[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

                                                    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: Western 
     Energy Alliance strongly opposes H.R. 2181, the Chaco 
     Cultural Heritage Area Protection Act. This bill permanently 
     bans new federal oil and natural gas leasing and development 
     on 316,000 acres in New Mexico while also terminating 
     existing leases.
       H.R. 2181 puts at risk the local economy and the 
     livelihoods of thousands of Indian allottees in the area by 
     making it very difficult if not impossible for them to 
     develop the energy resources they own. While the bill 
     purports to leave Indian allottees unaffected, the reality is 
     that the interlocking nature of the federal and allottee 
     estates means that companies will avoid developing in the 
     area. With today's horizontal drilling of two-mile laterals 
     it is not possible to avoid the federal mineral estate while 
     still producing on pockets of allottee minerals. If the bill 
     passes, companies will have no recourse but to avoid 
     developing Indian allottee energy resources.
       For this reason, Indian allottees oppose this bill. When 
     Indian allottee Delora Hesuse testified before the committee 
     in June, she attached to her testimony petitions with 
     signatures of other allottees who also oppose the threat to 
     their families' oil and natural gas income. As she testified, 
     the money she and 20,835 other Indian allottees earn from 
     their energy property is about $96 million annually. That 
     huge source of income in an area otherwise plagued by 
     unemployment and poverty is threatened by this bill.
       The area containing the highly productive Mancos Shale that 
     would be excluded from federal development has been proven to 
     hold large reserves of oil and natural gas. But the 
     exclusionary zone imposed by this bill is completely 
     unnecessary, as oil and natural 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 
     boundaries is to protect the culturally significant ruins and 
     great houses of the Chaco people.
       We urge the committee not to pass this bill. Thank you for 
     considering our input.
           Sincerely,
                                               Kathleen M. Sgamma,
                                                        President.

  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.

                          ____________________