts, which it has always done. American energy
production and protecting the environment are not mutually
exclusive goals. Chaco will continue to be protected while
responsible oil and gas production occurs, benefitting
education and reducing carbon emissions in the process.
Again, I oppose H.R. 2181 and urge its rejection.
Sincerely,
Buster D. Johnson,
Mohave County Supervisor, District III.
____

IPAA

Independent Petroleum Association of America

October 25, 2019.
Hon. Raul Grijalva,
Chairman, House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Rob Bishop,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop: The
Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) strongly
opposes H.R. 2181, the Chaco Cultural Heritage Area
Protection Act. IPAA did not object when Interior Secretary
Bernhardt issued a one-year freeze on leasing in order to
complete the ongoing Resource Management Plan (RMP) in the
area. We believe it is important to have all the facts before
making any land management decision involving public lands.
However, despite the fact that the RMP has not yet been
released, House Democratic leadership plans to bring H.R.
2181 to the floor for a vote in the coming weeks. This
legislation is premature and locks-up land in the region
before we have all the facts from the RMP. This bill would
permanently ban federal oil and natural gas leasing on
roughly 316,000 acres of land in New Mexico and terminate
existing leases. It is bad policy to act before we know the
facts.
While the sponsors of this legislation claim it will not
affect Native American allottee mineral rights, the reality
is far different. H.R. 2181 will create significant access
and extraction complications for the Tribal allottees along
with any companies they partner with and will lead to a de
facto mineral extraction ban on their lands.
At a June 5, 2019 hearing in the Natural Resources
Committee on the legislation, a witness with allottee land
from the Navajo Nation, Nageezi chapter testified against the
bill stating that H.R. 2181 would ``put many of our mineral
rights off limits and stop a much-needed source of income to
feed, shelter, clothe and protect our families.'' The witness
also submitted for the record a petition signed by 131 Navajo
allottees opposing this legislation, as well as two
resolutions

[[Page H8631]]

from the Huerfano and Nageezi Navajo chapters, which are
closest to this area, expressing support for the Navajo
allotment landowners and recognizing their opposition to this
bill.
IPAA has been content to let the Chaco Canyon RMP process
proceed to its conclusion. However, we cannot support any
efforts to increase the area's boundary before all the RMP is
completed. The main purpose of establishing the Chaco Culture
National Historical Area was to protect every area of
historical significance. That goal has been accomplished.
Extending the boundaries and adding acreage to the Heritage
Area will not enhance protection of areas of historical
significance. There are no areas outside the currently
designated boundaries that qualify for protections. However,
the park expansion would have economically devastating
impacts on those who live closest to the area.
For these reasons, IPAA urges you to vote ``NO'' on H.R.
2181.
Sincerely,

Daniel T. Naatz,

Senior Vice President, Government Relations and Political
Affairs,
Independent Petroleum Association of America.
____

WESTERN ENERGY ALLIANCE

The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule. The amendment printed in part D of House
Report 116-264 shall be considered as adopted, and the bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

H.R. 2181

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Chaco Cultural Heritage Area
Protection Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) there are archeological, sacred, and historic resources
located throughout the Greater Chaco region, which spans the
States of New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Colorado;
(2) the Chaco Culture National Historical Park, a unit of
the National Park System and a United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage Site, is
known around the world--
(A) for multi-story buildings constructed by the Chacoan
people that are still standing; and
(B) as the nerve center of a culture that spread throughout
and dominated the Four Corners area during the 9th, 10th, and
11th centuries;
(3) the Chacoan people built hundreds of miles of roads and
a network of villages, shrines, and communications sites,
many of which are still visible;
(4) many Pueblos and Indian Tribes in the Four Corners area
claim cultural affiliation with, and are descended from, the
Chacoan people;
(5) the landscape around the Chaco Culture National
Historical Park includes hundreds of internationally and
nationally significant cultural resources, including
prehistoric roads, communities, and shrines--
(A) many of which are related to the resources found in the
Chaco Culture National Historical Park, including the
resources recognized by the amendment made by section 3 of
the Chacoan Outliers Protection Act of 1995 (16 U.S.C. 410ii
note; Public Law 104-11) providing for additional Chaco
Culture Archeological Protection Sites;
(B) a significant number of which are concentrated within
the immediate area surrounding the Chaco Culture National
Historical Park; and
(C) that are commonly recognized by archeologists;
(6) long considered one of the best places for stargazing
in the world, Chaco Culture National Historical Park--
(A) in 1991, established a night skies protection
initiative and interpretive program to protect the night sky
in the area of the Chaco Culture National Historical Park;
and
(B) in 2013, was certified as an International Dark Sky
Park;
(7) the Greater Chaco landscape in the State of New Mexico
extends beyond Chaco Culture National Historical Park and
encompasses--
(A) local communities, including Pueblos and Indian Tribes;
and
(B) public land, which includes additional cultural
resources and sacred sites;
(8) for over 110 years, the Federal Government has
recognized the importance of the area in which the Chacoan
people lived and has acted to protect historic and sacred
sites in the area, including--
(A) Chaco Canyon, which was designated as a National
Monument in 1907 and as the Chaco Culture National Historical
Park in 1980;
(B) the Aztec Ruins, which was designated as a National
Monument in 1923 and expanded in each of 1928, 1930, 1948,
and 1988; and
(C) the 39 Chaco Culture Archeological Protection Sites
designated in 1995;
(9) recognizes that the standard for Tribal consultation is
outlined in Executive Order 13175 (25 U.S.C. 5301 note;
relating to consultation and coordination with Indian Tribal
governments);
(10) extensive natural gas development has occurred in the
Greater Chaco region that affect the health, safety,
economies, and quality of life of local communities;
(11) renewed interest in oil exploration and production
within the Mancos/Gallup Shale play has increased the
potential for--
(A) significant impacts on resources and visitor
experiences at the Chaco Culture National Historical Park;
and
(B) additional impacts on local communities in the Greater
Chaco region, including Pueblos and Indian Tribes;
(12) a mineral withdrawal in the landscape around the Chaco
Culture National Historical Park would prevent leasing and
development in the immediate area surrounding the Chaco
Culture National Historical Park, which would protect
resources and visitor experiences at the Chaco Culture
National Historical Park; and
(13) additional studies and protective measures should be
undertaken to address health, safety, and environmental
impacts on communities and interests of Pueblos and Indian
Tribes in the Greater Chaco landscape.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Covered lease.--The term ``covered lease'' means any
oil and gas lease for Federal land--
(A) on which drilling operations have not been commenced
before the end of the primary term of the applicable lease;
(B) that is not producing oil or gas in paying quantities;
and
(C) that is not subject to a valid cooperative or unit plan
of development or operation certified by the Secretary to be
necessary.
(2) Federal land.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Federal land'' means--
(i) any Federal land or interest in Federal land that is
within the boundaries of the Chaco Cultural Heritage
Withdrawal Area, as depicted on the Map; and
(ii) any land or interest in land located within the
boundaries of the Chaco Cultural Heritage Withdrawal Area, as
depicted on the Map, that is acquired by the Federal
Government after the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Exclusion.--The term ``Federal land'' does not include
trust land (as defined in section 3765 of title 38, United
States Code).
(3) Map.--The term ``Map'' means the map prepared by the
Bureau of Land Management entitled ``Chaco Cultural Heritage
Withdrawal Area'' and dated April 2, 2019.
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 4. WITHDRAWAL OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND IN THE STATE OF
NEW MEXICO.

(a) In General.--Subject to any valid existing rights, the
Federal land is withdrawn from--

[[Page H8632]]

(1) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under
the public land laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent under mining laws; and
(3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials,
and geothermal leasing laws.
(b) Availability of Map.--The Map shall be made available
for inspection at each appropriate office of the Bureau of
Land Management.
(c) Conveyance of Federal Land to Indian Tribes.--
Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary may convey the
Federal land to, or exchange the Federal land with, an Indian
Tribe in accordance with a resource management plan that is
approved as of the date of enactment of this Act, as
subsequently developed, amended, or revised in accordance
with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43
U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and any other applicable law.

SEC. 5. OIL AND GAS LEASE MANAGEMENT.

(a) Termination of Non-Producing Leases.--A covered lease--
(1) shall automatically terminate by operation of law
pursuant to section 17(e) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30
U.S.C. 226(e)) and subpart 3108 of title 43, Code of Federal
Regulations (or successor regulations); and
(2) may not be extended by the Secretary.
(b) Withdrawal of Terminated, Relinquished, or Acquired
Leases.--Any portion of the Federal land subject to a covered
lease terminated under subsection (a) or otherwise or
relinquished or acquired by the United States on or after the
date of enactment of this Act is withdrawn from--
(1) all forms of entry, appropriation, and disposal under
the public land laws;
(2) location, entry, and patent undermining laws; and
(3) operation of the mineral leasing, mineral materials,
and geothermal leasing laws.

SEC. 6. EFFECT.

Nothing in this Act--
(1) affects the mineral rights of an Indian Tribe or member
of an Indian Tribe to trust land or allotment land; or
(2) precludes improvements to, or rights-of-way for water,
power, or road development on, the Federal land to assist
communities adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Federal
land.

SEC. 7. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS.

The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of
complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall
be determined by reference to the latest statement titled
``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act,
submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the
Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such
statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

The CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, is in order
except those printed in part E of House Report 116-264. Each such
further amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Lujan

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in
part E of House Report 116-264.
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 6, line 25, insert ``on Federal lands and of Federal
minerals'' after ``development''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 656, the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Lujan) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I am optimistic that this amendment may even
pass on a voice vote because I have been listening closely to my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle about the importance of
providing clarifying language to ensure that we are able to make sure
that we are meeting the goals that we have laid out.
So I am hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that this may be a short debate, but
one that will definitely pass and make sure that we are embracing both
sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, this simple amendment would further clarify that this
proposal only withdraws Federal resources. The withdrawal in H.R. 2181
would not impact nor remove valid existing rights. This includes any
lands and minerals owned by a Tribe or a member of a Tribe, including
allotment land, and it will include any valid rights to lands or
minerals held by the State of New Mexico.
I introduced this bill to prevent further encroachment of Federal oil
and gas development on the sacred sites of the greater Chaco Canyon
region. These sites have withstood the test of time, 800 A.D. They have
stood for thousands of years and give us a window into the past.
Yet, every year, oil and gas development on Federal lands inch closer
and closer, threatening these sites and thousands of ancient artifacts
within the region. The Chaco Culture National Historical Park has
significant religious, cultural, and archaeological value to the
original peoples of the Southwest.
Under this administration, Chaco does continue to face greater
threats. Under the Trump administration, the BLM has proposed to sell
leases near Chaco Canyon three times since March 2018. But I will also
give some credit to the administration. Each time, under the Trump
administration, the sales were withdrawn by the BLM under the
Department of the Interior after pushback from the Native American
communities. And each time, the administration promised meaningful
consultation, which is living up to our trust responsibility, something
that I shared with my colleague on the other side of the aisle. Sadly,
the meaningful consultation never took place, yet the leases were up
again for sale only months later.
It is time for Congress to heed the interest of the communities
across New Mexico that want to see the site protected and withdraw the
Federal lands and minerals across Chaco Canyon.
As you have seen and heard, 90 percent of the San Juan Basin is
already open to drilling. Oil and gas rights are not under threat here.
I understand that concerns have been raised by allottees who worry
this bill will impact their ability to develop their rights. But as I
said earlier, the bill clearly protects them.
If my colleagues have any concerns, this amendment provides further
clarifying language to ensure that those protections are very clear.
This proposal will not impact anyone's ability to develop their valid
rights, including Navajo allottees. This amendment makes it clear that
the legislation only affects Federal Government land and minerals
owned.
Let's be clear: My legislation supports the interests of Tribes and
their sovereignty. H.R. 2181 is well-supported by Native American
communities. The proposal has received the support of the All Pueblo
Council of Governors representing 20 Pueblos and the Navajo Nation.
Leaders were at the table for every step of this process, helping to
decide how these resources should be protected. I will forever remember
the conversations I had with Navajo elders and children who continue to
share their concerns associated with protecting the sacred site.
I will just close, Mr. Chairman, by reminding us once again that when
we lay our loved ones to rest, we will do everything we can to protect
those sacred sites. This weekend, I found myself next to the Nambe
Church in the community where I live, half a mile away from where I
rest my head, remembering those who have fallen, cleaning those sites,
pulling up the weeds, raking the ground, paying my respects. I can't
imagine how my mom or I would feel if those places would be desecrated.
That is all that we are asking. Let's come together. Let's protect
these sacred sites. Let's do it together.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition, although I am not opposed
to the amendment.
The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Arizona is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, when I look at this, I see the aptitude to try
to amend this to give access. I have to tell the gentleman, though, it
doesn't go far enough.
Mr. Chair, I think what we have to do is guarantee access so that
Congress is specifically and intentionally demanding that they have
that access because you know as well as I know that, once again,
government problems exist. I will give the gentleman an example.
In the last land package, we have a land package that included the La
Paz

[[Page H8633]]

land exchange by BLM. Do you know what the big problem now has been? It
was signed into law. It has been about access. Our legislation actually
said that it did not impugn any of the mineral estates, but then the
BLM came back and said, listen, that doesn't guarantee you access to
it.
That is why I think it doesn't go far enough.
I would love to see it say that it requires the allottees access to
those lands. But I am not opposed to it. I think it slightly makes it
better.
Mr. Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop),
the ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I, too, am actually in support of the
amendment. I think it is an improvement on the bill, but it doesn't go
far enough because it is still only amending the findings.
If you really want teeth with it, you have to amend the statutes
whatsoever. So for that, it is an improvement, but it still does not
solve the base problem that even if you are taking away rights on
Federal property and you have private rights that abut it, that has an
impact on those private rights at the same time.
Those are the types of things that need to be guaranteed because
those are the people that could be losing tens of thousands of dollars
because the action on the Federal land has an impact on the private
land that abuts it at the same time. And that cannot be solved in a
finding.
However, the language that you put in here is a good effort to try
and at least clarify what Congress hopes to be accomplishing. For that,
I commend the gentleman for actually presenting this particular
amendment. I am happy to be able to vote for it.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I think we need to devolve this back to the
people of interest, the Native peoples, the people of the State, the
private owners.
Mr. Chair, I lay no opposition to this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, just to close, I very much appreciate the
attention that was brought to section 6 of the amendment, which very
clearly states that nothing in this act, number one, affects the
mineral rights of an Indian Tribe or member of an Indian Tribe to trust
land or allotment land; or, number two, precludes improvements to or
rights-of-way for water, power, or road development under Federal lands
to assist communities adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Federal
land.
I very much respect my colleague and the former chair of the
committee, Mr. Bishop, and Mr. Gosar, and I look forward to continuing
to work with them.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in
part E of House Report 116-264.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 9, beginning on line 8, strike ``to Indian Tribes''.
Page 9, line 11, insert ``or a State trust land entity''
after ``Indian Tribe''.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 656, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would allow Federal lands
included in the withdrawal area to be conveyed or exchanged with State
trust entities, as well as Native American Tribes.
Currently, over one-third of the land in New Mexico is owned by the
Federal Government. The 316,000-acre withdrawal this bill creates
includes substantial parcels of Native American-owned private land and
State trust lands.
State trust lands are an essential part of funding public services in
the West, especially education. However, Federal overreach, such as
this legislation, puts that funding at risk. Allowing the conveyance of
certain lands in the withdrawal to State trust agencies and private
businesses will help to mitigate the effects of this withdrawal on
essential public services and local infrastructure.
Allowing the conveyance of federally held land will also go a long
way to addressing one of the critical problems with this legislation,
which is access. Denying access to these lands to private landowners
and Native American allottees is simply wrong. The growing Federal
estate is not a good thing for the long-term future of the West.
Instead of locking up more land, like the majority is trying to do
today, we should be focused on increasing multiple use on public lands.
We can have our cake, and we can eat it, too.
To put it simply, instead of needlessly locking up more land, we
should be focused on unlocking the potential of the West, empowering
people to enjoy it.
Mr. Chair, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from New Mexico is recognized for 5 minutes.

{time} 1545

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, there is a little bit of irony on this
amendment that, again, I can't overlook, and we raised it a little bit
earlier.
The previous debate, which was around protecting the Grand Canyon,
included an argument from my colleague that there should be some
support for the Member whose district that we were debating.
Earlier, the gentleman from Arizona offered an amendment to an
Arizona public lands bill that would have removed the lands in his
district from the bill. Yet here we have a bill in New Mexico, in the
Third Congressional District that I so proudly represent, which is
supported by the Governor of the State of New Mexico and by the entire
New Mexico delegation, and the gentleman from Arizona is still trying
to make those changes--changes, I would offer, that don't make a bit of
difference when it comes to the substantive side of the bill.
This amendment would not improve the bill. In fact, it would make it
harder for Tribal communities to protect the lands this bill was
intended to preserve.
The gentleman claims that he wants to ensure the State has access to
the lands in the withdrawal zone so that they can potentially earn
revenue on these lands.
Well, there is something that has happened in the State of New Mexico
over the last many years. In New Mexico, the State Land Office, which
has jurisdiction over these lands, has placed a moratorium on these
lands within the buffer zone because the State recognizes the
importance of protecting Chaco Canyon.
It is important that Congress do the same. We need to recognize that
the importance of these sacred homelands does not end at the boundaries
of the Chaco Culture National Historical Park, a claim that was falsely
made by my colleagues earlier today.
The entire greater Chaco region contains discovered and undiscovered
cultural resources important to Pueblo communities, to Tribal
communities, to our brothers and sisters who have a connection to this
region. We need to create this protection zone to ensure that these
resources are not disturbed or destroyed by future oil and gas
exploration on Federal lands.
As my colleagues have noted, even Secretary Bernhardt agrees with
this sentiment. That is the Secretary of the Interior under the Trump
administration. That is why he and the administration worked with U.S.
Senator of New Mexico Martin Heinrich to agree to a 1-year withdrawal
around the Chaco region to allow Congress to act on these protections
for these sites.
So I want to thank my colleagues for taking the initiative to act
within the allotted time that was given to us by the Secretary of the
Interior.
This amendment ignores the importance of these resources, ignores the
desires of the State, and would make it harder for Native communities
to protect their lands.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for the time today. I encourage
my colleagues to oppose this amendment, but

[[Page H8634]]

I hope to continue to work with my colleagues in the Congress so we can
get to adoption of this important legislation with as strong a
bipartisan vote as possible.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I am not from New Mexico, but I do have an
interest in education because that was one of the standard operating
procedures that we were promised on public land.
If I am not mistaken, the Tribes are beneficiaries, as well, of that
educational fund. And so, when you start looking at this, depriving
that fund of its due resources--I don't know about New Mexico, but
Arizona has got a problem paying for its educational system. It is not
because we don't have enough money; it is because we don't have enough
land. That is a problem.
I am here on behalf of the beneficiaries that the government
promised. So, from that standpoint, I don't see a dichotomy in the
argument until we can understand, until we have a better facilitation
of that exchange, once again, doing something expediently, as we had
the discussion earlier about access to those allottees.
Once again, government hasn't been the solution that it had claimed
to be. We almost have to guide them hand and foot, pushing them to the
right decision.
Mr. Chair, I still rise in favor of this amendment, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in
part E of House Report 116-264.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, insert the following:

SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall take effect on the date that the Secretary
of the Interior finds that the withdrawal under section 4
shall not impact the ability to develop or the economic value
of the mineral rights held by Native Americans in the Chaco
Cultural Heritage Withdrawal Area or the greater Chaco
region.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 656, the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would ensure this bill would
not take effect if the withdrawal in question is proven to affect
development or economic value of Native American mineral rights on
allotments.
Private property rights are a fundamental American ideal. The
316,000-acre withdrawal this bill creates includes substantial parcels
of privately held land, much of which is owned by Native American
allottees.
The benefits of owning mineral rights are obvious for Native
communities. In 2015 alone, the Federal Indian Mineral Office
distributed $96 million to more than 20,000 allottees around the
country.
At the June 5, 2019, hearing on H.R. 2181, the Committee on Natural
Resources heard testimony from Delora Hesuse, a citizen of the Navajo
Nation, Nageezi chapter, and a Navajo allottee, who owns mineral
resources in the proposed area.
Ms. Hesuse testified that H.R. 2181 would ``put many of our mineral
rights off limits and stop a much-needed source of income to feed,
shelter, clothe, and protect our families.''
Apparently, the voices of Ms. Hesuse and other allottees who have
spoken to the committee have not been heard. This amendment is an
effort to acknowledge that their livelihoods could be drastically
diminished by this legislation.
I ask the Members of this body to put themselves in the shoes of the
Native American allottees who have staked their livelihood on the
mineral rights on their properties that are rightfully theirs, only to
have the Federal Government strip them of their rights. I believe that
is an injustice.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New Mexico is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose this amendment because it
would allow Secretary Bernhardt to kill this bill, preventing
protections for the important cultural sites at Chaco Canyon.
In response to this amendment, I would point you to the text of H.R.
2181. The bill text states: ``Nothing in this act affects the mineral
rights of an Indian Tribe or member of an Indian Tribe or trust land or
allotment land.''
It could not be any clearer than that; yet we have had this debate in
hearings, in markups, and even moments ago during debate and in
amendments.
I understand and appreciate the concerns of the Navajo allottees, and
I appreciated when Ms. Hesuse came before our committee to share her
concerns with us. It is important that we take these perspectives into
consideration, which is why I appreciate Representative Lujan's effort
to make explicitly clear that this bill will have no impact on the
rights of allotted owners.
But, at the same time, we need to listen to the voices of Native
communities and their elected leaders, who are calling on us to protect
Chaco Canyon.
We have heard it already today, but this bill receives the complete
support of the Navajo Nation and the All Pueblo Council of Governors,
which represents 19 pueblos in New Mexico and 1 in Texas.
These Tribal leaders want to see the Chaco landscape protected from
oil and gas drilling. They don't want to see cultural sites damaged by
pump jacks or to have the pollution of extraction intrude on these
sacred sites.
The restrictions in this proposal are not new. They have been
informally in place for years under the Obama administration without
any clear impact on any allottees.
We need to act now to formalize these protections because the Trump
administration and their energy dominance agenda threaten these
important resources. Lease sales have been offered around Chaco Canyon
three times since March of 2018.
We must listen to the voices of Tribal communities and protect Chaco
Canyon.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I would have loved to hear that argument in
the discussion on ANWR. That would have been interesting to have.
When I look at this, it has become very evident, in my time here in
Congress, to find programs that had no authorization by Congress that
were enacted. Interesting. Interesting, once again, in a government
that is not trusted.
Trust is a series of promises kept. Once again, this reiterates the
private property ownership of these allottees to make sure that it is
not impugned. I do not see the definition of that causing a quandary.
Once again, these are allottees who are deserving for us to require
to make sure that they are held whole.
So, once again, I find it shortsighted in the application that the
other side doesn't want to accept this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I wish everyone would vote for this amendment, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chair, we have heard this argument. We have hashed
and rehashed it over and over again. Not only that, but my colleague,
Mr. Lujan, said it very plainly: The allottees will not be hampered by
H.R. 2181.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

[[Page H8635]]

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Arrington

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in
part E of House Report 116-264.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 7. CONTINUING OPERATIONS.

Operators may continue new oil and gas developments in the
exclusionary zone proposed by this Act if those operators
have previously been in accordance with the provisions of law
formerly known as the ``National Historic Preservation Act''
and have not violated the existing rules and regulations for
the archeological sites and areas of sensitivity in the Chaco
Canyon Historical Park.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 656, the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Arrington) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, there is a Navajo saying that a rocky
vineyard does not need a prayer but a pickax.
We don't need protectionist prayers from elites in Washington who
think they have all the answers; we need a pickax for prosperity and
opportunity for folks living in rural America and the Navajo people in
New Mexico.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 2181, the
Chaco Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act.
My amendment would prevent the proposed ban on future oil and gas
development from going into effect in an area that already has adequate
protections, protections that are there to ensure that these operations
won't have any adverse impact on historic and sacred lands in the Chaco
Canyon Historic Park.
The reality is there are already a litany of State and Federal laws
in place to ensure environmental protection and to prevent mineral
development from affecting sensitive infrastructure and sacred
artifacts within this exclusion zone.
Energy companies have had a positive track record when it comes to
working with the Federal Government to comply with these laws for
necessary permits and approvals. And, since producers already meet the
standards set in several comprehensive environmental laws, this
proposed ban on new oil and gas development in this area, in my
opinion, is unnecessary, is misguided, and is overreaching.
In fact, drilling for minerals already prohibited within the Chaco
Canyon Historic Park, keeping the culturally sensitive artifacts safe
from any sort of potential disturbance caused by oil and gas
development, this bill is nothing more than a buffer zone on top of an
already existing buffer zone that has protected cultural artifacts
effectively for 100 years, Mr. Chairman.

{time} 1600

Unfortunately, if enacted, this bill would create significant access
and extraction complications for the Navajos. This adverse impact would
be a result of the checkerboard nature of the mineral rights and how
Federal, State, Tribal, and private lands are intersecting.
Even though the area is proven to house abundant oil and gas
reserves, the restrictions on accessing Federal land would make doing
business in that area almost impossible, leading to a de facto
extraction ban on the Navajo's privately-owned mineral rights. The so-
called buffer zone imposed by the bill is arbitrary and completely
unnecessary, again, in my opinion.
The whole purpose of establishing the Chaco Culture National
Historical Park was to protect every area of historic significance and,
again, it has worked for a century now. That goal has already been
achieved. The protection is already ensured. Extending the boundaries
and adding acreage to the heritage area will not enhance protection of
areas of historical significance, but instead, will limit the potential
of private landowners to steward and reap the rewards of their
privately held land passed down to them from their ancestors.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New Mexico is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I strongly oppose this amendment because it would negate the
withdrawal. It would prevent us from protecting Chaco Canyon. The
gentleman's amendment would allow for new drilling to occur on lands
within the withdrawal area, so long as certain standards are met.
Essentially, this amendment would protect the status quo, a status quo
opposed by the All Pueblo Council of Governors, the Navajo Nation, the
entire New Mexico delegation, the governor, and even the
administration.
When Secretary Bernhardt visited Chaco last spring, he agreed to a 1-
year moratorium because he knew that new drilling posed a threat to
these sacred resources. Now this amendment seeks to overturn those
temporary protections offered by the Trump administration and to
prevent permanent protections from being enacted. That cannot stand.
Furthermore, this amendment contains numerous drafting edits that
would make it impossible to enact. It names the park site incorrectly.
It refers to undefined terms. And its unclear wording would essentially
allow anyone to drill in the withdrawal area.
This is clearly not a good faith amendment, and it is clearly not an
amendment intended to improve this proposal. It is simply an attempt to
open these sacred lands with resources that extend beyond the park to
extraction, because some of our colleagues cannot be satisfied until
every acre of land in this country has an oil rig or an open pit mine.
Ninety percent of this region is already open to leasing. Oil and gas
are not under attack in New Mexico. This bill simply attempts to
protect an area important to the Tribal communities who have
connections to this land that go back thousands of years before this
country even existed.
We have to believe, as a House, that some places have value beyond
what can be drilled from a hole in the ground. And believe it or not,
some things in this world are more important than money. Is there
nothing that matters more than industry profits? These are sacred
lands, lands that connect us to the past and lands that native
communities are asking us to protect. The bones of my ancestors are
buried there in its hallowed ground.
We need to listen to the voices of the people whose land it belongs
to and who have had it since time immemorial. We need to lift up those
voices and we need to protect Chaco Canyon.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Private property rights are a cornerstone of our democracy and our
free society. That doesn't just extend to folks in Texas, New Mexico,
Oklahoma. It extends to all Americans and our Tribal brothers and
sisters. One of them who testified at one of the hearings, who is a
member of the Navajo Nation, said that this is a steadfast personal
property right that sustains our livelihoods and our way of life. This
is a much-needed source of income to feed, shelter, clothe, and protect
our families.
Mr. Chairman, this is unnecessary. This is one of those times where
Washington thinks it has the solution, where we sit in our ivory tower
and dictate the terms to folks living in rural communities in New
Mexico and throughout the country, folks that depend on these energy
jobs for their livelihoods, and I just trust that the local community
and the great State of New Mexico knows best how to manage their
resources.
This is not disturbing any sacred land or historic artifacts. That is
not what this is about. This is about a protectionist, activist view to
ban drilling, in my opinion. And the State of New

[[Page H8636]]

Mexico is incredibly dependent on the oil and gas revenues, Mr.
Chairman. A third of their budget, Mr. Chairman, is reliant on oil and
gas royalties.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I think it is
critical to make sure that our colleagues know that Washington doesn't
have the solutions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New Mexico (Mr. Lujan).
Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Chairman, I listened closely to the words of my
colleague on the other side of the aisle and, Mr. Chairman, he said
something that matters very much to me as well: That New Mexico knows
best. New Mexico knows best.
The governor of the State of New Mexico, the State land commissioner,
the entire delegation supports this legislation. So I am hoping we will
earn the vote of my colleague from the other side of the aisle on final
adoption, so he can join with the good people of New Mexico and support
the bill.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This legislation, H.R. 2181, is absolutely necessary to protect the
land of my ancestors and the land of New Mexico. We oppose this
amendment.
I encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Arrington).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will be postponed.

Announcement by the Chair

The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments printed in part E of House Report 116-264 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Arrington of Texas.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for any
electronic vote after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 233, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 593]

AYES--191

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McAdams
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOES--233

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
San Nicolas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stefanik
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--13

Beatty
Gabbard
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Hice (GA)
Hill (CA)
Hudson
Kelly (IL)
McEachin
Radewagen
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Thompson (CA)
Timmons

{time} 1639

Messrs. PAPPAS, CICILLINE, O'HALLERAN, GOLDEN, SWALWELL of
California, and PETERSON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. RICE of South Carolina, KELLER, ADERHOLT, and COOK changed
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gosar

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Kildee). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.

[[Page H8637]]

A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181,
noes 243, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 594]

AYES--181

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McAdams
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOES--243

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amash
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rooney (FL)
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
San Nicolas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stefanik
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--13

Beatty
Case
Gabbard
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Hice (GA)
Hill (CA)
Hudson
Lawrence
McEachin
Radewagen
Rose, John W.
Thompson (CA)
Timmons

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1645

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Arrington

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Arrington) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181,
noes 245, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 595]

AYES--181

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Turner
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOES--245

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva

[[Page H8638]]

Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norton
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Plaskett
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rooney (FL)
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sablan
San Nicolas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stefanik
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Tipton
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--11

Beatty
Gabbard
Gonzalez-Colon (PR)
Hice (GA)
Hill (CA)
Hudson
McEachin
Radewagen
Rose, John W.
Thompson (CA)
Timmons

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1651

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Beyer). There being no further amendments under
the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Kildee) having assumed the chair, Mr. Beyer, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2181) to
provide for the withdrawal and protection of certain Federal land in
the State of New Mexico, and, pursuant to House Resolution 656,
reported the bill, as amended by that resolution, back to the House
with a further amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. ARRINGTON. Yes, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Arrington moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2181 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
At the end of the bill, add the following:

SEC. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act shall not go into effect if the Secretary of the
Interior, in consultation with the Governor of New Mexico,
determines that the State of New Mexico will suffer a loss of
revenue, including revenues used to fund schools, roads, fire
and police protection and other public services, attributed
to the permanent withdrawal under section 4 of this Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, at the heart of America's economic
prosperity and unrivaled security is an abundant, affordable, and
reliable supply of domestic energy. American energy independence is,
undoubtedly, a matter of national security, but it is also a question
of life and death to many rural economies.
In west Texas, and for my neighbors in eastern New Mexico, energy
producers are as crucial to our communities as educators, healthcare
providers, and agricultural producers. Traditional sources of energy
make up 90 percent of our Nation's energy supply and support over 10
million jobs in this great country.
In New Mexico alone, Mr. Speaker, more than 100,000 jobs are oil and
gas related. A whopping one-third of the State's budget comes from oil
and gas revenues. That is over $2 billion, half of which supports
funding public education.
Thousands of Navajo landowners receive millions of dollars every year
from oil and gas royalties. Putting a permanent ban on any future
mineral development outside the National Park would be devastating for
local economies, the Navajo people, and the entire State of New Mexico.
Therefore, my motion to recommit will prevent this legislation from
taking effect until it is confirmed that New Mexico will not suffer
this severe economic harm resulting in a loss of revenue. That is
revenue used to fund schools, roads, hospitals, and other important
public services.
Mr. Speaker, while this bill claims not to infringe on the private
property rights of the Navajo people, the reality is that many of their
lands are surrounded by Federal lands, making it virtually impossible
to develop if this legislation were to pass.
H.R. 2181, let's be clear, would eliminate key revenue sources used
for public services. It would destroy jobs and economic activity there
in New Mexico and, ultimately, threaten the livelihood of the Navajo
people.
This, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, would be an absolute travesty for
the Navajo people because the poverty rate in the Navajo Nation is more
than three times the national average, about 38 percent. The
unemployment rate is more than five times the national average, 20-plus
percent. Almost half of all Navajo children live in poverty.
Oil- and gas-related employment is critical to jobs and income in
these isolated areas where the Navajo people live. It is
unconscionable, Mr. Speaker, that a handful of activists should be able
to deprive the Navajo Nation of opportunities to find work,
opportunities to lease their own mineral rights, and opportunities to
lift themselves up out of poverty by reaping the benefits of their own
land.
Mr. Speaker, there is an old Navajo saying: ``A rocky vineyard does
not need a prayer, but a pickax.''
The Navajo people don't need more protectionists' prayers from
Washington elite and environmental activists. They need the pickax of
prosperity and opportunity that comes from freedom, and the ability to
manage their own private property rights and their own private mineral
rights.
The Navajo people are a proud people, just like all Americans, and
they just want an opportunity for a better life for themselves and
their families.
Mr. Speaker, this is a classic case of a solution looking for a
problem. I ask my colleagues to support this motion to recommit and
vote ``no'' on H.R. 2181.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to this
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New Mexico is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. HAALAND. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is just another attempt to
distract from the importance of this proposal, which is listening to
Tribal voices by protecting the sacred sites of Chaco Canyon from oil
and gas extraction.
The bill would not impact New Mexico revenue streams in the
slightest. The State has already withdrawn State lands in Chaco and
opted to protect our indigenous lands, because they also recognize the
value of our outdoor economy which requires a clean environment.

[[Page H8639]]

The bill would not impact the New Mexico revenue streams in the
slightest. This country is the largest producer of oil and gas in the
world. We produce over 12 million barrels of crude oil a day, sending 3
million of those to other countries.
Lack of access to oil and gas is not an issue in New Mexico, and this
bill will in no way hinder the tremendous amount of energy extraction
in the State. Between 2010 and 2018, oil production in New Mexico
increased by nearly 400 percent, and the State is now the third largest
producer in the Nation after Texas and North Dakota.
In the San Juan Basin where Chaco Canyon is located, 90 percent of
public land is already open to development.
Must every inch of land be swallowed by oil and gas-sucking
machinery?
Thousands of sacred ancestral sites to the Pueblo people are sites
where Indians are under threat unless we act. Tribes across New Mexico
and this country have asked this body to protect Chaco Canyon. We
shouldn't put the sacred sites of Chaco Canyon and our environment at
risk on the impossible theory that we can become energy dominant or
that we need to open every single acre to oil and gas development
regardless of how special that land is.
If we really want to lead in energy, we should take a larger role in
renewable energy and low-carbon energy sources, and New Mexico can lead
the way with our 300 days of sun per year and our abundance of wind.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration prioritizes fossil fuels and
believes the future lies in coal, oil, and gas. But the President is
wrong, and Republicans are wrong. The world's power sources are
changing, and no one stands to benefit more from U.S. leadership during
this transition than American consumers.
The only question that remains is whether this body will help lead
our Nation in implementing a modern, clean energy agenda or whether we
will remain stuck in the past, holding on to the 1950s like there is no
future to believe in.
Now is not the time to open our protected public lands up to
unnecessary oil and gas extraction. Now is the time to protect these
important places and to lift up the voices of communities on the
ground.
Some things are more important than money, and my ancestral homeland
most definitely is.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to recommit and support
this bill that would protect the sacred lands in New Mexico and that is
Chaco Canyon.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199,
noes 222, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 596]

AYES--199

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brindisi
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Golden
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McAdams
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spanberger
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Torres Small (NM)
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOES--222

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amash
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--10

Beatty
Eshoo
Gabbard
Hice (GA)
Hill (CA)
Hudson
McEachin
Rose, John W.
Thompson (CA)
Timmons

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1710

Ms. STEFANIK changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page H8640]]

The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 245,
nays 174, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 597]

YEAS--245

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Fortenberry
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Hill (AR)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stefanik
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young

NAYS--174

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Byrne
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Higgins (LA)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Wright
Yoho
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--12

Beatty
Curtis
Gabbard
Hice (GA)
Hill (CA)
Hudson
McEachin
Palazzo
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Thompson (CA)
Timmons

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1717

Mr. WILLIAMS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. LEE of Nevada and Mr. REED changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________