Jared Huffman

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, House Democrats are going to continue to shine a bright light on this document. The American people don't need to take our word for it when we talk about the extremism and cruelty and other impacts that Trump's Project 2025 would have. They can read it themselves. It is online. Look it up. The more people read it, the more they understand it, the more we know they are going to want nothing to do with it. The best way to stop this terrible agenda is to just make sure people know about it and understand it. We are grateful for this opportunity to discuss it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Albert Boro (Mayor Boro) who passed away at the age of 89 on September 1, 2024. Mayor Boro was an iconic public figure in the City of San Rafael and Marin County and a beloved family member. Born and raised in San Francisco, Mayor Boro earned a degree in Business Administration from the University of San Francisco. He went on to work for Pacific Bell as an executive for 35 years before retiring in 1990. Mayor Boro married Patricia Boro in 1959, and they moved to Marin County after they had their first son, Albert. The family grew with the birth of Maureen, followed by Michael, and then the family moved to San Rafael in 1966, where they had their fourth child, Gena. While working full time, Mayor Boro quickly became involved in the Marin community, serving as a member of the Marin County Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Cultural Commission from 1968 to 2005, during which he helped to secure 9,700 acres of open space. He also served as a Lector and Eucharistic Minister for Saint Raphael's Catholic Church for many years. In 1971, he joined the San Rafael Planning Commission and was subsequently elected to the San Rafael City Council in 1987. After leaving his corporate role, Mayor Boro stepped into his ``second career,'' as elected Mayor of San Rafael in 1991. After an initial four-year term, he was re-elected in 1995, 1999, 2003 and 2007, serving a total of 20 years as Mayor. Revered for his ability to build consensus and for his many contributions to project and policy development, Mayor Boro's positive impacts on the community are far-reaching. He oversaw the expansion of city services to the historically underserved Canal neighborhood by renovating the community center. He also guided the preservation of the historic Rafael Theatre, and construction of the new Public Works building and Parkside Children's Center. During his tenure, Mayor Boro played an instrumental role in regional and county initiatives, simultaneously serving as Director of the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway, and Transportation District and as Chair of numerous agencies including Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit, the Marin County Parks Commission, the Central Marin Sanitation Agency, the Marin County Fair Board of Directors, and the Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers, to name just a few. Mayor Boro was known for his firm, fair, and caring leadership and faith in local governance. He embraced challenges with common sense, humor, and an unwavering commitment to improving the lives of his neighbors. Over the years, he received numerous accolades, including 2012 San Rafael Citizen of the Year and lifetime emeritus member of Mann County Cultural Commission, and he was named one of the top ten mayors in California--a regard that many held for him throughout his civic life. Mayor Boro is survived by his wife Patritia Boro; their children and children-in-law, Al and Arlene Boro, Maureen Boro and Mike Winter, Mike Boro and John Fontana, and Gena and Keith Granucci; and their granddaughters Jessica and Madeline Granucci; his sister Barbara and her husband Bill Miles; and many nieces, nephews, and cousins. It was my privilege and honor to work with Mayor Boro, and I will miss his friendship. His depth of character is surpassed only by his legacy of his good deeds in San Rafael and beyond. Mr. Speaker, Al Boro was a tireless advocate for the San Rafael community whose legacy cannot be overstated. I respectfully ask that you join me in expressing my sincere appreciation for his many decades of good work and expressing my deep condolences to his friends and family.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with Congresswoman Barbara Lee to honor William Travis (Travis) who passed away at the age of 81 on April 24, 2024. Travis was a leader in environmental conservation who spent decades supporting the preservation and health of the San Francisco Bay. Born and raised in Allentown, PA, Travis went on to study architecture at Pennsylvania State, earning an undergraduate degree in 1967 and a master's degree in regional planning in 1970. His early career included a position as bay design analyst for the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), developing the first master plan of the East Bay Regional Parks District, joining the staff of California Coastal Commission, and then returning to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission in 1985 as Deputy Director. In 1995, he assumed the role of Executive Director, a position he held for 16 years. During his tenure with BCDC, Travis served as chair of the Shell Oil Spill Litigation Trustee Committee, disbursing over $15 million to restore natural resources, and in the late 1990s, served a critical role in the public acquisition of 10,000 private acres of salt evaporation ponds on the bay's shoreline, which are now being returned to wetlands. Lending his expertise on sea level rise adaptation, Travis lead BCDC in 2011 to become the first state agency in the United States to develop regulations to combat sea level rise. Beyond his environmental work for the state, Travis was deeply involved in the East Bay community. He worked as a consultant for the Oakland Athletics, served as chair of Berkeley's Downtown Area Plan Advisory Committee, and lectured at the University of California, Berkeley. After retiring and receiving a Parkinson's disease diagnosis, Travis continued to lead the effort for a transit-oriented housing development at the North Berkeley Bay Area Rapid Transit Station. After a long campaign, the project will be breaking ground on 750 residential units in 2025. Travis was married to his wife, Jody, for 47 years. Together they raised their daughter, Katherine. Being her parent inspired the couple to write, Katherine's Hope, a memoir on international adoptions. Travis credits his passion for environmental preservation and stewardship in large part to his daughter and a hope for her future. Known for his serious and effective professionalism balanced by sharp wit and humor, and the breadth and depth of his environmental career, Travis was a tireless advocate for our environment and the health of future generations. His legacy in the Bay Area cannot be understated. Mr. Speaker, we respectfully ask that you join us in expressing our appreciation for his decades of good work and condolences to his family and friends.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Loyal Martin (Marty) Griffin Jr., MD, MPH who passed away on May 22, 2024, at the age of 103. Marty was a trailblazing environmental leader, renowned for his early focus on the intersectionality of healthcare and the environment. He made profound impacts on both fields. Born in 1920 and raised in a mountain cabin along the Ogden River in Utah, Marty developed an appreciation of nature at an early age. His family moved to the West Coast during the Depression, eventually settling in Oakland, California where Marty was an Eagle Scout and the valedictorian of Oakland Technical High School. He earned a zoology degree from the University of California, Berkeley in 1942 and worked night shifts in the Richmond shipyards to afford Standford Medical School. After receiving his medical degree in 1946, Marty joined the United States Army Medical Corps and served as a captain during the end of World War II. Marty's career in the medical profession quickly expanded to include environmental work, as he recognized the convergence of these two fields and their relationship to public health. He became a distinguished physician in Marin County, establishing the Ross Valley Clinic, Ross General Hospital, Tamalpais Retirement Center, and Kentfield Psychiatric Hospital. He also served as Chief of Medicine at both Marin General and Ross Hospitals. Marty returned to the University of California, Berkeley in 1972 where he earned a master's degree in public health and subsequently became the Public Health Director of the Sonoma Developmental Center, a position he held for 15 years. In 1980, he was appointed Chief of the Hepatitis B, and later AIDS, Task Force for 11 state hospitals. In 1989, he received the Gold Medal for Superior Medical Accomplishment from the State of California. Marty's passion for land preservation and environmental education extended beyond his professional career. In 1961, he founded Audubon Canyon Ranch, which now includes 5,000 acres of wildlife sanctuaries throughout the Bay Area and Sonoma County and is a model of conservation education. This land created the ``gateway'' to the Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden Gate National Recreation Area that were later established in 1962 and 1972. Marty also cofounded the Environmental Forum of Marin, and he served as an elected official as a director of the Marin Municipal Water District. He created a model for watershed management plans through his founding of the Russian River Task Farce, Friends of the Russian River, and the Russian River Environmental Forum. Beyond California, Marty helped establish a 20,000-acre preserve in Haleakala National Park and participated in wildlife efforts in Nepal. Marty's lifetime of work inspired many, including the documentarians Nancy Kelly and Kenji Yamamoto who, in 2013, created the film Rebels with a Cause, detailing his and other local conservationists' fight to stop development along the Marin County coastline. What would have been a large development is now public land enjoyed by thousands of visitors every year in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Known fondly as ``the nature doctor'' and ``the doctor with mud on his shoes,'' Marty is survived by his wife, Joyce Griffin; daughters Linda Henke, Anne Oliver, Carol Griffin and Joanie Griffin; stepson Brian Nielsen; and five grandchildren. He is predeceased by his granddaughter, Gina Marin Monaco, who passed in 1998 at age 15 from leukemia. Mr. Speaker, Martin Griffin was an innovative leader who never shied from an opportunity to advocate for our environment and the health of future generations. It was my privilege to know Marty and consider him a friend. His legacy in Marin County, California, and beyond cannot be understated. I respectfully ask that you join me in expressing my appreciation for his lifetime of good work.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise with Congressman Mike Thompson to honor Thomas Care Reed, who passed away at the age of 89 on February 11, 2024, and his extensive public service to the United States and local Sonoma County community. Mr. Reed served as the 11th Secretary of the United States Air Force and was a dedicated public servant to three former Presidents. Mr. Reed was born in New York City, NY in 1934. His military career began as a member of Cornell's Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps program. He graduated with a Bachelor of Science in mechanical engineering as Cadet Colonel, the highest-ranking officer in his class. Shortly thereafter, he was commissioned as Second Lieutenant in the Air Force. Mr. Reed served until 1959, ending his active-duty career as Technical Project Manager for the Minuteman Re-Entry Vehicle System with the Air Force's Ballistic Missile Division. While enlisted in the Air Force, Mr. Reed simultaneously attended the University of Southern California where he completed his Master's Degree in electrical engineering. He later moved to the Bay Area where he was stationed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory as a chief strategist working to develop new thermonuclear weapons systems. This work contributed to the end of the Cold War and launched his political career. As one of the key scientific minds behind the invention of thermonuclear devices being tested in the Pacific Ocean during the early 1960s, Mr. Reed earned the respect of his peers including Manhattan Project member Edward Teller. In 1973, he was appointed as Assistant to the Secretary of Defense. Just a few years later, under President Gerald Ford's administration, Mr. Reed was named Secretary of the Air Force, a post he held until the beginning of President Carter's term in 1977. Throughout his life, Mr. Reed held many passions including writing and winemaking. What started as a small hobby growing wine grapes in Sonoma County's Alexander Valley would eventually transform into the renowned Clos du Bois Winery, which by the late 1980s, would sell more than 200,000 cases of wine per year. Mr. Reed is survived by his wife, Kay, his daughter, Carolyn Reed Ellis, his sons, Gordon Reed and Andrew Reed, and six grandchildren. While his patriotism and military service were instrumental in deterring the Soviet Union from deploying nuclear devices during the Cold War, Mr. Reed will also be remembered as a loving husband, father, and grandfather. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Thomas Reed was a dedicated public servant who will be missed and whose many contributions to the Sonoma County region and Nation are worthy of commendation. Therefore, it is fitting and proper that we honor his many contributions and express our deep condolences to his family and friends.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the honorable Judge Verna Adams as she becomes only the fourth recipient and first woman to accept the Marin County Bar Association's Lifetime Achievement Award. Verna grew up in the town of South Bend, Indiana, as the youngest of five siblings. Even at an early age, she knew that a law career was in her future. After graduating as the valedictorian from her high school, Verna received her bachelor of arts from Wellesley College in 1967. She enrolled at Columbia Law School for her first year before transferring to Stanford. During her time at Stanford, she interned with the legal branch of the California Farm Workers' Union, which was led by Cesar Chavez. Upon receiving her Juris Doctorate in 1970, Verna began working at a small law firm in San Francisco. Verna moved to Marin County in 1971 when she was offered a full-time role as an associate by a female-led firm, Diamond and Savitt. Her arrival made it the largest all-woman law firm in the nation. It was here that she would discover her passion for family law and community engagement. Verna served on the Board of Directors for Planned Parenthood and volunteered at Legal Aid of Marin, taking pro bono cases whenever she could. In 1986, Verna was among a small group of attorneys who founded the Family and Children's Law Center to provide low-cost legal services to those with family law issues, including those suffering from domestic abuse. Judge Adams was sworn in as a Judge of the Marin County Superior Court in 1999, marking the beginning of more than 24 years of service on the bench. During that time, she was elected by her fellow judges to serve as Presiding Judge and was selected by the Chief Justice of California as one of only nineteen judges to serve on the Strategic Evaluation Committee, entrusted with improving court administration across the state. Judge Adams' new role and responsibilities imbued her with the power to create meaningful change for self-represented litigants. She founded the Legal Self-Help Center of Marin, where those without attorneys could obtain assistance with filling out legal forms and gain general legal information. The center has provided for an immense need in Marin County. Judge Adams has dedicated her illustrious career to empowering some of the most marginalized people of our community--children, women, victims of domestic abuse, and anyone else who must traverse the legal system without legal representation--to access our justice system. When Judge Adams was first appointed to the bench, Marin had only one specialty court. Almost 25 years later, Judge Adams' leadership and advocacy for undeserved populations has led to the creation of three specialty courts for mental health, domestic violence, and drug use. Judge Adams' legacy is one of distinguished service to the County of Marin and worthy of distinction. Please join me in congratulating her as she accepts this prestigious lifetime achievement award and expressing our deep appreciation for her long and exceptional career and outstanding contributions to our legal system.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Doug Durham who passed away at the age of 94 on April 11, 2024. Doug served honorably in the United States Navy during the Korean War and continued his dedication to serving our country after leaving the service. Born in Reed City, Michigan on July 7, 1929, Doug served on the first ship to leave the United States for Korea, the USS Endicott DMS 25. On the Endicott, Doug took part in the mission to sweep mines in Hungnam Harbor and assist in the Christmas Miracle evacuation of 105,000 servicemembers from the Chosin reservoir. He was honored as a Humboldt Hero and was selected to participate in an Honor Flight to Washington, D.C. to see the memorials built to honor him and others that served. Doug continued to serve his country in the private sector after leaving the Navy. He was instrumental in the development of a groundbreaking missile detection system during his 30-year career at Lockheed. His contributions to this field were invaluable. He was a committed patriot, but his service to this country was not purely through national defense. Doug had a passion for volunteering. He devoted much of his time to the Humboldt Senior Resource Center, Area 1 Agency on Aging, the Ingomar Club Board, and the Historical Committee. When Alzheimer's claimed the life of Doug's spouse, Virginia, he established a caregiver support group to make sure that others had the help and training they needed to care for family members stricken by the disease. Doug was captivated by the beauty of our natural world and found solace in nature. He was an avid hunter and fisherman. He was a strong advocate for the protection of salmonids and worked tirelessly with CalTrout to push for the enactment of policies protecting these fish and their habitat. He was a master rosarian and taught classes on the cultivation of roses. He loved spending time with his many friends. His wit, humor, and kindness left an indelible mark on all he met. Doug is survived by his sister, Judy, and preceded in death by Virginia, his wife of 50 years, as well as his father, Jules, mother Harriette, stepmother Eleanor, and sister Georgia. He is remembered as a loving husband and brother, a community leader, a patriot, and a dear friend to all who knew him. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Doug Durham was a dedicated public servant who will be missed and whose many contributions to Humboldt County and the nation are worthy of commendation. Therefore, it is fitting and proper that we honor his many contributions and express our deep condolences to his family and friends.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman and associate myself with his opening remarks about this wrongheaded proposed amendment. We debated this last year. It failed on this floor with 278 ``no'' votes to 193 ``yes'' votes. Twenty-five Republicans voted ``no,'' but here we are again. Our friend from Arizona apparently thinks he knows more than our Department of Defense because they are not asking for this. Nevertheless, he thinks they should have it. Since the enactment of the Endangered Species Act over 50 years ago, the ESA has provided the framework for the U.S. Government's policy on endangered species. All agencies of the Federal Government, including Defense, should conserve threatened endangered species. It works just fine with the Department of Defense. This amendment undermines that commitment by amending the ESA to simply exclude an entire sector of our economy, the Department of Defense, from any requirements under the ESA. There is zero evidence that the ESA is negatively impacting military activities. In fact, the Department of Defense has a long history of working successfully to bring back endangered species from the brink of extinction. In fact, according to DOD, protecting military lands for endangered species is a critical piece of military readiness and training. For example, wildlife conservation on Army installations helps preserve rare natural landscapes necessary for the Army's training. They are preserving some of the best habitats we have for endangered species, and they have integrated endangered species into their training scenarios, treating endangered species and their habitat as things that cannot be damaged or destroyed during conflict, such as they would with churches or schools. The Army celebrates its role and leadership in recovering species, and this amendment significantly undermines that success. On the Barry M. Goldwater Range, which our friend from Arizona mentioned, the Marine Corps, Army, National Guard, Air Force, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Arizona Game and Fish Department are all partnering to support military training missions and recover the Sonoran pronghorn antelope. We don't have to choose between the two. Look, some in Congress just want to blow up the ESA completely. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to see this amendment for what it is. Vote ``no.''

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to make the following votes. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 179; NAY on Roll Call No. 180; NAY on Roll Call No. 181; NAY on Roll Call No. 182; YEA on Roll Call No. 183; NAY on Roll Call No. 184; NAY on Roll Call No. 185; and YEA on Roll Call No. 186.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for yielding, and I thank her for also actually reading the bill. Sometimes the truth matters in these debates. We have to take many things with a grain of salt. We have been lectured about national security from folks who just last week voted to deny aid to Ukraine. The pro-Putin caucus is actually lecturing us about national security. You have to take it all with a grain of salt or maybe with a glass of vodka in this particular case. In regard to this bill, the mining industry says they need this bill to provide regulatory clarity. Well, if it is clarity our colleagues across the aisle are seeking, this bill certainly delivers it because in the name of regulatory clarity, they would let any mining company do, essentially, whatever they want in any open area of public lands. We have our long-outdated Mining Law of 1872 that already gives more rights to miners than any other public land users by far. Under current law, as long as they have four stakes in the ground and keep up with their nominal annual fees, any open public lands are theirs for the taking. Of course, for our colleagues across the aisle, that is not enough. For the mining industry, it is never enough. Under this bill, the land that they are after wouldn't even need to have valuable minerals for miners to hold a valid mining claim. Under this bill, they actually don't even need to have a mining claim at all. This bill would allow any activity even slightly related to prospecting, exploration, discovery and assessment, development, extraction, or processing of minerals, regardless of whether that activity is carried out on a mining claim. It also waives any payment of fair market value for the use of public lands and resources for mining-related activities. My colleagues say they are interested in clarity. Let's be very clear what all of this means. If a mining corporation decided to build a large-scale power plant directly outside a national park to support their claim, they could do it under this bill. That same mining corporation could build a polluting processing plant right next to the power plant and suck the aquifers dry to support their mine, under this bill. They could build a network of pipelines and roads or anything else the mining company decides is ``necessary infrastructure'' across grazing areas or priority areas for renewable energy development or anything else they want. They could also permanently bury sacred sites near their mining claim. They could bury it in toxic waste under this bill. None of these tangential activities would have to go through the usual evaluation of public lands use because they would be given the same priority rights the mining industry already enjoys on public lands. If all of that wasn't enough, under this bill, the mining industry, or, frankly, any bad actor with a handful of dollars, could effectively block any other use of our public lands, like recreation, like natural carbon storage, access to traditional and cultural resources, renewable energy projects, or any number of other important uses. This bill says that anyone--and I do mean anyone--could do any so- called mining-related activities on or off a mining claim for a mere $10 per acre per year. This entire bill is one of the most egregious giveaways of our public lands and resources most of us have ever seen, and that is saying something because we have seen a lot of proposed giveaways from our friends across the aisle. Our public lands would become the mining industry's playground or dumping grounds as they see fit. There are other important uses for our public lands. Our public lands and waters should also be considered for solar, for wind, and for geothermal resources. This bill threatens to hand absolute control to mining companies and would jeopardize the crucial role public lands can play in responsible, renewable energy production, among other important uses. Our public lands serve as substantial carbon sinks, aiding both communities and ecosystems in adapting to the challenges brought on by the climate crisis that our friends ignore and deny. These lands should not belong to the mining industry and other exploitive actors. They should belong to all Americans. Our public lands deserve our protection. We need real reform of this antiquated mining law from 1872 to put other uses of our public lands on equal footing with the mining industry. We need to prioritize Tribal sovereignty, community input, and environmental protection to give Americans a fair return for their public minerals. The good news is, that bill already exists, and I am a proud cosponsor of ranking member Grijalva's Clean Energy Minerals Reform Act. It would do all of those important things. That is the bill we should be considering today. Instead, we have the bill before us that would double down on the mining law of 1872's worst ideas. This is the wrong move for a modern, sustainable mining industry, it is the wrong move for America, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again, instead of dealing with the real problems facing Americans every day, we are back on the House floor talking about the GOP agenda--guns, oil, and polluters. It is a relentless mission to wreak havoc on our planet and communities, but before we go into the merits of this bill, here is a dose of reality. Last year, as our Republican friends turned a blind eye, the global climate surpassed 2 degrees Celsius, a threshold that ought to be taken quite seriously. For the first time in recorded history, we passed this threshold, and that made it the hottest year on record. Experts have determined that a 2-degree rise in global temperatures will inarguably cause dangerous and cascading effects on humans and our planet. That hasn't stopped my colleagues across the aisle. It is as if the majority is playing a dangerous game of chicken with our environment, betting against Mother Nature. In the disaster department, 2023 was a showcase of calamity. We tallied up a staggering $63 billion in weather-related catastrophes. This includes 19 severe storms, 2 tropical cyclones, 4 floods, a winter weather event, a drought, and a wildfire event. It is as if Republicans were sitting on the front row with the popcorn in their hands, leaning over to ask their oil and gas buddies what they needed in addition to all the other giveaways they have received from the Republican majority. There is actually even more. In a display of unparalleled negligence, 2023 also came with 10 oil tanker spills because apparently the GOP agenda is also: Spill, baby, spill, and let the taxpayer foot the bill. We are not even talking yet about pipeline leaks. Every day in America, some aspect of this spiderweb of fossil fuel infrastructure is exploding, bursting, leaking, spilling. Last fall, there were almost 1.1 million gallons of crude oil released into the Gulf of Mexico, yet my friends across the aisle don't ever legislate about that or do oversight about that. Republican Members don't talk about it or acknowledge it. One has to wonder if my colleagues on the other side of the aisle even care about it. Here we are again with an effort to expand our Nation's carbon footprint and expose our coastal communities to future disasters and oil spills. Not only does this bill grant access to one of our most ecologically sensitive and difficult regions to productively drill, but it reverses significant strides by the Biden administration to protect lands that Tribal nations have occupied and held sacred since time immemorial. The Arctic refuge is one of the last truly wild places left in America, and the urgency to preserve the Arctic refuge transcends environmental concerns. It is a rallying cry against irreversible devastation and destruction, things that would fundamentally change and ruin this unique, fragile, and wild place. The coastal plain, which is the heart of the Porcupine caribou herd's calving grounds, hosts nearly 200 migratory bird species annually. Equally vital, the 9,000-strong Gwich'in Nation, whose subsistence and culture depend on the caribou herd, resides along the migratory route. This means that development in this area would disrupt not only biodiversity, but it would be an assault on their indigenous livelihoods and traditions. We have already seen how that plays out. In Nuiqsut, the Alaska Native village nearest to the Willow oil and gas project, 70 percent of households rely on subsistence resources for more than half of their diet. With the new Willow development, hunters are being forced to travel farther and farther to find resources and avoid hunting grounds that are now dominated by the fossil fuel industry. Rolling back NPR-A protections would make matters even worse. In the Bering Sea, which is home to many unique marine ecosystems and rich in indigenous cultures, sea ice is melting earlier and freezing later. This threatens access to subsistence hunting and fishing grounds. Any increased vessel traffic related to oil and gas development would further stress and create risk for an already vulnerable ecosystem. Exploiting these sensitive areas is equivalent to sacrificing those on the front lines of the climate crisis as martyrs in order to temporarily quench the insatiable thirst of Big Oil for money. Let's get one more thing clear. The drilling that would be green- lighted in this bill would not make us energy independent. The United States is already the number one producer of oil and gas in the world. We are exporting record amounts of fossil fuel, but consumers still get hit with price shocks anytime OPEC decides to raise prices or Russia starts a war in Europe because oil and gas are global commodities. Fossil fuel dependence is not true energy independence because you are always on the roller coaster. You are always subject to the whims of some cartel, somebody gaming the global commodity market, some explosion, some international event. If we want energy independence, we need a transition to clean energy, which is cheaper, safer, and generated entirely here at home, instead of being at the mercy of global price shocks like oil and gas. The Republican agenda is predictable, repetitive, and dangerous. They need to stop putting polluters over people. Enough is enough. We can no longer exploit our frontline communities and delicate ecosystems to pad the pockets of the fossil fuel industries and its GOP cronies. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate my colleague's love of tennis, our mutual love of tennis and his sense of humor. I have less appreciation when he draws tortured analogies to international sanctions and national security issues. It is just hard to take that kind of sanctimony seriously from somebody who just last week voted, along with the majority of the House Republican Conference, to hand Ukraine over to Vladimir Putin. As I often say in these debates, you have to take a lot of this political theater with a grain of salt, in this case, with a glass of vodka. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alaska (Mrs. Peltola).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a master class in deflection. I think perhaps the fact that a majority of the Republican Conference voted to hand Ukraine to Russia last week has touched a nerve as people have begun to consider the reality of that. Going back and trying to deflect to a pipeline from many years ago that no longer even functions, because it was blown up, certainly doesn't change the fact that last week when we had a chance to vote for critical lifeline military support for Ukraine as it fights for its survival against Russia, a significant majority of my colleagues across the aisle voted ``no.'' They voted with Vladimir Putin and so congratulations on the deflection. Moscow Marge couldn't have done it any better. It might even make the highlight reel on RT tonight. I don't watch that network, but I just have to wonder if maybe there wouldn't be coverage of some of these things that we are hearing from across the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is getting almost comical. I have now heard yet another speech pretending to oppose Vladimir Putin and Russia less than a week after the gentleman who just spoke voted to hand Ukraine over to Putin, voted ``no'' on essential military aid to our Ukrainian allies who are fighting for their very existence against this terrible war of aggression by Vladimir Putin made possible and financed, of course, by the fossil fuel industry in Russia, which American oil and gas companies truly helped to develop. You just have to wonder if there is not a lot of damage control underway right now across the aisle. Maybe folks realize just how reckless and dangerous that vote against Ukraine was last week, that vote that a majority, solid majority of my Republican friends took right along with Moscow Marge and the rest of the pro-Putin caucus. I am going to keep bringing this up each time I hear one of these anti-Ukraine voters pretend to care about Ukraine or pretend to oppose Vladimir Putin and Russia because last week they had a chance to actually show their colors, and we saw their colors. There is another way in which they are really doing a great favor to Vladimir Putin and Russia, and it is by opposing the clean energy transition at every turn and in every possible way. Vladimir Putin's worst nightmare is to break the fossil fuel paradigm that made him rich and powerful, that enabled him to have all this influence and leverage over Europe because a clean energy economy would make him irrelevant. It would make him a lot less powerful. Go ahead and keep helping Vladimir Putin with your votes, with your energy policy, but we are going to stand for a clean energy transition, and we are going to support Ukraine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentleman from Washington for his refreshingly rare vote for Ukraine military aid and also the chairman, Mr. Westerman, for joining Democrats in that very important vote in the interests of our national security. I think, as we continue with this debate, it is worth talking about just what a fiscal and financial boondoggle drilling in the Arctic refuge is. It is, first of all, a proposition that is so deeply unpopular that the only way it became law was to sneak it into the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Trump tax scam. Two lease sales were included in the legislation to partly offset tax cuts for the wealthy. Initially, Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration claimed that these lease sales would bring in $1.8 billion in revenues for the Federal Government and the State of Alaska through bonus bids, and they proceeded to give a whole bunch of tax cuts away to billionaires and corporations on the basis of this illusory offset. Later, the Congressional Budget Office lowered the estimate to $900 million, specifically $725 million for the first lease sale. Fast forward to the first lease sale that finally took place in 2021 in the final days of the Trump administration. Guess what happened? Well, it generated less than $15 million--not billion--in bonus bids, around 2 percent of what even CBO's reduced estimate had projected. In 2022, two of those lessees actually asked BLM to cancel and refund their leases. They wanted out. Separately in 2021, two development companies, Chevron and Hilcorp, paid $10 million to get out, just to walk away from their legacy leases in the Arctic refuge. At least five major U.S. banks and 18 other international banks have said they won't finance drilling in the refuge. If my Republican colleagues are interested in Federal revenues, if they are interested in fiscal conservatism, I am sorry to say that the pristine Alaska wilderness is not their piggy bank, and, in any event, it turns out that it is empty. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I sometimes feel like, serving in this Congress, I need a good chiropractor because you just political whiplash one day to another, one week to another. Just now, my friend from Louisiana, in service of the fossil fuel agenda, made a sanctimonious speech opposing Russia and Vladimir Putin as if the whole country, the whole world, didn't watch his vote last week with the rest of his Republican Conference to hand Ukraine over to Russia, to vote ``no'' on critical military aid to Ukraine. It is like that. It is remarkable whiplash. My friend has the ability to actually criticize the air quality in California caused by catastrophic wildfires driven by the climate crisis caused by our fossil fuel addiction and suggests that that is because of California's climate agenda, which is absurd, while ignoring the fact that the one place of persistent air pollution and respiratory illness and other problems with air quality in California is in the oil patch, Bakersfield, former Speaker McCarthy's district where it is frankly a lot like Louisiana and Texas. It is pretty rich. Yet, we also have a Record if anybody is interested in cutting through the political theater and seeing where people really stand, including last week's vote against Ukraine. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that if our friends across the aisle are so concerned with American energy bills, you would think they would at some point say no to the LNG export extravaganza that all serious economic analysis shows is driving up U.S. energy prices. Yet, they continue to come to this floor to introduce legislation and advocate against the commonsense pause that the Biden administration has taken so that we can look at the impacts of more LNG export infrastructure on U.S. energy prices as well as our climate crisis. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the gentleman from Arkansas talk about energy subsidies and to criticize the subsidies that he believes should be questioned for clean energy. I hope he has the same concern about the much greater amount of subsidy, especially if you consider all the environmental externalities that taxpayers just pick up the tab for and have for the past hundred years when it comes to the fossil fuel industry. There is a lot of work we could do together to take inappropriate subsidies out of U.S. energy policy, and I hope the gentleman would be interested in that. I want to assure him when it comes to the forestry and trees and air quality part of our conversation that the wildfires and the air quality problems in California, because of them, are not something you can log your way out of. I know the gentleman is interested in forest management, and there is a lot that we could work on there together as well for healthy forests. Some of the worst wildfires in California that produced the worst air quality were through heavily cutover land where there had been all the clear-cutting anybody could ever want. The same can be said for some of the terrible Canadian wildfires last year that gave us awful air quality right here in Washington, D.C. Much of that ripped right through heavily cutover, clear-cut land. Logging, you know, is not the simple solution to these problems. A better solution is to step back and realize the climate crisis that is driving it and to begin working together to actually reduce the worst impacts of that crisis. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close as well and yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I oppose this bill. We have massive wildfires, prolonged droughts, stronger hurricanes, and coastal flooding. All across this country, our communities are feeling the increased severity and frequency of tragic events from the climate crisis, sending us dire warnings. The crisis is real, it is here, and we need to act now for the sake of this planet and future generations. In the Arctic, temperatures are rising four times faster than the global average. In the indigenous communities in northern Alaska who are so disproportionately facing the devastating impacts of the climate crisis, we must also pay attention to the impacts on them. The melting permafrost is creating our country's first but not last climate refugees. Changing species migration patterns are threatening food security and cultural continuity. Oil and gas development only exacerbates all of these impacts. Of course, not all Alaskans, including indigenous Alaskans, share the same perspective on oil and gas development. Native American Tribes are not a monolith. You can bet that whenever my friends across the aisle can find some indigenous individual or advocacy group or other entity that supports oil and gas development, they are going to wrap themselves around Tribal consultation and pretend to be great champions for Indian Country. In many other votes, when Indian Country opposes pipelines and dams and mining projects and other things that are against their interests, I am afraid the Tribes are thrown under the bus by my Republican friends pretty much every time. Revenue from extraction often supports local governments and indigenous regional and village corporations. That is part of the consideration in Alaska, but in so many cases, the tradeoffs create unacceptable impacts as well. That is why it is not a monolith when you talk to indigenous communities in Alaska. This bill is an instrument of blunt force that allows for extraction across Alaska in places that are too special and too fragile to drill. It would reinstate oil and gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area known to the Gwich'in people as ``The sacred place where life begins.'' These were leases the Biden administration canceled because they were based on shoddy Trump-era analyses. The bill would withdraw the administration's rule to protect over 13 million acres of public land in the NPR-A, a region that is already feeling the impacts of oil and gas development. It would undo protection of 125 million acres of the Arctic Ocean from offshore drilling, and it would undo the reinstatement of the Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area. In the Bering Sea, an oil spill would be beyond detrimental. It would be catastrophic. Rolling back these protections is the wrong approach. We can't simply give these lands and waters away to the highest bidder. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We have a process problem. Last week, the Rules Committee issued a notice for amendment submission for this bill, and 16 amendments were submitted: 12 from Democrats, 4 from Republicans. We really should be having an open, robust, and lively debate, but no. The amendment debate this afternoon will be really quick because all six Natural Resources bills up this week, with all six of those bills, this is the only bill that was open to any amendments, and Republicans made only one, this one, this fossil fuel industry wish. That was the only one made in order. Republicans have made a mockery of what they promised, and they boasted about back in the early days of this Congress. They guaranteed it would be a robust and open process. Half the time, the Rules Committee isn't even open, but when it is, it is cooking the books like we see this week with this one single amendment for us to debate. With other bills that have been up this afternoon, the so-called Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, my colleague, Representative Leger Fernandez, filed several amendments, amendments that Ranking Member Grijalva previously offered at the bill's markup. They would prevent foreign bad actors, for example, including adversaries like China from mining our Federal lands, something that is all too common today through their thinly veiled American subsidiaries, but no, that was not ruled in order, so we don't get to talk about it. Yesterday at the Rules Committee hearing, Chair Westerman told us he didn't accept the amendment because it wasn't worded properly. Well, this language was already in the Republicans' prized H.R. 1 where it was included as a Republican amendment, so it is hard to take that argument seriously. Maybe they realized H.R. 1 would never become law and that is why more than a year later, Republicans still haven't sent that bill even to the Senate, or maybe they realized foreign bad actors also happen to be padding their pockets. If that is not the case, I am eager to continue working across the aisle to get these bad actors off our Federal lands, and we will be following up. Now, back to Alaska. The amendment we are here to debate would do nothing but make the bill more extreme. It would prevent the administration from designating any further special areas without an act of Congress, preventing further protections for an area that is so fragile, special, and ecologically important. They blocked debate on every other amendment, including my amendment to require a study on the impacts to subsistence resources, another to prohibit the Secretary from issuing the lease sale until revenue is raised at least to the level that CBO estimates, and one to prohibit oil and gas leasing in the Arctic Ocean. Representative Peltola, the sole House Representative for Alaska, filed an amendment to protect the critically important Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area, but Republicans refused to let that proceed. This is not good faith debate. I will end with a word about my friend's statement that he asked Secretary Haaland repeatedly about Tribal consultation. My friend would have been well-served to listen to Secretary Haaland and learn a thing or two about Tribal consultation. She is the highest-ranking indigenous person in American history. She knows a thing or two about this subject, including the fact that a nonprofit advocacy group, which is the consultation that my friend was referring to, is not a group she has to meet with or consult as part of Tribal consultation. Tribal consultation is government to government. That is how it works. If there was a little more listening and a little less screaming and table-pounding, there might be a better understanding of Tribal consultation across the aisle. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.