[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 30, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H2704-H2711]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 615, PROTECTING ACCESS FOR HUNTERS 
  AND ANGLERS ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2925, 
 MINING REGULATORY CLARITY ACT OF 2024; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
  H.R. 3195, SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST RESTORATION ACT; PROVIDING FOR 
    CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 764, TRUST THE SCIENCE ACT; PROVIDING FOR 
  CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3397, WESTERN ECONOMIC SECURITY TODAY ACT OF 
   2023; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6285, ALASKA'S RIGHT TO 
  PRODUCE ACT OF 2023; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6090, 
                   ANTISEMITISM AWARENESS ACT OF 2023

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 1173 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1173

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House any bill specified in 
     section 2 of this resolution. All points of order against 
     consideration of each such bill are waived. The respective 
     amendments in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Natural Resources now printed in each such bill 
     shall be considered as adopted. Each such bill, as amended, 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in each such bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on each such 
     bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to 
     final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources 
     or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 2.  The bills referred to in the first section of this 
     resolution are as follows:
        (a) The bill (H.R. 615) to prohibit the Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from prohibiting 
     the use of lead ammunition or tackle on certain Federal land 
     or water under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other 
     purposes.
       (b) The bill (H.R. 2925) to amend the Omnibus Budget 
     Reconciliation Act of 1993 to provide for security of tenure 
     for use of mining claims for ancillary activities, and for 
     other purposes.
       (c) The bill (H.R. 3195) to rescind Public Land Order 7917, 
     to reinstate mineral leases and permits in the Superior 
     National Forest, to ensure timely review of Mine Plans of 
     Operations, and for other purposes.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 764) to require 
     the Secretary of the Interior to reissue regulations removing 
     the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened 
     wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The 
     bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Natural Resources or their respective designees; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
       Sec. 4.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3397) to 
     require the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to 
     withdraw a rule of the Bureau of Land Management relating to 
     conservation and landscape health. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 118-32 shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their 
     respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 5.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6285) to ratify 
     and approve all authorizations, permits, verifications, 
     extensions, biological opinions, incidental take statements, 
     and any other approvals or orders issued pursuant to Federal 
     law necessary for the establishment and administration of the 
     Coastal Plain oil and gas leasing program, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed 
     in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in part A of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources 
     or their respective designees; (2) the further amendment 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules, if 
     offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall 
     be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall 
     be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the 
     time specified in the report equally divided and controlled 
     by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to 
     a demand for a division of the question; and (3) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 6.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6090) to 
     provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism 
     set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance 
     for the enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws 
     concerning education programs or activities, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the

[[Page H2705]]

     Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Minnesota is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. 
Leger Fernandez), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, we are here to debate the rule 
providing for consideration of six bills to support our natural 
resources, public lands, and outdoor recreation.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the Committee on Natural Resources and provides each bill one motion to 
recommit.
  The rule further provides for consideration of the Antisemitism 
Awareness Act under a closed rule, with 1 hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the Committee on the Judiciary and one motion 
to recommit.

                              {time}  1015

  First and foremost, House Republicans stand with Israel and are 
horrified by the increase in harassment on college campuses toward 
Israel and its allies. For years, Jewish college students have faced 
increasing anti-Semitism, and since October 7 there has been an over 
300 percent increase in incidents on campuses.
  Students are supposed to be protected from harassment, but it has 
been made abundantly clear that the leaders of these institutions are 
not going to do anything to stop it. Instead, they are allowing large-
scale harassment to reign, forcing Jewish students to stay home.
  Since these institutions refuse to protect their students, it is time 
for Congress to take action. H.R. 6090 clearly defines anti-Semitism 
according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working 
definition. This will empower universities to take clear steps to keep 
Jewish students safe and respond to hostile, hateful speech not 
protected under the First Amendment.
  Additionally, the bills under this rule protect domestic energy 
production; reverse the Biden administration's stop to push mineral 
production in my home State of Minnesota; and, finally, delist the gray 
wolf from the endangered species list. I am proud to stand in support 
of these today.
  The gray wolf is an ESA success story. Its numbers in most of the 
country are thriving to the point where they have become a menace 
across much of northern Minnesota. The only reason it has not been 
delisted as yet is because there are a handful of activist groups and 
judges that would like to keep it listed forever. Rather than pushing 
for radical environmental activism, we should be celebrating the fact 
that the ESA achieved its goal and gratefully turn management and 
conservation efforts back to the States.
  Madam Speaker, America is home to a wealth of natural resources, but 
this administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
continue to wage war on domestic production. From energy in Alaska to 
minerals in Minnesota, the bills under this rule empower our domestic 
producers.
  H.R. 6285 reverses Biden's decision to ban oil and gas development in 
the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, supporting energy 
independence, good-paying jobs, lower fuel prices, and economic 
security that comes with it.
  H.R. 3397 will ensure rural economies across the West maintain access 
to public lands for grazing, energy and mineral development, 
recreation, and timber production.
  H.R. 615 upholds State wildlife management authority to protect 
against baseless claims that traditional lead fishing tackle and 
ammunition should be restricted.
  H.R. 2925 would ensure responsible mineral development can continue 
on Federal lands. It unlocks mining projects across Western States, 
returning to the past 100 years of precedence and removing uncertainty 
created by the Rosemont decision from the Ninth Circuit.
  H.R. 3195 helps the United States meet the rise in demand for 
critical minerals across the world by unlocking access to critical 
minerals in Minnesota. The Biden administration is leaving America at a 
disadvantage while adversaries, like China, work to expand their global 
influence. We cannot let this happen. We can be both good stewards of 
our public lands and take advantage of the many resources they provide.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  (Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota for the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  America was blessed by our creator with natural beauty and an 
abundance of natural resources--from grazing to farmlands, to minerals, 
fossil fuels, solar and wind--so we could feed our families and fuel 
our progress.
  We owe the American people, and most importantly, our children and 
grandchildren a duty to protect those resources so they are available 
for future generations and Americans are not left with public lands 
that have been degraded, mines that have been depleted, and profits 
shipped off to foreign corporations.
  We owe a duty to those who love the forests and rivers in Minnesota 
or the rangeland in the Southwest to protect it and allow its use for 
recreation, grazing, and extraction.
  The Natural Resources bills that Republicans have made in order with 
this rule fail to protect America's blessed creation for future 
generations. The bills would eliminate environmental protections and 
increase mining corporations' ability to take public lands from the 
American people for free.
  Let me repeat that because Americans may not know that right now 
mining corporations--those big, profitable mining corporations--do not 
pay a dime in royalties when they take Americans' gold, silver, copper, 
or other precious minerals.
  That takes me to H.R. 2925, the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act. The 
1872 mining law that we operate under now is old. It needs updating. It 
gives away our public resources for free. In the arid West, it allows 
mining companies to use as much precious water as they want and doesn't 
require those big corporations to fully clean up after themselves.
  Last week, I visited the Pecos Watershed, a vital resource for 
northern New Mexico communities and a river that flows to Texas. In 
that watershed, a foreign company had mined, polluted, and abandoned 
the people and the river that I visited.
  We need to protect this type of land with these kinds of water 
resources, but H.R. 2925 would actually make it harder to protect this 
and other watersheds. It favors the biggest mining corporations and, 
even worse, favors foreign corporations.
  We all know there is a long history of bad actors exploiting, 
misusing, and abusing their mining claims. H.R. 2925 would give away 
our Federal lands to these bad actors. Under the Republicans' proposal, 
corporations with the money could put four sticks in the ground, pay a 
fee, and then claim that land for mining without even proving the 
existence of minerals. The Republican proposal would also loosen 
restrictions so these corporations, even those based in countries like 
China or Russia, could more easily exploit American natural resources 
for free.

  Why would Republicans work on a bipartisan basis to ban China from 
mining American data with TikTok but then be okay with China mining 
American natural resources for free?
  In the Rules Committee, I introduced an amendment to prohibit our 
adversaries, like China, from taking our public lands and minerals. 
Sadly, every Republican on the Rules Committee voted against making in 
order these amendments to prevent foreign adversaries from accessing 
these valuable American resources.

[[Page H2706]]

  I also introduced an amendment that would require mining corporations 
to make sure our waterways are not contaminated. Republicans blocked 
that, too.
  Our current 150-year-old mining laws are not equipped for today's 
environmental challenges, but Republicans' response is to make it 
easier, not harder, for these greedy mining corporations to take what 
they want and leave their messes behind.
  As if that weren't enough, this rule also makes in order what we 
should call the no public use on public lands act. This bill would 
overturn a new Bureau of Land Management rule that finally recognizes 
conservation and public land management as a value on par with other 
uses.
  The BLM rule does not change their existing land management 
processes. BLM will continue to allow grazing, drilling, and other 
extraction on managed lands. What it does do is allow BLM to also 
include the important goal of conservation of the public lands as they 
consider new applications for Americans' public lands.
  I might remind my Republican colleagues that they are turning their 
back on a great legacy, a great Republican legacy, from the Clean Water 
Act, the EPA, and the words of that great Republican President, Teddy 
Roosevelt, who said: ``Conservation is a great moral issue, for it 
involves the patriotic duty of ensuring the safety and continuance of 
the Nation.''
  This patriotic goal of conservation and preservation is vital so our 
grandchildren can one day see the beauty that the West holds, and 
farmers and ranchers agree. They and other stewards of our land 
actively engaged with the Biden administration in the development of 
this rule. Congress should listen to the science and the stewards of 
this land on this issue instead of trying to dictate what is best for 
the West from D.C.
  We should also continue President Biden's policy of ensuring our 
energy independence and security, all while growing American industry. 
I must also point out that the Biden BLM rule explicitly prevents 
foreign entities from holding conservation or mitigation leases, 
something that I might remember and remind our Republicans they were 
unwilling to do with regards to mining.
  The rule also allows a bill that ignores science and would prevent 
regulation of lead-based tackle and ammunition. Didn't we learn our 
lesson with leaded gasoline and its harmful effects on people and the 
environment? Apparently not. Lead is poison.
  We all have heard of and sometimes seen the death of bald eagles and 
other magnificent birds who have consumed even the smallest amount of 
lead buckshot or fragmented lead ammo. Lead finds its way onto hunters' 
and anglers' tables, too. One study found that there were lead 
fragments in 34 percent of ground venison burgers. Do you want your 
children to consume lead?
  Every year, I make tamales for Christmas, and as my family has done 
for generations, we use wild game--deer, elk, and antelope--that has 
been hunted in New Mexico. We are grateful for lead-free ammunition 
because we don't want to poison ourselves or our environment.
  This rule also makes in order a bill to undo the Biden 
administration's work to protect one of the world's most fragile and 
significant ecosystems, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  In recent years we have seen record amounts of oil and gas production 
in the United States. We are the top producer of oil in the world right 
now. We can do that while also preserving the beautiful lands that make 
``America the Beautiful'' the right song to sing.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to address the issue of anti-Semitism 
not just on college campuses but also across the country since October 
7. Let me be clear: Anti-Semitism and hate in any form is simply 
unacceptable anywhere in our country. This rise in hatred across the 
United States should be a wake-up call for our democracy.
  However, last fall, House Republicans proposed a 25 percent budget 
cut to the office that is actively investigating incidents of anti-
Semitism on campuses. If you care about anti-Semitism, why do you take 
away the resources from the office that is prosecuting those kinds of 
claims?
  Well, yesterday we got an answer why. My Republican Rules Committee 
colleague, Representative Massie, was very honest describing what this 
bill really is about when he said: ``Everybody has introduced almost at 
this point a bill to deal with something along these lines since 
October 7. None of them actually get to anything real. I think it is a 
political ping-pong game, of course. We''--meaning Republicans--``get 
to serve every time, and a lot of these''--meaning resolutions like 
this--``are just political traps. I call them sticky traps designed to 
split the Democratic Party and get them stuck in the sticky trap.''
  I thank Mr. Massie for his refreshing honesty and candor, but if we 
wanted to actually do something real, we could. Rather than doing a 
sticky trap, we could take up my colleague Congresswoman Manning's 
bipartisan bill, H.R. 7921, the Countering Anti-Semitism Act, which 
would designate a senior official at the Department of Education to 
counter anti-Semitism on college campuses, among many other solutions 
that are also based on Biden's policy regarding attacking anti-
Semitism. If we want to deal with anti-Semitism on college campuses, I 
suggest a bill with real solutions is a good place to start.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1030

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Lawler).
  Mr. LAWLER. Madam Speaker, it is good to know that my Democratic 
colleague would rather children in Congo mine for cobalt than to create 
American jobs here and put in place environmental safeguards. I thank 
my colleague for putting that on the record.
  Madam Speaker, today, I rise in support of the rule to bring my 
Antisemitism Awareness Act to the floor. I thank Chairman Burgess, 
Chairman Jordan, Leader Scalise, and Speaker Johnson for their support 
for consideration of this bill and their leadership in combating anti-
Semitism on college campuses.
  What is happening on college campuses right now is horrifying. We 
have seen folks at these encampments telling Jews to go back to Poland, 
as if they weren't kicked out of their homes, murdered in cold blood, 
and sent to death camps less than a century ago. The leader of the 
protest at Columbia called for death to Zionists. There was a sign at 
George Washington calling for a final solution, which was the name of 
Hitler's plan to exterminate Jews. People are shouting that they are 
Hamas and calling for the burning of Tel Aviv to the ground. They chant 
for intifada and ``from the river to the sea.''
  These are not peaceful protesters expressing their constitutional 
right to free speech. These are illegal encampments where demonstrators 
engage in harassment and urge violence against Jewish students, Jewish 
Americans, the U.S. Government, the Israeli Government, and more.
  I unequivocally condemn the college administrators who haven't acted 
to quell these encampments and who have enabled their campuses to 
become unsafe environments for Jewish students.
  At the Federal level, we must give the Department of Education the 
tools to identify and prosecute any anti-Semitic hate crimes committed 
and hold college administrators accountable for refusing to address 
anti-Semitism on their campuses.
  This legislation defines anti-Semitism using the IHRA working 
definition and its contemporary examples so that there can be no 
confusion or interpretation when it comes to the heinous act of 
discrimination and violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act. It 
has broad bipartisan support in the House and Senate and 59 cosponsors 
in the House, including over a dozen Democrats.
  This is not about dividing Democrats. This has broad bipartisan 
support. If there are people in your Conference who embrace anti-
Semitism, that is not our fault. That is something you should be 
rooting out.
  When people engage in harassment or bullying of Jewish individuals, 
where they justify the killing of Jews or use blood libel or hold Jews 
collectively responsible for actions of the Israeli Government, that is 
anti-Semitic. There is no question about it.

[[Page H2707]]

  It is unfortunate that we need to clarify that these actions are 
anti-Semitic, but it makes this bill that much more necessary. What is 
happening at Columbia, Yale, UCLA, and so many other schools is 
reprehensible and alarming, but it cannot be discouraging.
  We must act so that the anti-Semitism on college campuses stops 
immediately. Our country's antidiscrimination laws must work for all of 
us, including Jewish students.
  My Democratic colleagues are tripping all over themselves because of 
electoral politics. They are worried about votes in Michigan and 
Minnesota and trying to placate a pro-Hamas element of their party, 
people who are parroting Hamas talking points.
  Literally, when I was at Columbia University last Wednesday with 
Speaker Johnson, Hamas endorsed the protesters on the campus grounds, 
saying that they are the future leaders of America. If those are the 
future leaders of America, God help us.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to 
the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. LAWLER. Madam Speaker, we should be very clear: Charlottesville 
was wrong. January 6 was wrong. Taking over a courthouse in Portland 
was wrong. Burning down a police station in Minneapolis was wrong. 
Breaking in and seizing control of the library at Columbia University 
is wrong.
  Let's call it all out and stop being a bunch of cowards. Anti-
Semitism needs to be rooted out, and any Member who votes against this 
bill should hang their head in shame.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, how dare the party of Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor 
Greene come down here and lecture Democrats about anti-Semitism. 
Remember, the leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, dines with 
Holocaust deniers and said there were ``fine people on both sides'' at 
a rally where white supremacists chanted: ``Jews will not replace us.'' 
Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared on stage at a white 
nationalist rally alongside a Holocaust denier. She tweeted anti-
Semitic videos and talks about Jewish space lasers.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an 
article from Politico titled: ``Donald Trump dined with white 
nationalist, Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.

                     [From POLITICO, Nov. 25, 2022]

   Donald Trump Dined With White Nationalist, Holocaust Denier Nick 
                                Fuentes

                          (By Meridith McGraw)

       Former President Donald Trump hosted white nationalist and 
     antisemite Nick Fuentes at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm 
     Beach on Tuesday night, according to multiple people familiar 
     with the event.
       Fuentes, who frequently posts racist content in addition to 
     Holocaust revisionism, was brought as a guest of rapper Kanye 
     West, who now goes by Ye.
       In a post to his social media site, Trump confirmed the 
     gathering.
       ``This past week, Kanye West called me to have dinner at 
     Mar-a-Lago,'' he wrote ``Shortly thereafter, he unexpectedly 
     showed up with three of his friends, whom I knew nothing 
     about. We had dinner on Tuesday evening with many members 
     present on the back patio. The dinner was quick and 
     uneventful. They then left for the airport.''
       However eventful, the dinner reflects a remarkable moment 
     in an extremely early 2024 campaign cycle: the frontrunner 
     for the Republican presidential nomination breaking bread 
     with a man who frequently posts racist content and Holocaust 
     revisionism, brought there by a rapper who is launching his 
     own presidential campaign under the shadow of his own 
     antisemitic remarks.
       ``If it was any other party, breaking bread with Nick 
     Fuentes would be instantly disqualifying for Trump,'' said 
     Democratic National Committee spokesperson Ammar Moussa. 
     ``The most extreme views have found a home in today's MAGA 
     Republican party.''
       In a statement, the White House said, ``Bigotry, hate, and 
     antisemitism have absolutely no place in America--including 
     at Mar-A-Lago. Holocaust denial is repugnant and dangerous, 
     and it must be forcefully condemned.''
       It underscores how few guardrails currently exist within 
     the former president's political operation, with few aides 
     there to screen guests or advise against and manage such 
     gatherings.
       Indeed, after POLITICO first reported the sighting of 
     Fuentes at Trump's club, people in Trump's orbit denied the 
     former president met with Fuentes at all. Only later was it 
     revealed that he not only met with Fuentes but dined with 
     him.
       Karen Giorno, a former Trump strategist who is also now 
     working for West's 2024 campaign, confirmed to POLITICO that 
     she was also at the dinner with Trump, West and Fuentes.
       Fuentes, who was present at the Charlottesville ``Unite the 
     Right'' rally in 2017, has made a series of offensive and 
     racist statements on his shows including that Trump was wrong 
     to disavow white supremacy. He has been removed from YouTube 
     and other social media sites. Trump's dinner with Fuentes 
     comes just one week after the former president announced he 
     is seeking reelection, and soon after West publicly made a 
     series of antisemitic comments that cost him millions in 
     endorsement deals.
       In a separate statement, Trump denied knowing who Fuentes 
     was, stating that the ``dinner meeting was intended to be 
     Kanye and me only, but he arrived with a guest whom I had 
     never met and knew nothing about.'' Both that statement and 
     the Truth Social post did not include a denunciation of 
     West's or Fuentes' recent comments.
       West discussed the dinner in a video titled ``Mar-a-lago 
     debrief,'' which he posted to Twitter. In it, he said that 
     Trump was ``impressed by Fuentes'' because ``unlike so many 
     of the lawyers and so many people that he was left with on 
     his 2020 campaign, he's actually a loyalist.''
       West went on to say he told Trump, ``Why when you had the 
     chance, did you not free the January sixers? And I came to 
     him as someone who loves Trump.
       And I said, `Go and get Corey [Lewandowski] back, go and 
     get these people that the media tried to cancel and told you 
     to step away from.' '' The video includes photos of former 
     advisers including Giorno and Roger Stone, and also 
     conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
       Descnbing the event to Milo Yiannopoulos, a far-right 
     provocateur who he hired to help with his campaign, West said 
     that he also asked Trump to be his running mate in 2024, and 
     said that Trump was ``screaming'' at him during the dinner, 
     and that the former president called his ex-wife profanities.
       ``When Trump started basically screaming at me at the 
     table, telling me I was going to lose. I mean, has that ever 
     worked for anyone in history? I'm like, whoa, whoa, hold on, 
     hold on Trump, you're talking to Ye,'' West said.

  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent to 
include in the Record an article from The Atlantic titled: ``Trump 
Defends White-Nationalist Protesters: `Some Very Fine People on Both 
Sides.' ''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.

                   [From the Atlantic, Aug. 15, 2017]

 Trump Defends White-Nationalist Protesters: `Some Very Fine People on 
                              Both Sides'

                            (By Rosie Gray)

       President Trump defended the white nationalists who 
     protested in Charlottesville on Tuesday, saying they included 
     ``some very fine people,'' while expressing sympathy for 
     their demonstration against the removal of a statue of 
     Confederate General Robert E. Lee. It was a strikingly 
     different message from the prepared statement he had 
     delivered on Monday, and a reversion to his initial response 
     over the weekend.
       Speaking in the lobby of Trump Tower at what had been 
     billed as a statement on infrastructure, a combative Trump 
     defended his slowness to condemn white nationalists and neo-
     Nazis after the melee in central Virginia, which ended in the 
     death of one woman and injuries to dozens of others, and 
     compared the tearing down of Confederate monuments to the 
     hypothetical removal of monuments to the Founding Fathers. He 
     also said that counterprotesters deserve an equal amount of 
     blame for the violence.
       ``What about the alt-left that came charging at, as you 
     say, at the alt-right?'' Trump said. ``Do they have any 
     semblance of guilt?''
       ``I've condemned neo-Nazis. I've condemned many different 
     groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe 
     me,'' he said.
       ``You had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis 
     and white nationalists,'' Trump said. ``The press has treated 
     them absolutely unfairly.''
       ``You also had some very fine people on both sides,'' he 
     said.
       The Unite the Right rally that sparked the violence in 
     Charlottesville featured several leading names in the white-
     nationalist alt-right movement, and also attracted people 
     displaying Nazi symbols. As they walked down the street, the 
     white-nationalist protesters chanted ``blood and soil,'' the 
     English translation of a Nazi slogan. One of the men seen 
     marching with the fascist group American Vanguard, James A. 
     Fields, is charged with deliberately ramming a car into a 
     crowd of counterprotesters, killing 32-year-old 
     counterprotester Heather Heyer.
       Trump on Tuesday made an explicit comparison between 
     Confederate generals and Founding Fathers such as George 
     Washington and Thomas Jefferson. ``Many of

[[Page H2708]]

     those people were there to protest the taking down of the 
     statue of Robert E. Lee,'' Trump said. ``This week, it is 
     Robert E. Lee. And I notice that Stonewall Jackson is coming 
     down. I wonder, is it George Washington next? And is it 
     Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you have to ask 
     yourself, where does it stop?''
       The substance of Trump's unscripted remarks hewed more 
     closely to his initial reaction to Charlottesville on 
     Saturday, when he blamed ``many sides'' for what happened. On 
     Monday, after two days of relentless criticism, Trump gave a 
     stronger statement, saying ``racism is evil'' and 
     specifically condemning white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, 
     and neo-Nazis. Speaking to reporters shortly afterward, white 
     nationalist Richard Spencer told reporters he didn't see 
     Trump's remarks as a condemnation of his movement.
       Tuesday's appearance made it even clearer that those words 
     had been forced on the president. Throughout his campaign, he 
     was reluctant to disavow the white nationalists who have 
     formed a vocal segment of his supporters. Asked if he had 
     spoken to Heyer's family in the days since her death, Trump 
     said ``we will be reaching out.''
       Trump also addressed swirling rumors about the status of 
     his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, who has come in for 
     another round of speculation this week that his job may be in 
     danger. Trump is reportedly angry about the recent book 
     Devil's Bargain, by the Bloomberg Businessweek writer Joshua 
     Green, which portrays Bannon as the key reason for Trump's 
     election victory.
       The president defended Bannon as having been unfairly 
     attacked as a racist in the press, but declined to say if he 
     still has confidence in him.
       ``I like Mr. Bannon, he is a friend of mine,'' Trump said. 
     ``But Mr. Bannon came on very late. You know that. I went 
     through 17 senators, governors, and I won all the primaries. 
     Mr. Bannon came on very much later than that. I like him. He 
     is a good man. He is not a racist, I can tell you that. He is 
     a good person. He actually gets very unfair press in that 
     regard. We'll see what happens with Mr. Bannon. But he is a 
     good person, and I think the press treats him, frankly, very 
     unfairly.''
       The remarks echo what Trump told the New York Post earlier 
     this year during a similar moment of uncertainty about 
     Bannon's position. ``I like Steve, but you have to remember 
     he was not involved in my campaign until very late,'' Trump 
     told the Post in April.

  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the 
record, actually, my objection to this absurd attack on Democrats for 
pointing out that this bill has in the title ``anti-Semitism,'' but 
there are problems with it.
  We need to address anti-Semitism and look at the root causes. 
Instead, what are we doing? We are debating codifying a definition that 
numerous Jewish organizations, including Jewish Action, the Jewish 
Council for Public Affairs, and the New Israel Fund, among others, 
oppose.
  The reason these organizations oppose it is because we cannot equate 
criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism. They are two very 
different things.
  We need to remember that we are constitutionally bound to protect 
free speech, even, and more importantly, when it is speech with which 
we do not agree.
  Yesterday, for example, in the Rules Committee hearing for this bill, 
Representative Fry called Prime Minister Netanyahu's work in Gaza 
remarkable. He praised it. I personally don't think it is remarkable 
that over 35,000 people, most of them children and women, are dead. I 
don't think it is remarkable that over 130 hostages are still not home.
  Netanyahu is being protested in his own country for these and many 
other things. I don't think it is remarkable that 27 kids have already 
died of malnutrition and that famine is imminent for 1.1 million 
Gazans.
  Saying none of this is anti-Semitic.
  I am Catholic with Sephardi heritage, and I think that my love that 
comes from the teaching and my spirituality calls upon me to talk about 
these things. That is not anti-Semitic.
  That is the worry that these Jewish organizations, ACLU, and others 
talk about today. If we really want to move forward on combating anti-
Semitism, let's fund the office that investigates and takes action 
against those colleges that fail to protect their students. Let's move 
forward with Congresswoman Manning's bipartisan bill, H.R. 7921, the 
Countering Antisemitism Act.
  We should investigate how these issues continue to seep into our 
schools and communities.
  We could do real work to address these root causes. Instead, we're 
debating a definition that numerous Jewish organizations, including 
Jewish Action, The Jewish Council for Public affairs, and the New 
Israel Fund, oppose.
  The reason these organizations oppose it is because we cannot equate 
criticism of Israeli policies with Antisemitism. That is free speech.
  Yesterday, in the Rules Committee Hearing for this very bill, 
Representative Fry called Prime Minister Netanyahu's work during this 
war ``remarkable.''
  I don't think it's remarkable that over 35,000 people are dead.
  I don't think it's remarkable that over 130 hostages are still not 
back home today.
  I don't think it's remarkable that 27 kids died of malnutrition or 
that Famine is imminent for 1.1 million Gazans
  Saying all of this could be construed as antisemitic if we adopt the 
definition we're debating today.
  That is not helping us move forward or address the scourge of 
antisemitism that's hurting our students and their families.
  To move us forward in the fight against antisemitism, we could 
consider Congresswoman Manning's bipartisan bill H.R. 7921, the 
Countering Antisemitism Act.
  This bill would designate a senior official at the Department of 
Education to counter antisemitism on college campuses, among other 
solutions.
  We could increase funding at the Office for Civil Rights so the 
office has the resources to actually investigate and address 
antisemitism on college campuses.
  If we want to deal with antisemitism on college campuses then I would 
suggest that these are good places to start.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 17, a bill to help with pay 
disparities for women in the workforce and strengthen our economy.
  Madam Speaker, rising costs are affecting American families and the 
American worker, but instead of helping families put more money in 
their pockets to save for retirement, to send their kids to college, or 
to simply put food on the table, House Republicans are focused on 
helping Big Oil and Big Mining corporations.
  My colleagues constantly talk about the economic hardship Americans 
face, but instead of bringing legislation to actually address that, 
nearly every bill in this rule would create a corporate giveaway at the 
expense of our public lands.
  We see where their real priorities are--with the biggest 
corporations, foreign corporations, even Chinese corporations--but 
House Democrats are focused on the American people.
  That is why we must bring up H.R. 17, the Paycheck Fairness Act, to 
address the wage gap for women of this country and make sure families 
aren't cheated out of dollars and paychecks that they deserve.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee, to discuss our proposal.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time.
  Madam Speaker, today, Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. They 
struggle with the high cost of living and wages that are not rising 
fast enough to keep up. Instead of addressing the real challenges that 
face American families, my Republican colleagues are wasting time with 
messaging bills.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman on the other side of the aisle may 
recall that for a recent continuing resolution, he voted against a 
billion dollars in aid to Israel. The gentleman from New York voted 
against a billion-dollar increase in aid to Israel.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will bring up H.R. 17, the 
Paycheck Fairness Act, to ensure women are paid fairly for their work.
  On average, a woman still earns only 84 cents for every dollar that a 
man makes, according to the American Association of University Women. 
The disparity is even worse for women of color.
  The pay gap exists in every State, regardless of geography, 
occupation, education, or work patterns.

[[Page H2709]]

  This is not just a problem for a few years out of a woman's career. 
It is a systemic disadvantage that compounds over a lifetime. This gap 
can put women hundreds of thousands of dollars behind in earnings over 
their careers and, in turn, severely reduce the amount they receive 
from Social Security, pensions, or investments after their working 
years are over. That puts more strain on working families and our 
safety net as a whole to support them in their older years.
  Unequal pay is not just an issue of fairness. It is a major economic 
burden on families across the country.
  America is in a cost-of-living crisis for many reasons. Families are 
living paycheck to paycheck. They can't pay their bills. They can't put 
food on the table. They can't get the healthcare they need for 
themselves and their families.
  This cost-of-living issue, if you continue to deal with unequal 
payment for women in our workforce, only adds to economic insecurity.
  The pay gap persists because of loopholes in the Equal Pay Act. The 
Paycheck Fairness Act fixes those loopholes by mandating better data 
collection, protecting employees against retaliation for discussing 
wages or salaries, and removing obstacles to lawsuits that challenge 
systemic discrimination. In short, it gives the Equal Pay Act the teeth 
that it needs to get the job done.
  At the end of the day, it is really this simple: Men and women in the 
same job deserve the same pay. It is true in the House of 
Representatives, but not true pretty much everywhere else in this 
country. If we truly believe that, we should act on it.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question 
and the rule.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I am disturbed by my colleagues who 
are shameless enough to argue in favor of anti-Semitism. It is not 
covered by the First Amendment. It is hateful.
  Universities have been rewarding bad behavior and punishing the ones 
being attacked, who now don't feel safe enough to go to class. This 
cannot be the norm.
  I am disappointed in the universities that are standing by and 
allowing this and equally disappointed in my colleagues who do not see 
it as a problem.
  Stopping anti-Semitism is not a messaging tactic like the other side 
implies. Stopping anti-Semitism is something we must do.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Madam Speaker, what is really sad for me is that, 
on both sides of the aisle, we have issues. I think some of my 
colleagues on my side of the aisle have Russian disinformation, and on 
the other side of the aisle, it seems that there is a lot of Hamas 
disinformation. I truly do not understand why it is so hard to just 
call it out. I digress.

                              {time}  1045

  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Antisemitism Awareness Act.
  Requiring the Department of Education to use the International 
Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of anti-Semitism when 
enforcing Federal anti-discrimination laws will help to protect Jewish 
students across the country from violence and hate as we see it 
exploding every single day within our country.
  Anti-Semitism has spread like wildfire on college campuses, and it is 
rearing its ugly head in the wake of Hamas' ruthless attack on Israel.
  College students celebrate terrorists who brutally murder innocent 
civilians as martyrs, and faculty members call Hamas' assault 
exhilarating.
  When I saw a sign at the Columbia protest--if you want to call it a 
protest--the sign said: ``Free Palestine,'' and right next to it, it 
said: final solution.
  What does the ``final solution'' mean, I ask my colleagues across the 
aisle? I understand it is rhetorical, but you all know what final 
solution means.
  Me being just one of two Jewish Republicans in the House and in the 
Senate, that means the end of Israel and the Jewish people. That is why 
that is in the definition of the IHRA, to be abundantly clear.
  The abhorrent behavior underscores the clear need for Federal policy 
to protect Jewish students on these unfriendly campuses.
  Usage of the IHRA definition in this context is a key step in calling 
out anti-Semitism where it is and ensuring anti-Semitic hate crimes on 
college campuses are properly investigated and prosecuted. College 
campuses should be safe havens for learning, not nests of hatred.
  I urge my colleagues to say enough is enough and to support the 
Antisemitism Awareness Act.
  I will ask my other colleagues on the other side of the aisle just 
one more time. When you see a sign--and you are Jewish in this 
country--on a college campus, and you say that being an anti-Zionist is 
not being an anti-Semite--which being an anti-Zionist is being an anti-
Semite, to be very clear--but when you see ``final solution,'' I think 
you have a hard time accepting, especially when my family, almost two-
thirds of them, were annihilated at Auschwitz.
  We came to this country, and now my daughter is going to grow up in 
this world and look at a sign that says, ``final solution?''
  I speak for myself. I speak for no one else. It is abhorrent, and you 
all need to condemn this type of behavior and rhetoric that has 
consumed our country.
  Enough is enough. Please. Just be a human and put your politics and 
political affiliation aside for a second.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members on both sides 
of the aisle to address their remarks to the Chair and not to each 
other in the second person.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I just want to make the record clear. Democrats and President Biden 
have repeatedly and constantly, and not just since October 7, condemned 
anti-Semitism and taken actual actions to actually address it, and that 
is the problem with what we are hearing.
  As their own Rules Committee member has said it, these are about 
sticky bills. They are not about getting solutions.
  We must remember that most of the bills in the rule today are 
actually talking about our natural resources and how Republicans want 
to turn the clock back on the progress that Americans have been 
demanding for decades to protect our natural beauty but also to protect 
our natural resources for Americans.
  I want to talk a little bit about mining reform, a 1872 mining law 
that says it all. That law is way too old and needs fixing. Well, how 
do we make sure we go about fixing it?
  The Republicans' proposal is to just give more of it away. It makes 
it easier for foreign corporations and for big, greedy corporations to 
take that land, to take those natural resources.
  What do Democrats propose? We propose responsible mining reform that 
allows for critical minerals to be extracted without destroying our 
environment.
  My good friend and ranking member, the former chair of the House 
Natural Resources Committee, introduced the Clean Energy Minerals 
Reform Act, of which I am a cosponsor.
  That kind of bill would require annual rental payments for claimed 
public lands, treating mine operators the same way we treat oil and gas 
or any other ones. Let's make them pay for our resources. They belong 
to us.
  Imagine if the $300 billion in profits that is going to those foreign 
corporations went to Americans instead.
  We would set a royalty rate of not less than 5 percent and not 
greater than 8 percent, based on gross income.
  We would make sure that there would be a reclamation fund, so when 
the mining companies go in there and make their mess that there would 
be a way for us to clean it up.
  I can tell you, New Mexico is littered. In Colorado, all the 
intermountain areas are left with these abandoned mines that leach acid 
into our rivers and streams and make it so that we cannot hike and camp 
on those lands.
  I have picked up those rocks that when they are exposed to air and 
water create sulfuric acid, and they leave piles of them.
  Those are the things that we must be doing. We must give the 
Secretary of the Interior the right to protect our public lands, to 
protect the waters of Minnesota, right, and to protect the waters of 
this great country.

[[Page H2710]]

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Kean), my colleague.
  Mr. KEAN of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I thank Mrs. Fischbach from 
the Rules Committee for yielding me time.

  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in support of 
H.R. 6090, the Antisemitism Awareness Act, introduced by Mr. Lawler 
from New York.
  On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a brutal surprise attack on the 
State of Israel in which 1,200 Israeli citizens lost their lives. This 
represented the most significant attack on Israel since the Yom Kippur 
War.
  After those attacks, there was a massive increase and an outpouring 
of hatred toward the State of Israel and an increase in anti-Semitism.
  Let's look at the facts. According to data from the Anti-Defamation 
League, from October 7, 2023, until the end of last year, there were 
more than 5,204 anti-Semitic incidents tracked by the ADL--more than 
the whole of 2022 in more than 2 months.
  Unfortunately, there has been no greater breeding ground for anti-
Semitism than on the campuses of our Nation's colleges and 
universities.
  Jewish parents across my district and across this country are 
concerned for their children away at college.
  Jewish students should feel safe on college campuses. The anti-
Semitic actions on college campuses across this country and a muted 
response from university administrators is absolutely unacceptable.
  While I respect the right to free speech as guaranteed by the First 
Amendment, the situation on campuses across the country has simply 
gotten out of control.
  Unfortunately, the Biden administration has not taken the steps 
needed to adequately protect Jewish students, and I am glad that we, as 
Congress, are taking this important step.
  If colleges and universities are not willing to take the steps 
necessary to combat anti-Semitism and to protect their own students, we 
must ensure that there are consequences.
  Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule and passage of this bill.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The natural resources bills that we are dealing with here today, as I 
pointed out, are a great gift to big mining corporations and overturn 
decades of work by local organizations and by the public in these areas 
who want to see their lands protected.
  What is interesting is Republicans are putting forward these bills, 
even though the American public and their own constituents are not 
interested in seeing what they are doing.
  While Republicans are helping out the big mining corporation fans, 
their constituents want the opposite.
  I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the article titled: 
``Analysis: Public Comments Overwhelmingly Support BLM Public Lands 
Rule.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.

 Analysis: Public Comments Overwhelmingly Support BLM Public Lands Rule

       Denver.--A new statistical analysis of more than 150,000 
     public comments finds nearly universal support for the Bureau 
     of Land Management's proposed Conservation and Landscape 
     Health Rule, colloquially known as the Public Lands Rule.
       The Center for Western Priorities performed a sentiment 
     analysis on a random sample of 10,000 public comments 
     submitted to regulations.gov as of the morning of July 5, 
     2023, in the closing hours of a 90-day public comment period.
       CWP's analysis found 92 percent of the comments encouraged 
     the Interior Department to adopt the Public Lands Rule as 
     written or strengthen its conservation measures. 4.5 percent 
     of comments encouraged the department to withdraw or 
     signifIcantly weaken the rule. Another 3.5 percent of 
     comments did not express a clear opinion in support or 
     opposition to the rule. The statistical analysis has a margin 
     of error of 0.5 percent.
       ``This analysis shows overwhelming--though not surprising--
     levels of support for the Biden administration's conservation 
     agenda,'' said Jennifer Rokala, executive director at the 
     Center for Western Priorities. ``Americans know that public 
     lands are central to the Western way of life, and that they 
     will play a pivotal role in the nation's response to the 
     climate crisis. The support expressed during the comment 
     period shows that the BLM is on the right track to restoring 
     balance across the West.''
       The analysis used a combination of automated and manual 
     classification of comments to categorize them as primarily 
     ``supportive,'' ``opposed,'' or ``neutral'' on the proposed 
     rule. The full set of analyzed comments and the toolchain 
     used for the sentiment analysis are available online.
       BLM's proposed Public Lands Rule would clarify how land 
     managers across the West implement the Federal Land Policy 
     and Management Act of 1976, known as FLPMA. The text of 
     FLPMA's ``multiple use'' mandate has always placed 
     conservation alongside other uses of public lands, including 
     mining, oil and gas drilling, and grazing. But BLM's 
     implementation of the law has never explicitly treated 
     conservation as one of those uses. The proposed rule would 
     bring BLM's implementation of the law in line with its text 
     and congressional intent by providing guidance on the use of 
     FLPMA's leasing authority to restore or conserve land to help 
     BLM reach its goals. The proposed rule also increases the use 
     of BLM's land health standards across all BLM lands, rather 
     than just rangelands, and clarifies procedures for the 
     identification and designation of Areas of Critical 
     Environmental Concern (ACECs), another pillar in the text of 
     FLPMA.
       Despite a coordinated industry effort to kill or weaken the 
     proposed rule, CWP's analysis found limited opposition in the 
     public comments, with an estimated 7,000 out of 152,000 
     comments encouraging BLM to withdraw or weaken the rule. By 
     contrast, an estimated 138,000 comments supported the rule 
     and its goals. The estimated 5,000 comments that were neutral 
     largely encouraged BLM to add specific language around 
     wilderness or wild horses and burros to the rule without 
     expressing clear support or opposition to the overall goals 
     of the rulemaking.
       The sheer number of comments submitted reflect the passion 
     Americans have for public lands. The comments CWP reviewed 
     included coordinated campaigns by conservation and business 
     groups, technical comments from governments and scientists, 
     and even handwritten, heartfelt letters from public lands 
     users.
       ``The public comments show that congressional attempts to 
     short-circuit this rule are misguided,'' Rokala added. ``The 
     American people aren't falling for the fear-mongering and 
     disinformation coming from the oil and gas industry, even if 
     some members of Congress are. Voters want the Biden 
     administration to restore degraded landscapes while also 
     making sure public lands play a central role in our renewable 
     energy future.''
       The Bureau of Land Management will review and use the 
     public comments during the next step of the rulemaking 
     process to revise, clarify, and improve the proposed rule. 
     The revised rule would then be reviewed by the White House 
     Office of Management and Budget before being finalized and 
     published in the Federal Register. The revision process could 
     take up to a year to complete.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, that analysis found that the 
Biden administration's Public Lands Rule received 92 percent of support 
in public comments.
  Madam Speaker, 92 percent of the 150,000 Americans who commented on 
this rule agreed that the BLM is moving in the right direction by 
protecting our public lands.
  Many of them were farmers, ranchers, and stewards of the land. In 
fact, one farmer said to me: I recognize how important it is to allow 
our land to recover so that we can use it in the future for grazing.
  I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the following 
article titled: ``The 2023 Conservation in the West Poll from Colorado 
College.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, the article can be found here: 
https://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/stateoftherockies/
conservationinthewest/2023.html
  This survey found that 82 percent of voters across 8 Western States 
support the conservation of our public lands and waters. Let's listen 
to the people on the ground.
  While Republicans want to mine the beautiful forests of Minnesota, 
constituents actually want to protect the area from sulfite or copper 
mining.
  I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the article titled: 
``The Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters 2022 Post-Election Poll.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, the article can be found here: 
Https://www.savetheboundary waters.org/sites/default/files/resource-
file/Campaign%20To%20 Save%20The%20Boundary%20

[[Page H2711]]

Waters%20__%202022%20Post-Election%20Poll%20Results.pdf
  Madam Speaker, the poll found over 70 percent of Minnesotans support 
proposed legislation to permanently protect the boundary waters from 
risks associated with sulfite or copper mining.
  The boundary waters are one of the most visited national recreational 
areas in the United States. I look forward to going and looking at 
those lakes and those rivers and those forests and how they are 
intertwined and how those canoes glide along their surfaces.
  Minnesotans know what that beauty looks like, and they want to make 
sure that the mining that is proposed by the Trump administration--and 
I might remind people that the Trump administration overturned actions 
by Obama, so they could give two leases to a Chilean billionaire--a 
Chilean billionaire, who it so happens, was a landlord of the 
President's daughter.
  These kinds of dealings with foreign corporations, we must say ``no'' 
to. Why would Minnesotans want to take their precious natural resources 
and have them leased so a Chilean billionaire can make even more money?
  We are urging our Republican colleagues to listen to their 
constituents, to listen to the people who are speaking on these issues, 
to vote against these rules, and to vote against these bills.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and 
I am prepared to close.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time to close.
  Madam Speaker, the bills my Republican colleagues have proposed today 
threaten to overturn regulations put in place to make sure that we are 
responsible in our use of natural resources.
  The Biden administration has worked to reverse many of the Trump-era 
policies that just help the rich get richer.
  For too long, what we have seen in America is the rich keep getting 
richer, and it appears that Republicans, certain Republicans, but most 
definitely former President Trump favored the richest corporations.
  In turn, I ask my colleagues to think about what our role is here in 
Congress. I remind my colleagues of these powerful words from the 
Conference of Bishops.
  ``We show our respect for the creator by our stewardship of creation. 
Care for the Earth is not just an Earth Day slogan, it is a requirement 
of our faith. We are called to protect people and the planet, living 
our faith in relationship with all of God's creation.''

                              {time}  1100

  It is possible to protect the planet and still be a leader in energy. 
In the last 3 years, the Biden administration has invested over $18 
billion toward Federal, State, local, and Tribal land conservation 
efforts in all 50 States. Contrary to what my colleagues claim, the 
U.S. has had record oil and gas production under the Biden 
administration. We produced an average of 12.9 million barrels of crude 
oil, millions more than are coming out of Russia and Saudi Arabia.
  Regulations are important. They prevent catastrophic environmental 
disasters, like the 137 oil spills that occurred during the second year 
of the Trump administration.
  Remember, there will be no more elk to hunt, no more breathtaking 
lakes reflecting the sunlight to hike to, and no more oil and minerals 
to drill for if we do not listen to the experts about protecting our 
lands and waters. Wildlife protections and mining regulations are in 
place to make sure future generations of Americans can enjoy the same 
beautiful landscapes and profit off of America's resources.
  Finally, I need to remind everybody, we all condemned October 7. We 
all have condemned Hamas. It is a terrorist organization. However, we 
have taken up these resolutions over and over again.
  Once again, our Republican colleague has spoken the truth when he has 
said that these are sticky resolutions simply intended to divide the 
Democrats. Let's not work on division. Let's come together in love and 
a belief in each of our individual strengths to push back against the 
hatred that we see and to do it in a manner that is not partisan, that 
uplifts our morality, that uplifts our empathy for all, and that 
addresses all the forms of hatred that we see.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  House Republicans trust the American people to be good stewards of 
the land. The amount of regulations in place under this administration 
is insulting, and it is economically unsound.
  While China and our adversaries are bolstering their capabilities, 
the Biden administration is tying our hands behind our backs. The bills 
counter Federal Government overreach, empower producers, and protect 
our lands. I am proud to stand in support of these bills today.
  The gray wolf should be taken off the endangered species list. The 
American people should be permitted to access the wealth of resources 
this land provides, and they should be trusted to manage their lands at 
the State level without the Federal Government breathing down their 
neck at every turn.
  Finally, universities are failing to keep their Jewish students safe, 
so Congress is taking action.
  Those in the Jewish community should know that House Republicans 
support them and condemn the failed actions of universities to 
intervene. I am hopeful that H.R. 6090 clarifies the definition of 
anti-Semitism so that these universities finally run out of excuses for 
their inaction. Stopping anti-Semitism is something we must do.
  Madam Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying legislation, and 
I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Leger Fernandez is as 
follows:

  An Amendment To H. Res. 1173 Offered by Ms. Leger Fernandez of New 
                                 Mexico

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 7. Immediatety upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 17) to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 
     to provide more effective remedies to victims of 
     discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce or their respective designees; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 17.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.

                          ____________________