[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 30, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H2740-H2750]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1530
              WESTERN ECONOMIC SECURITY TODAY ACT OF 2023

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call 
up 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, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1173, in lieu 
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Natural Resources, 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, and the bill, as amended, 
is considered read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 3397

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Western Economic Security 
     Today Act of 2024'' or the ``WEST Act of 2024''.

     SEC. 2. WITHDRAWAL OF BLM RULE.

       The final rule based on the proposed rule of the Bureau of 
     Land Management entitled ``Conservation and Landscape 
     Health'' (88 Fed. Reg. 19583 (April 3, 2023)) shall have no 
     force or effect.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their 
respective designees.
  The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Neguse) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).


                             General Leave

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and insert extraneous material on H.R. 3397.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arkansas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Representative Curtis' bill, 
H.R. 3397, the Western Economic Security Today Act, or WEST Act of 
2024.
  The WEST Act withdraws the flawed and illegal Conservation and 
Landscape Health Rule, which was finalized earlier this month by the 
Bureau of Land Management, or the BLM.
  You may be asking, why is a rule focused on conservation and 
landscape health so bad. Well, it wouldn't be bad if that was what it 
was really focused on, but the name is very misleading.
  This rule is a poorly concealed effort to lock up more lands to 
advance the Biden administration's radical 30x30 agenda. It has 
absolutely nothing to do with true conservation or improving the health 
of our landscapes.
  Responsible uses of BLM lands are central to the Western way of life. 
This rule would fundamentally upend more than 50 years of land 
management practices across the West that rural communities have relied 
on for their livelihoods.
  Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, the BLM 
is mandated to manage lands in accordance with multiple use and 
sustained yield. If responsible use and development of public lands are 
prohibited, family and small businesses, multigeneration ranches, local 
communities, and schools will suffer from a lack of economic 
development, access, and tax revenue.
  This is more than just a Western issue. If you ate a hamburger this 
week or filled your car with gas, this rule affects you. This rule will 
severely impact the lives and wallets of every single American. Haven't 
we had enough of that already? Haven't we had enough of inflation and 
rising prices?
  The finalized rule will broadly allow the BLM to lease lands under 
new and vaguely defined ``restoration and mitigation leases'' and 
change standards around land use decisions. The rule will elevate 
conservation as a use of our public lands. This is clearly 
contradictory with both the plain reading of FLPMA and Congress' 
intent.
  Congress very clearly defined the principal or major uses of BLM 
lands to ``include, and be limited to, domestic livestock grazing, fish 
and wildlife development and utilization, mineral exploration and 
production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and timber

[[Page H2741]]

production.'' Nowhere in the act do the words ``conservation,'' 
``restoration,'' or ``mitigation'' appear as a use.
  Conservation is not a use. It is a value and an outcome that can be 
generated by the uses that I just mentioned.
  If the administration determines that uses such as grazing, timber 
production, energy production, mining, or recreation are incompatible 
with the lease, they would not be allowed and could be prohibited 
indefinitely from those lands.
  At best, the rule is duplicative, unnecessary, and burdensome. 
Meaningful conservation work is already being done on the 245 million 
acres of BLM land with multiple stakeholders. Often uses overlap on BLM 
land and coexist with each other. Meaningful conservation occurs 
simultaneously with and often for the mutual benefit of other uses, 
like grazing and recreation.
  At worst, restoration and mitigation leases are a guise to restrict 
any meaningful activity on Federal land, including energy and mineral 
production, and timber management.
  The final rule allows the BLM to issue mitigation leases indefinitely 
and waives fees on restoration leases. That would take land that could 
otherwise be creating a return for the American taxpayer and give it 
away for free to environmental extremists.
  What will this rule look like on the ground and mean for Westerners? 
Specifically, the Biden administration can kick off the 
multigenerational rancher who has been grazing on the land since before 
the Bureau of Land Management existed. They can restrict the mining of 
the minerals we need for phones, computers, cars, and batteries to 
sustain life. They can limit oil and gas development, creating 
dependence on hostile foreign nations and threatening our economic 
prosperity.
  In addition to this new convoluted leasing system, the rule would 
also expedite the designation of Areas of Critical Environmental 
Concern by removing public comment periods and allowing the BLM to 
``temporarily'' restrict land use without public input. This provides 
the BLM with virtually unlimited authority to lock up millions of acres 
without any input from the public or support.
  The rule sorely favors types of energy development the administration 
likes and hurts other responsible energy development they have deemed 
unworthy.
  The rule chooses winners and losers. Wealthy elites who want to 
protect views from their mansions or extreme environmental groups who 
want to kick locals off of public lands are the winners.
  Guides and outfitters who bring young and old alike to our public 
lands or the ranching family who works every day to put food on 
millions of American tables are the losers.
  In finalizing this rule, the Biden administration has jeopardized the 
activities and land used to feed and fuel our country. Make no mistake: 
This affects every American. This impacts every acre, every user, every 
lease, and every American.

  The finalized rule comes after a year-long effort by Western 
Governors, communities, stakeholders, and Members of Congress calling 
for the abandonment of this flawed rule. The concerns fell on deaf ears 
within the Biden administration. This prompted us to bring this bill to 
the floor this week, forcing the withdrawal of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I again thank Representative Curtis for his work on the 
bill, and I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 3397, the WEST Act 
of 2024. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, the so-called WEST 
Act.
  I have great respect for the chairman and the Member who has authored 
this particular piece of legislation, but we strongly disagree about 
this particular bill, and I want to tell you why.
  First and foremost, just by way of context, we have been on the House 
floor all day today, the better part of a few hours, debating proposals 
that the majority has submitted that would roll back environmental 
protections.
  House Republicans want to remove protections for pristine Boundary 
Waters watershed in Minnesota. They want to eliminate protections for 
endangered species. As we heard during the last debate, apparently now 
they want to increase the use of poisonous lead ammunition. This is not 
what this august body should be spending its time focused on.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 3397 is just more of the same. Now, I heard 
during the presentation by my distinguished colleague on the other side 
of the aisle reference to hamburgers, the cost of gasoline, and 
mansions, I believe, none of which have anything to do with this 
particular bill, Mr. Speaker.
  I want to try to explain to the American people what this bill is all 
about. The Biden administration, in short, has taken steps to enhance 
public land stewardship. House Republicans are standing in the way.
  What do I mean by that? Two weeks ago, on April 18, the Biden 
administration released the Bureau of Land Management's Conservation 
and Landscape Health Final Rule, or what has been referred to as the 
public lands rule.
  The rule is a necessary and long overdue update to the agency's 
framework for public lands management. In particular, the rule will 
protect clean water, clean air, and wildlife habitat. It will promote 
the restoration of degraded landscapes. It will ensure that decisions 
are based on the best available science in collaboration with Tribal, 
local, and rural communities. That, Mr. Speaker, is progress.
  Here is what the bill does not do: It does not disallow or preclude 
any one of the multiple uses that the chairman referenced during the 
opening of this particular debate. As my colleagues on the other side 
have described the rule, I think I heard the word duplicative. The rule 
is either duplicative or, in the view of the majority, as they have 
said, it ends all uses of all land in all of the country. It can't be 
both.
  Clearly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle take issue with 
this particular rule and its protection of wildlife and its inclusion 
of conservation. I understand that disagreement, but the American 
people do not agree with that position.
  The Bureau of Land Management, or BLM, just by way of background, 
manages more than 245 million acres of Federal public land, which is 
roughly one-tenth of America's land base. In my home State of Colorado, 
the BLM manages more than 8.3 million acres of land.
  Many of those acres are near my district; just by way of example, the 
Yampa Valley Trail in Moffat County.
  This includes, by the way, national conservation lands, a collection 
of revered, treasured landscapes, recreation destinations, other 
special places that are managed to protect resources to us as 
Americans. These lands stretch across the Rocky Mountain West. Our 
citizens, our constituents, rely on these lands, and that is why this 
rule is such a critical development.
  It is also why this rule is so popular. Mr. Speaker, over 90 percent 
of the comments received during the extensive public comment period 
were positive. Those comments came from local community leaders, 
outdoor recreation industry, scientists, small businesses, Tribal 
communities, many others, citizens in my State and States across the 
West. They want to see our public lands managed in a balanced and 
sustainable manner that will promote access and resilience, and that is 
exactly what the Biden administration has achieved with this new rule 
and why I am proud to support it.
  Now, again, I don't want to belabor this point, but it bears 
repeating. Despite the claims from my Republican colleagues, the plain 
language of this rule does not prioritize one use over another. It does 
not do that. I encourage any American who wishes to learn more to look 
at the plain language of the rule. It simply puts conservation on equal 
footing with livestock grazing, mining, and oil and gas development. It 
doesn't block or stifle development. It achieves a critical balance, 
and that balance is important; a reasonable balance, a prudent balance.
  I support this rule because it will enable us to make science-based 
and informed decisions about the management of our Nation's public 
lands. I would encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule for 
the same reason. If they do, I would encourage my colleagues to oppose 
this bill, which seeks to undermine those efforts, and to oppose the 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2742]]

  

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As I was listening to my friend from Colorado's comments, I was 
reminded of a saying that a graduate school professor who taught 
statistics used to say: Numbers and people are a lot alike. If you 
torture them long enough, they will tell you anything you want to know.

  This study that my colleagues talk about references a cherry-picked 
10,000 comments that were analyzed, and according to the BLM just over 
8,000 were actually unique comments. That means that 2,000 of the 
comments were identical comments. These are comments that get submitted 
when you put clickbait out there and say, ``Send this comment in,'' and 
you just hit the button from your favorite radical environmental group, 
and it goes into the BLM or to the other Federal agency.
  Also, you know, I would expect the results to actually be even higher 
because it is kind of like asking: ``Do you like ice cream?'' or ``Do 
you like chocolate?'' or ``Do you like candy?'' When you say, are you 
for conservation and protecting the land, yeah, most people I think are 
for that. However, when you look at what this rule does, it is anything 
but that. It locks up land and takes it away from the multiple uses 
that Congress has designated that this BLM land is for.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Curtis), the sponsor of the legislation.
  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of my bill, the 
Western Economic Security Today Act of 2023, or the WEST Act.
  My bill, as has been discussed, would require the Bureau of Land 
Management to withdraw their proposal regulating conservation of 
landscape health.
  Utah's farmers and ranchers for generations have worked on this land, 
leaving it better than they found it. They understand how to live in a 
way that strengthens the landscape but allows for them to provide for 
their family and their community. I like to tease them that they are 
the original environmentalists. They don't always like that term.
  Ironically, this rule also undermines the work of these individuals 
who keep the land in good health and help prevent the risk of wildfires 
to instead lock the public out of Utah's lands.
  Let me be clear: I have immense respect for Utah's local land 
managers who do their best with the resources they have. I appreciate 
their commitment to integrating into each unique community and working 
hard to find consensus. They are not the problem. The problem is 
Washington politicians who think they know better than the generations 
of families who actually live in Utah.
  The question isn't whether or not we want to protect these lands but 
who gets to make the decisions.
  Since coming to Congress, one of my favorite experiences has been 
connecting with Utah's rural communities. They give so much and ask for 
so little. They work hard to feed our families, protect American 
energy, and lead in manufacturing. We should be making it easier for 
them.
  Instead, the Biden administration is pushing this rule to allow 
environmental groups funded by Swiss billionaires who pretend to be 
representing Utahns to lock up public lands. This is completely 
backward.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two stories about how this 
foreign dark money is funding environmental groups in Utah.

                   ADVENTURE . . . What's in a Name?

       Recently I Googled ``Moab'' and ``adventure'' on my 
     computer and came up with 480,000 hits. Apparently there are 
     adventures enough to be found in Moab to keep tourists 
     entertained and spending their money until the next 
     Millennium. Just to mention a handful, I found the Moab 
     Adventure Center, Moab Adventure Xstream, Moab Adventure 
     Headquarters, Moab Adventure Inn, Moab Adventure Package, 
     Moab Adventure Guide, Moab Desert Adventures, Adventure 
     Xscapes, Adventure Racing Retreats, Moab Resort Adventure 
     Package and a link to the Moab Adventure Park, from WWTI 
     Newswatch50 in, of all places. Watertown, New York. They 
     reported the following:
       MOAB, Utah--Riding down the ski lift from the highest point 
     on the red-rock rim overlooking the Moab Valley in Utah, our 
     feet dangled some 800 feet in the air as Scott McFarland 
     talked about the latest project for his Moab Adventure Park. 
     ``We're applying for permits for a zip-line, a 2,500-foot-
     long cable that goes from the top of the hill to the 
     bottom.'' McFarland said. ``You get into a harness on the top 
     and cruise to the bottom, kind of like you're flying.
       ``Without a braking system, you'd hit about 145 miles per 
     hour. With the system, you'll go 50 or 60. That's on the 
     computer, anyway. We'll see.'' One of the city's concerns in 
     considering the permits is its noise ordinance. Nearby 
     residents are worried about screams coming from riders 
     zipping down the cliff.''
       Sad to say that's one adventure we'll never have to 
     embrace, thanks to one of my favorite environmental groups, 
     The Nature Conservancy, who bought the tram and removed it 
     from the face of the earth.
       By comparison, if you travel just 55 miles south to the 
     sleepy Mormon/cowboy hamlet of Monticello, the ``adventure'' 
     falls off dramatically, to just 759. What do you expect nom a 
     town without a brew pub? I kept searching for an adventure-
     free town and the best I could hope for was Benkelman, 
     Nebraska that could only muster 154 hits and Gnaw Bone, 
     Indiana with a paltry 64.
       At the other end of the adventure scale, nearby Aspen, 
     Colorado kicks Moab's relatively passive as with 1,890,000 
     adventure hits and New York City, the Gotham of all Thrills, 
     generates an incredible 8,370,000 hits. But if you can 
     believe this, according to Google, you can find four times as 
     many adventures in New York as You can in Baghdad, which 
     produced less than 2 million hits. That is a telling piece of 
     information. Just what kinds of adventures are we talking 
     about?
       And what exactly is an ``adventure?'' According to one 
     internet dictionary, an adventure is ``an undertaking or 
     enterprise of a hazardous nature,'' or ``an undertaking of a 
     questionable nature (both sound like Baghdad to me as well as 
     certain areas of the Big Apple).''
       Or . . . ``an unusual or exciting experience.''
       This is the definition I was looking for. This is the kind 
     of adventure that tourists are in search of when they come to 
     places like Moab. Most if not all of the ``Moab Adventure'' 
     Google hits are commercial enterprises, anxious and eager to 
     provide an ``exciting and unusual experience'' for the paying 
     public. Their businesses certainly CANNOT be, to even a 
     modest degree, ``hazardous in nature.'' I doubt if any 
     adventure tour company could survive if its owners faced 
     their first customers of the day and announced, ``Listen up 
     people . . . we want all of you to understand that there's a 
     real good chance only half of you will survive this hike to 
     the Fiery Furnace . . . the rest of you will probably die in 
     free falls or rock collapses. So call your friends and family 
     now and tell them how much you love `em.''
       And forget about experiences of a ``questionable nature.'' 
     Add to the previous warning this addendum: ``And don't forget 
     our climbing equipment is as old as my granny and she passed 
     on in 1965, so don't be surprised if that ol' rotten frayed 
     rope we use snaps like a dry twig.''
       No . . . none of this would pass muster. Instead, the 
     adventure tour companies must endure all kinds of 
     inspections, meet various federal standards, and pay 
     substantial insurance premiums, to insure that the 
     ``adventure'' is as free of hazards as humanly possible. It's 
     okay for the customer to get excited, and compared to the 
     workaday/cubicle life he or she leaves behind to come on this 
     adventure vacation, how could it be anything but? But is it 
     really an adventure?
       I have my own adventure definition--I would call it a 
     ``spontaneously sought, poorly planned, even stupidly 
     conceived exploration of a mystery.'' Spontaneity is critical 
     to an adventure. How can an adventure be planned and 
     scheduled? And a real adventure should have an unknown 
     component to it . . . maybe there will be hazards ahead . . . 
     maybe not. Who knows? It's a Mystery!!
       But this is what it's become:
       ``Now let's see Kimberly . . . I'm thinking . . . an 
     adventure that starts around 10am would be perfect because I 
     want to have a leisurely breakfast at the Jailhouse Cafe. 
     Love the eggs benedict! Then maybe a rappel somewhere? Or 
     would you rather do a boat thing? No more than $100 . . . 
     $150 tops. And back here by four for drinks at McStiff's . . 
     . does that sound perfect or what?''
       I know . . . I know! Once again, I'm out of touch with 
     Mainstream Adventure America and how can I argue with 480,000 
     Google hits and a booming adventure economy? (I think even a 
     couple of my advertisers have ``adventure'' in there 
     somewhere). But like so many other words--wilderness--for 
     instance, an adventure just isn't what it used to be, or even 
     mean, I'll take my adventures as they come, unplanned, 
     unscheduled, free, and if it kills me, I just hope I don't 
     die with a cell phone clutched in my hand, frantically 
     punching 911 as I hurtle toward the greatest adventure of 
     them all.


                           DYNAMO JIM STILES

       If this doesn't give me some credence as an adventurous 
     type, I don't know what will. Someone told me that the first 
     issue of The Zephyr was being auctioned on eBay and while 
     searching for it. I discovered this out-of-print book. 
     This is from the book description:
       ``James Stiles was a banker and educator. Most notably, he 
     was the publisher of the Nassau (County, NY) Post, Daily 
     Review and Review-Star. His newspapers, and other local work 
     like his stints as director of Roosevelt Raceway and trustee 
     and chairman of

[[Page H2743]]

     Adelphi College, were key in the growth of this New York City 
     bedroom community.
       Strange. Here's the cover.


                      SUWA, can you spare a dime?

       When I made southeast Utah my home, almost 30 years ago, I 
     came for one reason--I came for the rocks--for the most 
     stunning display of intricately carved, brilliantly hued red 
     rocks imaginable. It's the kind of place one can believe only 
     exists in Dreams. I've lived here ever since.
       I was very young when I arrived in Moab and like so many 
     other wide-eyed idealists of the time, viewed the battle to 
     save the canyon country's dwindling wilderness lands in very 
     black and white terms. And with good reason. Then, southeast 
     Utah was still a vast, mostly unpopulated expanse of deserts 
     and mountains, dotted with tiny communities that had changed 
     little in a century, which depended mostly on the extractive 
     industries for survival and which might, at best, get a small 
     boost from tourism during the summer. And so 
     environmentalists devoted their time and energy and resources 
     to fight the threats to wildlands they thought were most 
     persistent and enduring--mining, timber, and cattle
       Naturally I went searching for kindred spirits, those 
     individuals and groups that shared my love for the red rocks, 
     hoping together we could save some of it. Among those 
     Quixotic spirits was the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. 
     When SUWA was created, in the early 1980s, it was a small 
     grass roots organization dedicated to preserving wilderness, 
     with its headquarters in ``the heart of the storm,'' Boulder, 
     Utah. SUWA's founders were burned in effigy in nearby 
     Escalante, and the group gained a reputation early-on for 
     being the little guys who weren't afraid of a flight.
       In the late-80s, under the leadership of Brant Calkin, SUWA 
     expanded its membership base dramatically, made Utah 
     wilderness a national issue and pushed forward with a 5.7 
     million acres wilderness bill. Brant is almost regarded as a 
     patron saint among environmentalists. A few years ago, Scott 
     Groene, SUWA's current Executive Director wrote, ``Brant 
     Calkin is the best damn environmentalist that ever worked on 
     the Colorado Plateau, and he's done more to protect southern 
     Utah wilderness than anyone alive or dead.'' Groene noted 
     Calkin's ascetic approach to environmentalism. ``Brant 
     offered his staff low pay but lots of autonomy to `do good 
     and fight evil.'. . . He offered as rationale both that 
     environmentalists have an obligation to spend their members' 
     money wisely . . .'' Through it all, Brant did his job, 
     ``with a quiet humility, integrity, and basic decency towards 
     both his opponents and friends.''
       And he shared the Executive Director's 20,000 a year with 
     the Associate Director until his retirement in 1993.
       ``Brant never stopped working,'' Groene noted, ``whether it 
     was leading the Utah Wilderness Coalition out of shaky 
     consensus efforts, hustling money, or fixing a fleet a beater 
     SUWA cars (he was renown for resurrecting aging office 
     equipment and trucks). And when it seemed everything was 
     done, he'd start cleaning the office.''
       Brant also believed the key to success was to ``build the 
     membership,'' and by the mid-90s SUWA was financially secure 
     and its membership had grown nationwide to more than 20,000.
       But if it's true that most good deeds go unrewarded, SUWA 
     is a notable exception. In the late-90s SUWA suddenly found 
     itself flush with money. A million dollar grant from the Pew 
     Charitable Trusts and a $524,000 contribution from the Wyss 
     Foundation put the once struggling Utah wilderness group into 
     a different financial realm. The Wyss donation was 
     particularly fortuitous. Its founder, Swiss-born Hansjorg 
     Wyss, became a member of SUWA's Board of Directors in 1996 
     and is its current chairman. Wyss is a multi-billionaire who 
     is the president of Synthes, an international company that 
     manufactures biotech and surgical implants. In 2004, Forbes 
     Global called Wyss the 26th wealthiest person in Europe with 
     almost $6 billion; by 2005 he rose to 18th place with an 
     accumulated wealth of almost $8 billion. That's right . . . 
     billion.
       Hansjorg Wyss's contributions to SUWA include a $900,000 
     building in downtown Salt Lake City and another $500,000 in 
     renovations. The old three-story home is now SUWA's very 
     comfortably appointed headquarters (memories of Brant fixing 
     aging office equipment almost seem quaint) and contributions 
     from Wyss and others have swelled SUWA's financials. 
     According to its 2004 tax return, SUWA has almost $5 million 
     in ``net assets and fund balances,'' including $2.5 million 
     in ``savings and temporary cash investments'' and nearly 
     $300,000 in ``non-interest bearing cash (imagine keeping that 
     kind of cash reserve in an account that draws zero 
     interest).'' It has mutual funds and stock investments and a 
     Charles Schwaab account worth almost $1 million and another 
     $1 million in land, buildings and equipment.
       With all those assets, plans are now being finalized to 
     hold a gala party in late May as a tribute to Hansjorg Wyss. 
     The event, to be held at a posh hotel in New York City, will 
     cost about $100,000. But according to SUWA, ``it's a fund 
     raising event . . . (it) will raise us money.''
       I have to ask How much more money does SUWA need?
       No one can fault SUWA for its good fortune but Utah's most 
     prominent environmental organization is starting to look more 
     like a bank. And while its coffers have grown, its 
     membership, according to a SUWA source, has fallen by almost 
     30 percent to less than 14,000.
       Meanwhile, threats to Utah's wildlands are becoming more 
     complicated and more diverse. The explosion of growth in 
     ``New West'' towns like Moab and St. George, to name just a 
     couple, are creating environmental impacts unheard of 20 
     years ago. Urban sprawl isn't confined to Salt Lake City 
     anymore. Wildlife habitat in rural parts of Utah is being 
     threatened by residential and commercial development. 
     Nonmotorized recreation and the commercial exploitation of 
     national parks and proposed wilderness areas are affecting a 
     key component of wilderness--solitude. And a proposed dam on 
     the Bear River and a pipeline from Lake Powell to St. George 
     will surely create another thorny bundle of environmental 
     nightmares.
       And yet, while SUWA remains Utah's most vigilant watchdog 
     in areas of ORV abuse, oil and gas exploration and public 
     lands grazing, it steadfastly refuses to involve itself in 
     any of these ``New West'' issues. SUWA insists it is a 
     wilderness organization, with the very specific goal of 
     establishing a 9.3 million acre BLM wilderness bill. It is 
     reluctant to spend a penny on worthy causes that fall outside 
     that self-imposed restriction. ``Our top priority,'' says 
     Executive Director Groene, ``is protecting our wilderness 
     proposal. Until we have protected the lands that qualify as 
     wilderness, the issues outside our boundaries will be lower 
     priorities.'' He calls the SUWA surplus its ``war chest, for 
     use in emergencies or when extraordinary opportunities arise, 
     and with board approval.'' SUWA's rainy day fund.
       In case they haven't noticed . . . it's raining buckets.
       So, if SUWA isn't willing to become involved in some of 
     these other pressing issues that fall outside the realm of 
     BLM wilderness, perhaps SUWA can part with some of its 
     surplus and give it to organizations that will. Just off the 
     top of my head and without asking any of them if they need 
     extra funding, I can think of several worthy Utah 
     environmental groups: The High Uintahs Preservation Council, 
     the Utah Rivers Council, the Nine Mile Coalition, the Utah 
     Environmental Congress, Save Our Canyons, Friends of the 
     Great Salt Lake and my sentimental favorite, the Glen Canyon 
     Institute. I'm sure this barely scratches the surface of 
     worthy would-be recipients. But all of these organizations 
     are doing good and noble work and when someone with SUWA's 
     assets can lend a hand, why not?
       Ultimately aren't we all on the same side? Don't all these 
     groups share a common goal--to improve the quality of Utah's 
     natural resources and to preserve and protect the beauty of a 
     landscape that is dear to us all? Brant Calkin urged SUWA to 
     ``spend its money wisely.'' What could be wiser and 
     ultimately more satisfying than sharing its largesse where it 
     can accomplish the most?


        MOAB CITY COPS . . . LEAVE THE ZEPHYR WEBMASTER ALONE!!!

       For the last couple of years, the Zephyr web site has been 
     managed and maintained with skill and reliability by Moabite 
     Gary Henderson. He's also a baker at Red Rock Bakery (and a 
     longtime advertiser) on Main Street.
       Three times now in the last couple of months, Gary has been 
     ``pulled over'' by Moab's finest while riding his BICYCLE to 
     work in the early morning hours.
       He was forced to provide ID, though clearly he had done 
     nothing wrong and was even required to explain a ``lump in 
     his pocket'' that the police thought looked suspicious.
       This is nothing new for the Moab Police Department; I 
     personally experienced this kind of harassment (though not 
     quite so direct) a little more than a year ago. And many 
     Moabites have their own stories to tell.
       I hope that Chief Navarre and Mayor Dave Sakrison and the 
     City Council will pay a bit more attention to these kinds of 
     incidents. Maybe you guys could table a few subdivision 
     proposals for a while and devote some time to the well being 
     of your constituents . . . it seems to me that's about all 
     the city and county governments ever deal with nowadays.
       And leave Gary alone!

  Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, the link to the second story can be found 
here: https://www.eenews.net/articles/quietly-philanthropic-tycoon-
makes-his-mark-in-the-west/.
  Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration didn't even pretend to care 
what rural Utahns thought about this rule. I sent a letter nearly a 
year ago with my Natural Resources Committee colleagues, asking the 
agency to hold more public listening sessions on this rule, including a 
session in Utah. Instead, the agency ignored this request and finalized 
the rule.
  Over 60 percent of Utah's land is federally managed. I have counties 
with 90 percent, yet no public listening session was held in Utah.
  This rule has an oversized impact on our State. That is why the WEST 
Act must pass today.
  We must fight to stop this rule and then immediately repeal it under 
the

[[Page H2744]]

next administration. It is critical that Utah's lands remain under the 
stewardship of those who have tended it for generations.
  There is a lot of hyperbole in Washington, and I am genuine when I 
say this is one of the most offensive attacks on rural Utah I have seen 
in my career. I will continue to work tirelessly to repeal this 
disastrous effort.
  My bill, the WEST Act, is pushing against this flawed rule. We should 
be empowering local communities, not punishing them.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to also respectfully oppose 
H.R. 3397, or what my colleagues across the aisle are calling the WEST 
Act.
  I, too, have great respect for the chair and for the sponsor of this 
bill, and especially for the farmers, ranchers, and land stewards who 
were just referenced, but I vehemently disagree with the premise of 
what this bill and the underlying rule do and how it was characterized.
  This bill would overturn a long-overdue administrative action to 
protect our public lands, wildlife, and cultural sites and access to 
the outdoors, with the intent of tipping the scales back to a time when 
extractive industries--oil and gas companies, multinational mining 
corporations, and developers--had the upper hand in dictating the uses 
of our public lands.
  Like so many efforts by the GOP this Congress to chip away at our 
rights, unfortunately, this bill seeks to undermine and strip away the 
Bureau of Land Management's recently released final public lands rule, 
which establishes a framework to protect our Nation's public lands and 
ensure healthy ecosystems, waters, and wildlife, and a historic effort 
to protect the special places and cultural sites that are so important 
to our communities, their identities, and who they are, especially for 
our Tribal communities.
  Unlike the disinformation that has been offered up here today, this 
rule will not stop other productive uses on public lands but will 
ensure that they are informed by the best-available science, protect 
our ecosystems, and provide for climate resilience, and it will ensure 
that we are not developing on sensitive and sacred sites.
  In fact, in New Mexico, when we implemented a similar rule on our 
State lands, not only did it not end resource development but the State 
saw historic revenues from these activities on State lands while we 
managed to protect the special places that make us who we are.
  I say to my friends out there across the West: Don't buy into the 
political hype and disinformation. This actually is about protecting 
our public lands and is what our public lands management is supposed to 
look like. That is why it was supported by more than 90 percent of the 
comments that were submitted. The vast majority of Americans, in fact, 
over 80 percent across the political spectrum, support protecting 
public lands.
  That is why I strongly stand with the President, Secretary Haaland, 
and the good people of BLM, who are working every day to preserve our 
lands, waters, and cultural sites.
  Under the same rubric of protecting our public lands and waters, I 
also stand to oppose H.R. 3195, which would similarly withdraw a 
Department of the Interior effort to protect 225,000 acres in the 
Boundary Waters from mineral leasing. This bill would rescind DOI's 
public land order and would put America's most visited wilderness at 
risk of sulfide or copper mining by a large multinational corporation 
based out of South America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico.
  Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, in spite of over a million dollars that 
this corporation has spent lobbying the U.S. Government, the people 
have spoken and submitted over 675,000 public comments to protect the 
Boundary Waters.
  That is why I support the protection of this pristine, interconnected 
waterway, forest ecosystems, and the homelands of the Anishinaabe 
people who have lived here since time immemorial.
  One mining accident could irrevocably destroy these lands and waters 
forever. New Mexico knows this history all too well, which is why I 
strongly oppose H.R. 3195 and support the administration's actions in 
protecting Boundary Waters.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Newhouse), the chairman of the Congressional Western 
Caucus.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Westerman, the chairman of the 
Natural Resources Committee, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3397, the Western 
Economic Security Today Act.
  Since day one in office, President Biden has consistently attacked 
our Western way of life. His administration's latest effort is one of 
the most egregious examples of Federal overreach against our public 
lands in decades.
  Two weeks ago, the Bureau of Land Management finalized their 
conservation and landscape health rule in spite of staunch opposition 
to the proposal. This rule illegally elevates conservation under the 
Federal Land Policy and Management Act's multiple-use mandate for 
public lands, contrary to congressional intent, and means that 
America's lands could be locked up from their intended purposes.

  The rule threatens production of America's abundant natural 
resources, grazing, and recreational access to our public lands, all 
for the sake of a political handout to climate alarmists and activists.
  As chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, I have been fighting 
against this rule because prosperity in rural Western America is under 
attack. I am proud to join my friend from Utah in support of this 
legislation to overturn this rule and protect our Western way of life.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Westerman for 
bringing this important bill to the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3397, the Western 
Economic Security Today Act, led by my friend and colleague, Mr. 
Curtis.
  This bill will stop the latest Biden administration attack on the 
Western way of life. Last week, I attended a Natural Resources 
Committee field hearing in Hurricane, Utah, and heard firsthand how 
destructive the BLM's conservation and landscape health rule will be to 
communities.
  By allowing arbitrary standards and vaguely defined leases to lock up 
lands from grazing, energy production, and recreation, the BLM is 
leaving rural America behind and costing our economy billions of 
dollars in the process.
  We are going to hear the back and forth about this particular bill 
today. What it comes down to is actually listening to the people doing 
the job. That is what we do out West. We actually do the job that 
America needs for our energy, for our food. Everything that we live on 
in our society primarily comes from out West.
  For Washington, D.C., bureaucrats to not listen to ranchers that have 
been grazing and farming that land in Utah for generations is the most 
offensive thing that can exist in this world of politics, and there is 
a lot there. This does not make sense. Go listen to somebody who is 
looking and seeing. They are terrified because there is no trust. There 
is trust in the balance that we want to talk about because there is 
always government overreach when we talk about the balance of using 
Federal lands.
  The multiuse is so concerning. They want to be able to graze, keep 
fire risk low, and grow livestock in a responsible way. They do not 
trust that the balance trying to be sold on this particular initiative 
is sincere. I believe them when they say this is bad because I am 
representing them.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, look, I have, again, great respect for the chairman and 
the gentleman from Utah who just spoke, but balance is exactly what we 
are trying to achieve. As a Representative from the West, I can tell 
you that my constituents support this rule, as do the vast majority of 
folks out West.

[[Page H2745]]

  There have been these repeated references to Washington. I think the 
phrase was Washington bureaucrats. I don't know about the gentleman 
from Utah. Perhaps he doesn't have a relationship with the land 
management in his State. I certainly have a very productive and robust 
relationship with our BLM partners in Colorado, including the Western 
headquarters, which is based in Grand Junction, Colorado--one of the 
reasons, by the way, that one of the comment sessions, the forums 
hosted by the BLM with respect to the rulemaking on this particular 
rule, was held in Colorado.
  The agency is listening to the folks on the ground, to citizens, to 
folks in rural America, to folks in the Rocky Mountain West, to hunters 
and anglers who, by the way, also support this rule.
  There have been multiple references to this notion that somehow, by 
the BLM promulgating this rule, that enables multiple use and does not 
put one use ahead of another, that that would somehow negatively 
implicate hunters or anglers--not true.
  How do we know it is not true? Because the back-country hunters and 
anglers sent a letter yesterday to the Speaker of the House. I will 
read from it:

       We strongly urge the House of Representatives to vote 
     ``no'' on these bills. The bills that they are referencing 
     include, among others, the WEST Act.

  In particular, I will again read from their letter, not my words:

       H.R. 3397, that is the WEST Act, would prohibit the 
     implementation of the recently finalized BLM public lands 
     rule. Hunters and anglers widely supported this forward-
     looking, comprehensive rule that will have a meaningful 
     impact on fish and wildlife habitat by prioritizing 
     conservation and restoration alongside other types of land 
     use.

                              {time}  1600

  This is a reasonable rule. It is a prudent rule that unfortunately is 
being threatened by this extreme bill that I don't think the majority 
of the American people will support.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This isn't just a minor rule. This is a major rule that the BLM is 
pushing out.
  When they held their listening sessions, they were located in places 
that were inconvenient for communities and stakeholders who are most 
affected by the rule to actually participate in.
  Only three of the listening sessions held by the BLM were in person, 
and they were all three in major cities. They were in Albuquerque, 
Denver, and Reno.
  Two of the five listening sessions were held virtually, affecting 
rural communities who have limited access to the internet.
  The BLM refused to hold listening sessions in the following Western 
States: Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, 
Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, and Washington.
  You would think if they really cared about what the local 
stakeholders thought, they would have gone out to them and had 
listening sessions where people could have participated.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Bentz), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and 
Fisheries.
  Mr. BENTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chair Westerman for giving me the 
opportunity to speak in favor of this important bill.
  This bill would reverse a rule that essentially destroys multiple use 
of Federal lands. However, to put this in perspective, we should call 
out how much land we are actually talking about.
  Looking at the Bureau of Land Management's web page, the Bureau of 
Land Management administers more surface land, 245 million acres, or 
one-tenth of America's land base, and more subsurface mineral States, 
700 million acres, than any other agency in the United States.
  The BLM's mission, which is principally defined by the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act, FLPMA, directs the agency to carry out a 
dual mandate, that of managing public land for multiple uses while 
conserving national, historical, and cultural resources.
  Mr. Speaker, this is incredibly important because what the rule does 
is to prioritize conservation. Contrary to what we have heard 
repeatedly from the other side of the aisle, there is a prioritization.
  Let me read from the rule itself, page 19583 of the Federal Register, 
which says: ``The Bureau of Land Management proposes new regulations 
that, pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
(FLPMA), as amended, and other relevant authorities, would advance the 
BLM's mission to manage the public lands for multiple use and sustained 
yield `by prioritizing the health and resilience of ecosystems across 
those lands.'''
  Now, one could argue, I suppose, that means it just brings it level, 
but I would suggest it makes it much more important than the other 
uses. It certainly could be read that way.
  The proposed rule provides that the BLM will protect intact 
landscapes--will protect, doesn't say might--restore degraded habitat, 
and make wise management decisions based on science and data.
  To support these activities, the proposed rule would apply land 
health standards to all BLM-managed lands and uses and clarify that 
conservation is a ``use''.
  Well, what they are trying to do is say it is no higher on the scale 
than any of the other uses, but in point of fact, in the same 
paragraph, they suggest and, I think, direct otherwise.
  It astounds me that my colleagues from across the aisle--actually, I 
wrote down shocks. I think it is a better word--that they would want to 
increase our reliance on China for rare earth minerals, which this bill 
would do by making it possible to stop mining, to continue to turn a 
blind eye to the children and others laboring in slave labor conditions 
in Congo, to continue to export our needs for rare earth minerals to 
other countries where damage to the environment is extraordinarily 
greater than would be the case here in America.
  Why we persist in trying to export these horrific activities and try 
to pretend they are not happening is beyond me.
  This rule that our bill would reverse gives us an opportunity to 
perhaps, at least start doing our part of shoring up the minerals 
necessary for all of the so-called green bad deal. I think it is 
referred to as the Green New Deal on the other side of the aisle or the 
green deal.
  The point is that this bill would make it that much more difficult to 
obtain the minerals necessary in this country. This is truly overreach 
by the BLM and something that needs to be reversed.
  To suggest that this has not been prioritized is incorrect at several 
levels, one of which I already called out. The other, you can go to 
page 19588 of the Register, and it calls out what conservation means. 
It says: ``Within the framework of the proposed rule, `protection' and 
`restoration' together constitute conservation.''
  Protection and restoration. Those words sound so great, but what it 
amounts to is a barrier to our entry upon some of those millions upon 
millions of acres of public land--another barrier, as if we didn't have 
enough.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose H.R. 3397, 
legislation that would require the Bureau of Land Management to 
withdraw a finalized Biden administration rule that expands 
conservation on Federal land.
  The rhetoric surrounding the BLM final rule has claimed it is nothing 
more than a mere land grab by the Federal Government, which could not 
be further from the truth.

  The final rule is an avenue to conserving not only our public lands 
but also Tribal sacred sites and cultural resources.
  The final rule allows sacred sites and cultural resources to be 
placed under conservation leases for preservation and protection. It is 
a step in the right direction to strengthen cultural prevention.
  The United States has a shameful history of dispossession of land 
through Federal policy, statutes, and cultural and physical violence 
inflicted upon indigenous peoples, such as the Indian Removal Act and 
the dissolution of Tribal governments and reservations under the 
termination era.

[[Page H2746]]

  Our government's past actions were not only a land grab from 
indigenous peoples but left a lasting impact on the generations to 
come.
  These policies have led to many Tribal communities losing access to 
sacred sites, traditional foods, medicine, and resources, and they have 
led to intergenerational trauma.
  As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to uphold the trust and 
treaty responsibility. While we have legislation such as the Native 
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the National 
Historic Preservation Act, they are not implemented to the full degree 
of their intent.
  BLM's final rule is an opportunity to strengthen existing protections 
for Tribal sacred sites and cultural resources.
  We must ensure that all legislation passed through this Chamber 
strengthens Tribal sovereignty and cultural preservation.
  For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to 
recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I 
would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill.
  My amendment would simply ensure that Tribal sacred sites and 
cultural resources would not be adversely impacted before the enactment 
of the legislation.
  I hope my colleagues agree that we should ensure all legislation 
passed does not further contribute to cultural loss and destruction of 
sacred sites.
  Instead, the legislation we pass should bring together Federal land 
managers and Tribal nations to develop land management policies that 
integrate traditional ecological knowledge and protections for sacred 
sites and cultural resources when proposed projects could impact Tribal 
nations and their citizens.
  I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the text of this 
amendment immediately prior to the motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in 
voting for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just simply add, and then I know we will continue with this 
debate, but echoing the sentiments of my colleague from California, 
there have been repeated, in my view, misstatements about the full 
ambit of the BLM rule.
  To be crystal clear, this is from the executive summary of the rule, 
it says: ``To support efforts to protect and restore public lands, the 
proposed rule clarifies that conservation is a use on par with other 
uses of the public lands under FLPMA's multiple-use and sustained-yield 
framework.''
  This is later in the same summary: ``The rule does not prioritize 
conservation above other uses. Instead, it provides for considering 
and, where appropriate, implementing or authorizing conservation. . . 
.'' on an equal footing with other uses consistent with the plain 
language of FLPMA. That is from the rule. Context matters, and I think 
it is an important clarification.
  Lastly, I would say, Mr. Speaker, there was some commentary with 
respect to the full spectrum of engagement by the BLM with citizens 
across the country as it was promulgating this rule and reference was 
made to the locations where these forums were held.
  I trust that the chairman, my good friend from Arkansas, has been to 
the communities that he listed--I certainly have--to Reno, to 
Albuquerque, and to Denver, and I can tell him that every one of those 
municipalities is nestled within 10, 15, 20, 25 miles of extensive 
lands that are managed both by the BLM and the Forest Service. How do I 
know? Because I live in Colorado, and I happen to represent many acres 
of land managed by the BLM.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  As my colleague, Mr. Bentz, read from the Federal Register and then 
my friend from Colorado read from the rule, the summary of the rule, I 
thought what would be more intellectually honest is if that summary 
said the proposed law because this goes way beyond a rule.
  I also thought, who wrote this? And the answer is: I don't know. It 
is some nondescript bureaucrat over at the administration that wrote 
this law.
  He is rewriting law, and as Congress, we have to stand up to the 
administration and say: Congress writes the laws, the administration 
enforces the law, and we have to put a stop to this administrative 
state that writes laws that have just as much effect as if Congress had 
passed a law.
  If Congress wanted to add conservation, restoration, or mitigation to 
multiple use, then Congress should do that.
  Right now, the law says: The multiple use is domestic livestock 
grazing, fish and wildlife development utilization, mineral exploration 
and production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and timber 
production.
  That is the law, and it is time that we put a stop to bureaucrats 
writing laws that are not held responsible by anybody.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Gosar), the chair of the Oversight and Investigations 
Subcommittee.

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3397, the 
WEST Act offered by the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Curtis).
  Only Congress has the authority over lands and territories in the 
United States and we have already spoken out on the BLM 2.0 rule that 
mimics, and we have defeated it.
  Unfortunately, the Bureau of Land Management continues to sidestep 
congressional authority and has finalized a new rule to further 
restrict Federal lands for multiple use, including outdoor recreation, 
ranching, mineral development, and energy production.
  Since his first day in office, Joe Biden has abused his authority to 
add large swaths of acreage to the Federal estate, ignoring the 
concerns of local communities and stakeholders, even to the point that 
last year, they were caught trying to amortize our public lands on the 
New York Stock Exchange.
  Arizonans don't want another rule that blocks access to public lands. 
This new rule represents the latest rush to lock the gates on Federal 
lands by the Biden administration and directly threatens every aspect 
of American life.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the WEST Act.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  Our Nation is home to some of the most beautiful landscapes in the 
world. These public lands promote biodiversity, they support local 
economies through tourism and recreational opportunities, and really, 
they truly showcase what we mean when we sing ``America the 
Beautiful.''
  I have been working my entire time in Congress to pass meaningful 
legislation that would conserve public lands in Colorado and beyond.
  My home State of Colorado has more than 8.3 million acres of public 
lands, and the entire West has tens of millions of acres more.
  Enjoying these public lands is intrinsic to the cultural idea of the 
American West and protecting them helps communities who are powered by 
outdoor recreation tourism.
  These public lands are also vital in mitigating the impact of climate 
change and in improving the health of our planet.
  Restoring and protecting ecosystems throughout the land supports the 
biodiversity of plants and animals, and it leads to a healthier balance 
for all of those who rely on these protections.

                              {time}  1615

  Last year, along with Senator Martin Heinrich from New Mexico and 
Congressman Jared Huffman from California, I called on the Department 
of the Interior to finalize the Conservation and Landscape Health rule, 
because BLM-managed lands are often overlooked in conversations about 
addressing biodiversity and climate change, even though these areas are 
some of the most unique and special public areas that we have 
throughout this country.
  I was excited when the Biden administration finally announced the 
rule earlier this month because I knew it

[[Page H2747]]

would build on the administration's work to protect States like mine 
and to support a healthier and cleaner environment for all.
  The rule is a major victory for preserving and protecting those 
landscapes and enhances our ability to ensure that future generations 
can enjoy them for years to come.
  Just last week, I met in Denver--which by the way is just within a 
few miles of many of these lands that will be protected--with the 
Bureau of Land Management Colorado State Director Doug Vilsack, to 
discuss the importance of this rule, BLM's work in Colorado, and how we 
can protect additional lands throughout our country.
  Congressman Neguse's and my home State of Colorado is ground zero for 
the important work that BLM is doing, and I support their efforts here 
in Congress because I know defending public lands is good public 
policy. Attacking our hardworking agency is not.
  The bill we are considering today is a waste of our time, and it only 
serves one purpose: To undermine the important public land goals of the 
Biden administration.
  By gutting this rule, Congressional Republicans would open the 
beautiful lands for exploitation and would prevent any administration 
from implementing any other rule that would further protect public 
lands. They are putting the mining and drilling lobby over the American 
people, millions of whom enjoy these lands every day.
  This bill would also harm the local communities whose lifeblood is 
these important public lands. Western States, who are home to the 
overwhelming majority of BLM-managed lands, would be significantly 
impacted, and not in a good way, by this bill. These efforts are 
misguided, and they further reinforce that the majority is not focused 
on the issues that matter to our constituents.
  I will continue to work to protect public lands, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit and ``no'' on this 
bill.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Idaho (Mr. Fulcher).
  Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Arkansas for his 
work on this issue and also to the gentleman from Utah for sponsoring 
the legislation.
  The Bureau of Land Management's recently finalized Public Lands Rule 
would fundamentally destroy the multiple-use land management policy 
Americans have relied on for decades.
  I want to reinforce something my friend from Arkansas pointed out 
earlier. This is an administrative rule. This is not congressional 
action, yet it has the same force and effect of law. This is a rule BLM 
has put forth.
  This policy is not just an addition of unnecessary bureaucratic red 
tape. It would effectively lock up 1 out of every 10 acres of land in 
the United States and thereby shatter the way of life for many families 
and businesses across the West.
  In my home State of Idaho, citizens have enjoyed the vast natural 
resources the State has had to offer for decades. Considering that BLM 
is responsible for managing about 12 million acres of Federal land in 
our State, this rule change will have drastic impact on the future of 
recreation, grazing, and natural resource production.
  Now, as a fourth generation Idahoan, I am a proud supporter of the 
WEST Act as it defends the way of life for Americans across the West 
and empowers local voices.
  By protecting the land used to feed and fuel our country, H.R. 3397 
would safeguard some $201 billion in economic output and protect 
783,000 jobs in rural communities.
  On a related note, thanks to this administration's open-border 
policy, our national security has pretty much been obliterated. That 
makes our enemies happy, especially considering that we are also 
dependent on those same enemies for our natural resources. This 
legislation actually reduces our reliance on foreign adversaries by 
maintaining domestic access to energy and mineral resources across the 
West, which is so important.
  The WEST Act will protect public land management as we know it and 
safeguard the future of our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rosendale).
  Mr. ROSENDALE. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Westerman and 
Congressman Curtis for leading the charge on stopping this disastrous 
Biden administration rule.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the WEST Act. This 
legislation will prohibit the BLM's Conservation and Landscape Health 
rule from going into effect.
  Our past speaker just described very well the difference between rule 
and law. The BLM-proposed rule will lock up large swaths of public land 
across the country for Federal conservation leases that would limit 
recreational activities, timber production, animal grazing, and 
important energy development on public land. The rule is 
unconstitutional, it is unpopular, and it will devastate rural 
communities.
  Article I, Section 1, of the United States Constitution makes it 
clear that Congress writes the law, not the executive branch. In 1934 
and 1976, Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act and the Federal Land 
Policy Management Act. Both require a multiple use policy on public 
lands. This rule is unconstitutional because it circumvents both laws 
Congress passed to enforce an executive branch policy.

  When collecting limited public input on this rule over a limited 75-
day period, the BLM only allowed five public forums in exclusively 
urban city centers. This deliberate dodging of stakeholders whose land 
they are attempting to commandeer shows how little this administration 
cares about their scathing disapproval in rural America.
  Lastly, this move will irreparably impede sustainable and productive 
grazing practices in Montana and devastate rural communities throughout 
the country by requiring ranchers to compete with coastal corporations 
for the limited number of available leases.
  I am sick and tired of the American farmer, who creates food 
security, being trampled by radical environmentalists who think their 
soy burgers magically appear on grocery store shelves.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just simply say, again, there have been a number of 
misstatements with respect to the constitutionality and the statutory 
authority of this particular rule that has been promulgated by the BLM.
  It is clearly constitutional. It is consistent with the statutory 
authority that Congress has ultimately conveyed to the BLM via FLPMA. 
You don't have to take my word for it. You can read the statute. 
Section 302 very clearly states that the agency has the authority to 
ultimately ensure multiple use by ``the management of the public lands 
and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the 
combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the 
American people.''
  Now, that phrase arguably could be nebulous to some. Well, the good 
news is that Congress did, in fact, clarify what those present and 
future needs of the American people happen to be. Again, I will quote 
from the statute: ``The use of some land for less than all of the 
resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that 
takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for 
renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, 
recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and 
natural, scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and 
coordinated management of the . . . productivity of the land and the 
quality of the environment with consideration being given to the 
relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination 
of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest 
unit output.''
  That is the statute. You have the statutory authority supporting a 
rule that by its plain language simply puts conservation on par with 
other uses. This is not complicated.
  The American people support this rule. Hunters and anglers support 
this rule. Recreationists support this rule. Constituents in Colorado 
and States across the West support this rule, and so should the 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2748]]

  

  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Utah (Ms. Maloy).
  Ms. MALOY. Mr. Speaker, I agree with everything my colleagues have 
said about this rule violating the intent of the Federal Land Policy 
and Management Act, FLPMA, of 1976. I intended to spend most of my time 
talking about that, but it was pretty well covered.
  This is an inappropriate use of an administrative action to change 
the intent of a legislative action. As a Member of Congress, I rise to 
support everything they have said about why that is wrong.
  I also want to talk about what role BLM lands play in Utah. I 
represent Utah, and so does   John Curtis, my colleague, who introduced 
this bill.
  The reason this is so important for those of us in Utah is that the 
Federal Government manages most of the land in our State. There are 
counties in my district that are more than 90 percent managed by the 
Federal Government. A lot of that is BLM land. We have a lot of 
experience with multiple use, with grazing, logging, ranching, 
recreation, fishing, all the things we just talked about, coexisting in 
the same BLM tracts in Utah.
  The reason this rule is deeply unpopular in my State is that it comes 
in and makes one use trump all of the other uses on what should be 
multiple-use land managed for sustained yield.
  The role that BLM lands play in our economy and our culture cannot be 
overstated. In some of the counties I represent, the majority of 
families get at least part of their livelihood from grazing on public 
land. If those livelihoods go away, it will have a big impact on our 
economy. It also has a big impact on our lifestyle, our culture.
  That is why changes like this should be made by Congress. They should 
be debated by people who represent the people in Utah or in other 
western States who are facing the same drastic cultural livelihood 
changes from this kind of rule, instead of this coming from an 
administration where it is written by bureaucrats who, like the 
chairman, I can't identify with.
  I don't know who wrote the rule. I don't know what input they took 
from people in my district, but I know that I hear from people in my 
district, and I represent them.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for 
closing.
  Mr. Speaker, I have participated in a lot of debates during my time 
in Congress. This has got to be one of the most confounding for me, 
because repeatedly, unfortunately, I have colleagues, friends on the 
other side of the aisle, making statements about what this rule does 
when the plain language of the rule says the exact opposite.
  There are folks here in the gallery, I suspect, who are just as 
confused as I am. One need look no further than the plain language of 
the rule. The rule says that it is putting conservation on par with 
these other uses. Grazing is allowed under the rule. Oil and 
gas development is allowed under the rule. Conservation is allowed 
under the rule.

  If my colleagues don't want conservation considered by the BLM with 
respect to how these lands are managed, which is clearly what they 
believe, then they should just say so.

                              {time}  1630

  They should just be candid with the American people that they don't 
think these lands should be managed with conservation in mind at all. I 
disagree with that view, and the American people disagree with that 
view, but that is an intellectually honest position.
  Be that as it may, don't mischaracterize the rule that the agency 
ultimately promulgated because the American people can see it for 
themselves. They can read the same plain language that I have read 
repeatedly on the House floor over the course of the last hour of 
debate.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress charged the Bureau of Land Management with 
seeking balance statutorily. That is the word we used in the statute 
giving BLM its authority: ``so that they are utilized in a combination 
that will best meet the present and future needs of the American 
people.'' That is what the Biden administration has done with respect 
to the development of this rule.
  When we had the hearing on this bill in the Natural Resources 
Committee, a constituent of mine testified in support of the bill. 
Eagle County Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry said that she made the 
trip to Washington to be here to support this particular rule.
  I think her testimony said it best, so I will quote it here: ``I 
support the BLM's proposed public lands rule. It will empower the 
agency to deliver on its multiple-use mandate by placing conservation 
values on equal footing with other uses on our public lands.''
  That is it. People in Colorado, in my State, in my district, and 
throughout the West rely on our public lands for a wide variety of uses 
and benefits.
  I speak with some authority on this particular subject because I 
represent a congressional district that is larger than eight States in 
the Union. That includes over 40 percent of it being public lands 
managed by the BLM and the Forest Service. When I talk about the need 
to prioritize resilience and balance, I speak about it on behalf of 
those communities that I am so honored to represent.
  I appreciate the dialogue that we have had with my colleague from 
Utah and, of course, with my friend, the chairman from Arkansas, but I 
respectfully disagree with respect to this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that perhaps my colleagues will see the light and 
vote against H.R. 3397. I certainly will be. I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to avoid making 
reference to occupants of the gallery.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we really must pass Representative Curtis' WEST Act.
  This burdensome and unnecessary law that is being disguised as a rule 
is not only a threat to the West, but it is also a threat to our 
national security, to American energy dominance, to our food security, 
to the environment, and to the separation of powers that are 
established in our Constitution.
  Passing the WEST Act and withdrawing this rule will restore Congress' 
intent over the multiple uses of BLM land and protect the over 700,000 
jobs across the West that rely on access to our public lands.
  We can't allow the Biden administration to singlehandedly upend 50 
years of congressionally mandated land use policies to the whim of 
environmental extremists and coastal elites. We can't allow an 
unelected, unaccountable, and unnamed bureaucrat to write law.
  I thank Representative Curtis for his strong leadership on this 
issue. I know that he has heard many concerns about the rule from his 
constituents, including as recently as last week at a Federal Lands 
Subcommittee hearing in southern Utah.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ellzey). Pursuant to House Resolution 
1173, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Kamlager-Dove of California moves to recommit the bill 
     H.R. 3397 to the Committee on Natural Resources.

  The material previously referred to by Ms. Kamlager-Dove is as 
follows:

       Ms. Kamlager-Dove moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3397 to 
     the Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith, with the 
     following amendment:
       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, section 2 
     of this Act shall not take effect until the Secretaries 
     determine, in consultation with Tribes, that section 2 of 
     this Act will not have an adverse impact on Tribal cultural 
     or sacred sites.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.

[[Page H2749]]

  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. KAMLAGER-DOVE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-minute 
votes on:
  Passage of H.R. 3397, if ordered;
  The motion to recommit H.R. 615;
  Passage of H.R. 615, if ordered;
  The motion to recommit H.R. 764;
  Passage of H.R. 764, if ordered;
  The motion to recommit H.R. 3195; and
  Passage of H.R. 3195, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 204, 
nays 210, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 164]

                               YEAS--204

     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amo
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Perez
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)

                               NAYS--210

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Gimenez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     James
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kiley
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Maloy
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Adams
     Arrington
     Blumenauer
     Cole
     Diaz-Balart
     Grijalva
     Landsman
     Langworthy
     Magaziner
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Nickel
     Smith (NE)
     Sykes
     Trone

                              {time}  1704

  Messrs. GOODEN of Texas, MOORE of Alabama, BARR, FITZPATRICK, Mrs. 
CAMMACK, Messrs. COMER, NEWHOUSE, and LUCAS changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. PETERS, Ms. MANNING, Mr. TORRES of New York, Ms. SPANBERGER, 
Messrs. DOGGETT, MORELLE, Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ, and Mr. AGUILAR changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LANDSMAN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA 
on Roll Call No. 164.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FULCHER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212, 
noes 202, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 165]

                               AYES--212

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Gimenez
     Golden (ME)
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     James
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kiley
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Maloy
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perez
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao

[[Page H2750]]


     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NOES--202

     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amo
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Landsman
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Adams
     Arrington
     Blumenauer
     Cole
     Diaz-Balart
     Grijalva
     Jackson Lee
     Langworthy
     Magaziner
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Nickel
     Smith (NE)
     Sykes
     Trone


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1710

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________