[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.
____________________