Jared Huffman

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Linda Jacobs for her more than four decades of extraordinary public service as a nonprofit leader. From an early age in Coral Gables, Florida, Linda's parents demonstrated the importance of community service, serving as volunteers for their Jewish congregation and youth sports. As a young adult, Linda herself was an outspoken advocate for the green party, the women's movement, and civil rights. She earned a Bachelor of Fine Arts from the University of South Florida and soon after moving to San Francisco in 1978, joined the Breakthrough Foundation, a nonprofit that won national acclaim for helping change the trajectory of at-risk youth. During her seven-year tenure at the organization, Linda established funding for scholarships to cover all participating youth. This was the start of a long career building and strengthening nonprofits in the Bay Area. Linda's work in Marin County began in the early 1990s and includes a breadth and depth of professional roles, including as the development director for Marin Child Care Council; the development and public affairs director for Planned Parenthood of Marin, Sonoma, and Mendocino; and executive director of the Mill Valley Chamber of Commerce. In 2002, she joined the Volunteer Center of Marin as their chief executive officer. She went on to transform the organization first into the Center for Volunteer and Nonprofit Leadership (CVNL) and later extended its reach into Sonoma County, Napa County, and Solano County. For decades, Linda led CVNL with an unwavering belief in the power of the nonprofit system, expanding key programs such as the Heart of Marin Awards, strengthening volunteer engagement, and developing partnerships that elevated local nonprofits across the region. She supported communities during turbulent and uncertain times, from the pandemic and wildfires to funding cuts, and developed critical scholarships to allow nonprofits of all sizes and budgets to take advantage of the opportunities offered by CVNL. A mentor to hundreds of nonprofit leaders, Linda is known as a fierce advocate, steady in the face of uncertainty and strategic in her long- term vision. She has served on the Board of Directors for the School to Career Partnership, Marin Economic Forum, and the Points of Light Assembly. She is also the former Board Chair of the California Association of Nonprofits, a former appointee to the Marin County Women's Commission, and past President of the Marin National Organization for Women. In recognition of her tireless work supporting nonprofits, Linda was inducted into the Marin Women's Hall of Fame in 2010, among other honors and awards acquired over the years. Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege and honor to work with Linda over the course of her notable career. She is a smart, generous and impactful person and leaves an indelible positive impact on Northern California and all those nonprofits and volunteers she supported and inspired throughout her career. I respectfully ask that you join me in expressing heartfelt gratitude to Linda for her generosity of spirit, innumerable good deeds, and in sending her best wishes on her next endeavors.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor San Domenico School in San Anselmo, California, as it celebrates its 175th Anniversary, marking an extraordinary milestone for one of California's oldest independent schools and one of the longest standing educational institutions in the West. Founded in 1850 by the Dominican Sisters, San Domenico began as a small girls' day school in Monterey before relocating to Benicia and ultimately establishing its permanent home in San Anselmo. Through every chapter of California's history, from statehood to the present day, San Domenico has demonstrated a commitment to academically rigorous education grounded in service, community, and character development. Today, San Domenico serves students from kindergarten through 12th grade, offering both day and boarding programs. The school is nationally recognized for its forward-looking academics, robust arts and athletics programs, award winning music and debate teams, environmental stewardship initiatives, and a longstanding dedication to fostering global citizenship. Generations of alumni have gone on to become leaders, innovators, and changemakers. Mr. Speaker, throughout its history, San Domenico has remained steadfast in its mission to prepare young people for lives of purpose and compassion. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating San Domenico School on its remarkable 175 years of educational leadership, and in extending our best wishes for its continued success in nurturing generations of thoughtful, courageous, and community minded young people.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to make the following vote. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 181.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Rick Lafranchi, who passed away on April 13, 2026. A beloved cheesemaker, coach, and community leader, Rick was a positive force for many. Rick was the second oldest of six siblings in the Lafranchi family of Nicasio, a multigenerational ranching family whose roots date to his grandfather's immigration from Maggia, Switzerland and the founding the Lafranchi Dairy in 1919. He helped establish and serve as the public face of the award winning Nicasio Valley Cheese Company, a farmstead creamery cofounded with his brother Scott in 2010 and renowned for its production of organic cheeses. Rick often spoke about the importance of protecting West Marin's working landscapes, and he matched those words with action through his service on the board of the Marin Agricultural Land Trust (MALT), including as chair from 2012 to 2014. He credited MALT's conservation tools with helping his family expand its pasture and build the family's creamery. Long before cheesemaking, Rick invested in the development of future generations as a high school baseball coach at his alma mater, Archie Williams High School. He also owned and operated a local video rental store franchise, Silver Screen Videos, which became neighborhood fixtures in the North Bay. Mr. Speaker, Rick Lafranchi is survived by his wife Debby, his children, Christie and Rick, as well as his grandchildren. I respectfully ask that you join me in honoring his extraordinary life and in extending our deepest condolences to his family, friends, colleagues, and customers who remember him for his character and kindness.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of geothermal energy, we are sure hearing a lot of hot air from the other side with this fantastical narrative that Republicans, I guess, are now lowering costs and saving healthcare. The American people can decide whether they want to believe those whoppers, but today it is at least refreshing to see our colleagues across the aisle tiptoeing back in the direction of this all-of-the- above energy policy that they always swore they supported. Yet, for the past year-plus they have been cheerleaders for Donald Trump's insane war on clean energy that is trying to destroy an entire sector, to surrender American leadership to China and others, and drive up utility bills for the American people. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that we are talking today about geothermal energy. Like the gentlewoman from Arizona, the ranking member, I like geothermal energy a lot. This is something that we should be working on together in a bipartisan way. I represent the largest geothermal energy plant in America in my district, and I am proud of it. I want to see more of it. Good geothermal energy projects can move forward with bipartisan support and with very expeditious permitting, but good geothermal energy projects don't need the kind of sweeping waiver that is proposed in this legislation, which simply misses the mark. Let's talk about that. Under this bill, a geothermal project would no longer require a Federal drilling permit if it is on land where the surface is not federally owned, but the subsurface is significantly, up to 50 percent of the acreage. While this may sound innocuous--oh, it is just subsurface; it is below what we can see with our eyes--without a Federal permit, the core safeguards for development affecting Federal resources would totally disappear. That includes protections under the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Endangered Species Act. All of it would be waived for geothermal exploration, development, and the production activities that would be covered under this bill. That goes entirely too far. It is bad news for Tribes, communities, and property owners on the ground. Again, good projects don't need this kind of sweeping free pass from environmental review. Under the circumstances laid out in this bill, all Federal oversight goes away, along with public input and consultation requirements, and that includes Tribal consultation. It takes away opportunities for public involvement that can make projects better. It takes away the convening process that brings Federal, Tribal, State, and local entities to the table so they can identify basic health and safety risks, flag concerns, and work through conflicts and impacts to protect the resources that are owned by the American people, even if they are below the ground, even if they are not something you can see with the naked eye. This public input and compliance with Federal laws, like NEPA and others, is essential to building a solid foundation for our clean energy future. We need these types of energy projects, but we need to do them right because, let's be clear, underground drilling can still have impacts above the ground, like sinking, subsidence, settlement of lands, earthquakes, and on other resources like groundwater. Geothermal development is a lot safer than oil and gas, but there still are some risks--it is not zero--and the public deserves the opportunity to engage. I will say that this bill is also playing games with percentages. The threshold is set at 50 percent Federal subsurface ownership, and that may sound trivial. It may sound reasonable, but even my rudimentary math skills tell me that 50 percent of a project that might be 2,000 acres is 1,000 acres. That is a lot of land. That is a lot of potential impacts. It is not insignificant. Another alarming point about this bill, without a Federal drilling permit, it creates a gray area for underground injection control permits, which allow for the assessment of potential seismic activity. How could we not look at that? These injection control permits aren't in our Natural Resources Committee's jurisdiction. This is something that I brought up in the markup. I urged the majority to consider working with the Energy and Commerce Committee to add clarifying language to make sure those permits would still be required. Unfortunately, the majority failed to address that concern. There is no clear opportunity to require bonds if this legislation passes that would otherwise need to happen because we are talking about Federal resources. What happens if there is a subsidence event within the Federal resource? States and property owners would be on the hook. We are talking about publicly owned resources here, even if you can't see them, and the Federal Government has an obligation to steward them responsibly. The last thing I will emphasize is that this bill is clearly not just about geothermal energy. This is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. The oil and gas industry has been trying to get this same policy, this same broad waiver, for subsurface Federal lands for years. This is a precedent we should not set. Mark my words: If this legislation advances before this sputtering Congress comes to an end later this year, you will see another bill where the oil and gas industry is seeking the same treatment. To deploy clean energy, we don't need to create shortcuts and exemptions from oversight. What we need is to fully fund our agencies so that they can have the capacity for thorough, efficient, and timely reviews. I would be happy to work with my colleagues across the aisle to advance responsible and well-balanced geothermal and other renewable energy development on Federal lands, but I have to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this poorly drafted legislation.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Paul Heavenridge who passed away on December 10, 2025. Paul devoted his career to improving the quality of life for the community of Petaluma and the extended North Bay. Paul founded and led Literacyworks, a Petaluma-based nonprofit established to expand literacy for adults and families to provide dynamic resources and pathways for lifelong learning. Under his stewardship, Literacyworks supported adult learners with practical, research-based tools and partnerships that improved educational access, workforce readiness, and family wellbeing. In 2015, Paul helped launch the Literacyworks Center at Santa Rosa Junior College--a model program providing scholarships and wraparound support for nontraditional and economically disadvantaged students. Paul's commitment to improving literacy extended beyond Literacyworks. He served as a Sonoma County Library Commissioner to support public libraries and equitable access to reading, learning, and information, characteristics he deemed essential for community health. Through Literacyworks AmeriCorps, Paul also championed statewide library-led literacy initiatives, partnering with the California State Library's California Library Literacy Services to strengthen capacity at libraries throughout the state. These initiatives helped coordinate programming, training, and day-to-day support so local literacy programs could thrive. Beyond classrooms and computer labs, Paul served his community on the Friends of the Petaluma River board, helping steward a treasured local waterway through conservation, education, and public events. Mr. Speaker, Paul Heavenridge believed that literacy is a gateway to work, independence, and a fuller life, and he dedicated his career to making that gateway wider for everyone. I respectfully ask that you join me in honoring his extraordinary life and in extending our deepest condolences to his family, friends, colleagues, and the many learners whose futures were brightened by his work.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Trisha Garlock, who passed away on January 15, 2026. Trisha was a visionary leader and tireless champion for equitable access to high-quality public education. Born in Bakersfield, California, Trisha's parents instilled in her a deep respect for education and public service. She earned a Bachelor of Arts from Stanford University and a master's degree from the University of Michigan, where she met her husband, Jim. In 1982, Trisha and her neighbor Penny Weiss founded the Mill Valley Schools Community Foundation, later renamed ``Kiddo!,'' to preserve arts and music in the school district. What began as an urgent stopgap to backfill state cuts to public education became a community institution focused on supplemental funding for Mill Valley public schools. She served as the foundation's executive director for 32 years. helping it evolve from a grassroots effort into a nationally recognized model that raised millions annually to support enrichment for our schools. In response to disparities in school funding in Marin County, Trisha then helped co-found and lead SchoolsRule, a countywide collaboration of public-school foundations focused on equitable funding for every student. Under her leadership, SchoolsRule brought together community partners and donors to invest in arts, literacy, technology, and student wellness, distributing support so that each student in Marin could benefit. Trisha's leadership and legacy have been widely recognized. She was inducted into the Marin Women's Hall of Fame in 2018 for her decades of work strengthening public education countywide. Mr. Speaker, Trisha Garlock believed that every child deserves a full and rich education, and she spent more than four decades working toward that goal. I respectfully ask that you join me in honoring Trisha's extraordinary life and extending our deepest condolences to her family, friends, colleagues, and the many students whose lives were enriched by her work.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the College of Marin on the momentous occasion of its centennial anniversary and in appreciation for a century of quality education provided to the communities of Marin County and the Bay Area. Over the last 100 years, College of Marin has served as a cornerstone of higher education in Marin County, providing accessible opportunities to students of diverse social and economic backgrounds. Founded in 1926 as the Marin Junior College, the school was the product of a Tamalpais Union High School District college initiative supported by the San Rafael High School District and established by popular vote. The Tamalpais Union High School District leased the 13-acre Butler tract in Kentfield, establishing the campus, which would grow into more than 400 acres across multiple campuses. The Marin Junior College's first class of 87 students began with six faculty members in 1926 under the leadership of president A.C. Olney. Throughout the 1930s, the campus grew, acquiring more property and continuing to expand its arts and athletics programs. During World War II, Marin Junior College offered military support and training, including courses at the Hamilton Army Airfield. In 1948 it was renamed the College of Marin. Responding to growing national interest in more comprehensive, personalized education, the College began a new expansion initiative in the 1960s. By 1962, enrollment had grown to 2,500 students and in 1971, the school established its Indian Valley campus in Novato. Today, the College of Marin offers 469 degrees and certificates. This includes their workforce development programs that support employment in critical, high-demand fields like healthcare and skilled trades. The school continues to adapt and innovate to provide programs best tailored to support a diversity of students, including undocumented, first generation, and older adult students. College of Marin also boasts the highest transfer acceptance rate for the University of California Berkeley with approximately 40 percent of applicants admitted in the past two years. Beyond its students, the school's impact on California's economy is undeniable, including providing nearly 800 jobs and $9 million in tax revenue. The College of Marin has been a pioneering institution in our region, renowned for its strong dedication to student success and equity for decades. The College of Marin Foundation offers over 150 scholarships annually and last year announced the establishment of the Jay Pritzker Foundation Centennial Endowment Fund, a $20 million fund to support students' critical non-tuition related expenses, including healthcare, childcare, computers, and food. A vital institution of higher learning for the Bay Area, the College of Marin is worthy of the highest commendation. Mr. Speaker, please join us in recognizing the College of Marin on the occasion of its 100th anniversary and offering the College our best wishes for another century of success.

Mr. HUFFMAN

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

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. About this best available science, just to be very clear, best available science is what wildlife managers have to do right now. If they don't, any regulation that they promulgate involving lead tackle or lead ammunition restrictions is going to be invalidated and will mean nothing. What this poorly written legislation would do, though, is substitute a brand-new scientific standard that we have never seen. We have no idea what it really means. It would have a narrow exception to allow restrictions on lead ammunition or tackle on specific units of land if the applicable Secretary determines that: ``A decline in wildlife population at the specific unit of Federal land or water is primarily caused by the use of lead in ammunition or tackle, based on the field data from the specific unit of the Federal land or water.'' These are very new and ambiguous terms. A simple reading would suggest you have to do a complete forensic analysis that would, in the real world, make this standard totally unattainable. It would effectively mean you would never be able to regulate lead ammunition or tackle, even when it was forcing the closure of hunting and fishing in our National Wildlife Refuge System. As the National Wildlife Refuge Association has pointed out, this is an impossible standard because population monitoring data is not available at the unit scale in most cases. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot today about hunters and anglers, but let's talk about what this bill actually does. First, it is bad for wildlife. It strips our land managers of the tools they need to limit lead, a known neurotoxin, on our public lands and waters, putting the recovery of species like the bald eagle, our national symbol, and the California condor at great risk of further loss and potentially extinction. We cannot claim to support wildlife while handcuffing the people tasked with managing it. My colleagues across the aisle talk constantly about States' rights and keeping the Federal Government out of local decisions. Then they bring a bill like this that amounts to a Federal mandate preempting, overriding, State laws on behalf of the gun lobby. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and California have already banned lead ammunition or tackle in some cases to limit lead and protect wildlife. This bill would throw all of that into legal limbo. Land managers wouldn't even know whether they can honor these State laws. This bill also harms the very people it claims to champion: our hunters and anglers. It creates a direct conflict with the Endangered Species Act in ways that would force the Fish and Wildlife Service to close off public lands currently open to fishing and hunting. It does all of this for a problem that doesn't even exist. Lead-free alternatives are widely available and cost about the same in most cases for the most popular calibers. They have been working since 1991. Fewer places to hunt and fish does not grow the outdoor economy, and the places that have sensibly restricted lead tackle and ammunition have not seen a reduction in hunting and fishing. The people who actually use these lands--our hunters, anglers, and families--are among the strongest conservationists in this country. We agree on that. The last thing they need is for Congress to do favors for the gun lobby at the expense of these lands and wildlife that they love. We banned lead from gasoline, from paint, and from children's toys. I don't think anyone in this Chamber would argue for putting lead back in any of those circumstances, but House Republicans are asking us, through this bill, to guarantee the sacred place of lead in our wildlife refuges. The people and the wildlife who depend on healthy public lands would pay the price for that. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to see this bill for what it is, a step backward for our environment and our economy, and vote ``no'' on H.R. 556. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points. First of all, Federal wildlife managers under current law already have to follow the best available science. If they were to issue lead ammunition regulations randomly, arbitrarily, in a way that contravenes science, they would find themselves immediately in court, and those actions would be overturned. In terms of deference to State law and State wildlife managers, I certainly agree with the gentleman on that. The problem is that many States have actually taken steps to restrict lead ammunition and tackle. This bill is so poorly written that it is not clear whether Federal wildlife managers could continue to comply with those State laws or whether they would have to ignore them and continue to allow lead in those cases. Those are several reasons why this bill, in addition to the policy problems I have highlighted, is technically not ready for prime time. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are on day 19 of Trump's illegal war of choice with Iran. So far, 13 American servicemembers are dead, and 200 more are wounded. Gas prices have surged 80 cents a gallon just in the last 3 weeks. Grocery bills are climbing. Oil is over $100 a barrel. The Strait of Hormuz is effectively closed. Mr. Speaker, what is it, in the face of this chaos and calamity, that the United States House of Representatives has chosen to do this week: debate a bill about lead ammunition in our Nation's wildlife refuges. Mr. Speaker, we should consider the iconic national symbol of the bald eagle when we talk about this subject. Every year, bald eagles across America die. They drop out of the sky in some cases because they ate carcasses and remains that were laced with lead fragments. Bald eagles are not alone. Lead poisoning has been documented in over 130 species: the common loon, condors, trumpeter swans, many species of ducks, and even some mammals. For species already struggling on the brink of extinction, each piece of spent ammunition or lost fishing tackle left in the environment is another potential lethal dose of lead. We banned lead from gasoline. We banned it from paint. We banned it from children's toys. We did that because lead is a known lethal neurotoxin that never breaks down. That same lead in the form of spent ammunition or lost fishing tackle can kill wildlife, and it does so on our public lands and waters right now, in some cases at levels that are far too high. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are proposing a bill that would make this a lot worse. H.R. 556 would block Federal land managers from using commonsense, science-based safeguards, when necessary, to protect wildlife from lead poisoning on Federal lands and waters. The bill does have an exception, at least technically or hypothetically. Agencies can act when a species decline is ``primarily caused'' by lead. That evidentiary requirement and the standard that goes with it, the way this bill is written, is going to be impossible to meet. The bill demands site-specific field data for each individual unit of land, ignoring decades of peer-reviewed science and imposing costs that most land units, already stretched thin by Trump's budget cuts, simply cannot afford. States are already moving to protect wildlife in many cases. Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont banned lead tackle to protect loon populations. California banned lead ammunition to protect the California condor. However, this bill creates a very murky legal landscape that would undermine these safeguards, replacing State laws and policies with a Federal mandate written by and for the gun lobby. Most concerning, this bill claims to protect access for hunters and anglers. Yet, in reality, the bill could result in less access for some of America's biggest conservationists. The legislation conflicts with the Endangered Species Act and with a 2022 settlement governing hunting and fishing in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Mr. Speaker, even under the Trump administration, the Fish and Wildlife Service issued targeted lead restrictions in eight refuges, specifically to open new hunting and fishing opportunities near sensitive Endangered Species Act-listed wildlife species. Yet, if this bill is enacted, the Fish and Wildlife Service would have to close those sensitive areas for hunting and fishing entirely to comply with the ESA. That is going to leave hunters and anglers with fewer places to fish and hunt. Transitioning away from lead is a step toward a more sustainable future for the sport. We saw this in 1991 when the Federal Government phased out lead shot for duck hunting. The gun lobby said at the time all the same things that it is saying now: This will kill the sport. People will be priced out. It will be the end of a way of life. It was nonsense. It was wrong in every case. Waterfowl populations rebounded, giving duck hunters more opportunities, more birds, and more places to hunt. Proponents of this bill often claim banning lead will price out hunters and anglers, but the data tells a very different story. An analysis of 86 different bullet calibers and cartridge sizes found no significant price difference between lead-free and lead-core ammunition in popular calibers. Switching to non-lead tackle can add less than 1 percent to the average angler's total annual cost. In the handful of refuges that do restrict lead to protect endangered species and to make sure that they can continue hunting and fishing, the Fish and Wildlife Service already offers vouchers and programs providing free or low-cost ammunition and tackle to hunters and anglers. Congress should always remember that our public lands belong to the American people, not to the NRA and the gun lobby. H.R. 556 imposes a Federal mandate to allow the spread of a known lethal toxin across our Nation's wildlife refuges, waterways, and the habitats that our children will inherit. My colleagues must reject this bill and let public land managers make the tough calls and do their jobs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think we have figured out the rhythm, the prime directive here for Republican governance these days. First, they slashed the services that working families actually depend on. Then they turn around and hand the savings over to their billionaire friends. They do it time and again. It is rinse, lather, repeat. What do we have on the floor this week? We have all guessed it. It is another corporate handout, this time to the biggest technical oligarchs in the world. These folks have shown that if a person has enough money and if they are willing to bend the knee, they can pretty much get anything they want these days under MAGA Republican governance. Every time we have tried to add protections and regulations to their platforms that would keep users and children safe, they stop it. Every time we try to do something about the disinformation they allow to run rampant in order to appease the White House and cater to extremists, they stop it. Now they have schmoozed their way into getting Republicans to add another huge giveaway to this long, favored list of theirs. That means millions of dollars in savings so that they can run cables through our national marine sanctuaries for free. I have to ask: What is the endgame here? Where does it stop? Are we systematically privatizing every piece of America's national heritage for the richest and most powerful corporations in the world? That is exactly where H.R. 261 seems to be taking us. It rigs the game so that, for example, family fishing operations, dive boat captains, whale watching guides, and the other businesses that operate in marine sanctuaries have to navigate regulations. They have to play by the rules and pay fees but not the Big Tech oligarchs. These conglomerates, worth hundreds of billions of dollars, get special treatment and exemptions. Our national marine sanctuaries encompass over half a million square miles of America's most precious underwater ecosystems. They are economic engines generating billions in tourism revenue, sustaining entire coastal economies. They are living laboratories also where families snorkel with sea turtles, divers explore historic shipwrecks, and scientists unlock climate secrets. This legislation would let tech moguls bulldoze right through these waters with industrial-scale operations--massive drill rigs, heavy machinery, and construction fleets--all without the environmental review that everyone else would have to undergo. The sponsors insist that these undersea cables are just little needles in a haystack, and they will probably hold up a little segment of one of these cables to try to suggest these are just needles in a haystack. It is true that the fiber-optic lines themselves are thin, but the installation process is anything but delicate. We are talking about seafloor excavation projects that can obliterate coral reefs and hurt marine mammals across vast swaths of the ocean. What could go wrong when these projects are happening on the seafloor? We can look at what Meta tried to do off the Pacific Northwest coast. Their drilling operation collapsed, scattering pipes, toxic fluids, and heavy equipment across the seafloor like an underwater junkyard. Then the company just wrote a tiny check and left town. It was nowhere near the cost of the actual damage that was incurred, and the marine habitat there is still trashed. My district is home to one of our Nation's iconic marine sanctuaries. I can say without hesitation that my constituents don't want to see these industrial activities rip through our sensitive kelp forests that support fisheries and tourism. No project in these places should happen without very careful study, without mitigation and, most importantly, without paying their fair share. This bill would let tech executives treat these national treasures off our coasts like some kind of an industrial sacrifice zone without even paying a cent for the use of these resources. The National Marine Sanctuaries Act is the only statute requiring compatibility with the conservation objectives of each sanctuary. If we strip that away, as this bill would do, we have created a regulatory sacrifice zone. House Republicans can't even identify which licenses and permits would qualify in this bill in lieu of the special use permit process that would ordinarily apply. Mr. Speaker, how can we look the American people in the eye and assure them that no environmental safeguards are going away when we don't even have that very basic information? For many in the majority, the truth is, the details just don't matter. Meta and Amazon are what matter, and they want this legislation. The majority is willing to take it at face value and just pass this along, no questions asked. They will give the oligarchs what they want. Democrats have proposed amendments to this legislation, commonsense protections. They have proposed a mandatory insurance coverage requirement, for example. They have also offered off-limits zones for very sensitive habitats and standard user fees like these oligarchs pay when they run one of these on land. Our amendment would have allowed the basics of H.R. 261 to move forward, allowing an alternate process to the current special use permit, while preserving some of these basic operational guardrails to ensure the protection of these very special and fragile places. The majority shot down every one of these proposals. This is not about efficiency. It is about preferential treatment for oligarchs like Meta and Amazon. Consider this: When telecom companies want to access our national forests for one of these projects, they pay rent. When they cross national parks, they pay fees, but somehow marine sanctuaries are supposed to be free. That is nothing more than a corporate giveaway and a terrible precedent that won't stop with our marine sanctuaries. The sponsors wrapped this handout in national security rhetoric. We have already heard some of it from the chairman. They claim that there is an urgent telecommunications crisis. Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that these are multibillion- dollar projects spanning years and thousands of miles. They make their maps public. Everyone knows where these projects are taking place. The cost of environmental assessments is pocket change for these operations, but it could mean the difference between healthy habitats and destroyed resources in our national marine sanctuaries. Here is what really stinks about this bill: While working American families are facing an affordability crisis, our Republican friends prioritize special favors like this for the wealthiest corporations on the planet. These are companies that could easily afford to just follow the rules and just pay a fair market rate for access to these places. This sets a terrible precedent. We are witnessing the wholesale commercialization of America's natural inheritance, one sweetheart deal at a time. Today, it is cables and sanctuaries. Tomorrow, it will be mining in a national monument. Next week, it will be drilling in national seashores. Where does this corporate favoritism end? If my colleagues want to modernize telecommunications, we can do that the right way. Let's invest in broadband infrastructure. Let's address transmission issues. We can incentivize clean, local, renewable energy. We can end President Trump's crazy war on clean energy. Sure, maybe we can have a few fiber optic cables running through marine sanctuaries, but let's do it through proper analysis and siting. Let's be careful in these very special places. We don't need this bill to enable any of these shared objectives to move forward. Let us not create sacrifice zones in America's national marine sanctuaries. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this shameless corporate giveaway, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit rich to suggest that if this became law, we would lose no environmental protections. This bill eliminates the special use permit, under which the folks who protect our national marine sanctuaries make sure that there is proper siting, proper environmental review, proper mitigation, and proper accountability for when things go wrong, and things do go wrong. The one example I can hold out is in Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary because that is something that went through the special use permit process. It was for one of these undersea cable landings. Things got very complicated. Thankfully, the National Park Service was able to charge market rent for the rights to go through this area, and it turns out that that was a good thing because there were all sorts of complications. In fact, there are still all types of ongoing repair and monitoring areas where things weren't installed properly and where there was all sorts of damage that wasn't foreseen on the front end. Having that fair market value paid in the first place and then retained by the Federal agency that may need to follow up and make sure that these special places are protected is very important. Mr. Westerman has suggested that the existing special use permit sets a fair market value that is just so prohibitive that none of these landings will ever happen in marine sanctuaries. The estimates from lobbyists are that without this bill, two 20-mile segments through a California sanctuary would cost these huge tech companies between $2.8 million and $7 million per year. To put that in perspective, in the time that we have been arguing, these companies have made more than that. This is pocket change to these companies. They can afford to pay fair market value in order to go through our national marine sanctuaries. As Mr. Westerman I am sure would not disagree, if they were proposing to run these things through a national park in Hot Springs, Arkansas, for example, it is a good thing they would have to get a special permit to do that, that they would have to pay fair market value, and that the funds they pay would be available to that unit of the National Park System to make sure things were done right and to make sure that there was accountability and mitigation going forward. We are just asking for the same thing for our national marine sanctuaries. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal), who is from the Central Coast.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is a very selective concern about national security, apparently, because right now, every one of these landings has a publicly available map. The whole world knows where everything is. If my friends were concerned about the national security exposure that that presents, you would think we would be working on some way to make that less of a publicly obvious piece of information. No, we are not hearing about that. We are hearing it raised as a bit of a pretext here to try to run these projects through national marine sanctuaries rent- free and environmental review-free. One of the speakers across the aisle actually said a few moments ago that there is no need for a special use permit, that it is ridiculous to require one because there is no environmental impact to these projects. We have heard about what happened off the Oregon coast. Certainly, the people of the Oregon coast would differ mightily with the notion that there is no environmental impact. They are still cleaning up the mess, and taxpayers ultimately had to do it. We also have the example from the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary that I referred to earlier. This, of course, is a tough place to work on the seafloor. It is mud. It is sensitive habitat. Fishermen are active in the area. There are national security assets there. There is the Northwest Training and Testing Range, so it is a complicated place to do a project like this. It is a good thing that NOAA was able to charge market fees when they approved a special use permit that took into account all of these complexities, because those fees ended up being very necessary. This project had huge issues over the last 25 years. The sea plow that was used to trench across the sanctuary left a 3-meter wide gash across the sea floor that is still recovering. Tell me about no environmental impacts. The installation company never did post-project monitoring. They left the project without checking that the cables were even buried to the correct depths. NOAA had to come back in with submersible equipment to monitor the cables. It is a good thing they had the resources to do that from those market fees because they found numerous locations where the cable was exposed, floating above the sea floor, putting the fiberoptic infrastructure itself at risk--if we care about national security and telecommunications integrity--and posing a danger to other sanctuary users and their gear. A fishing boat, for example, could have easily gotten snagged on some of these exposed, loose cables, taking down the entire network, destroying equipment, that a small business fishermen had invested in. To this day the fiberoptic company has to enter that sanctuary regularly in order to repair and rebury the cables that were improperly installed. All of this would have been an even greater mess had this bill been law at the time, had NOAA been unable to put some conditions and some guardrails into the special use permit, had NOAA been unable to charge that fair market fee that has enabled it to follow up and clean up some of this mess. That is what at risk if we pass a thoughtless corporate giveaway like this. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4090, a bill that hands the mining industry, amazingly, the power to gut its own regulations while doing nothing to secure American mineral supply chains or help make life more affordable for the American people. It is more of the same from House Republicans and this administration, more favors for their billionaire buddies, and more ways to enrich themselves all at the expense of the American people, who are struggling. If we asked everyday Americans right now to list 100 things that you care about that you want Congress to be working on to make your life better, I promise you that giving more sweetheart deals to multinational mining corporations would not be anywhere on that list. I can think of a thousand better ways to spend our time than debating this bill on the House floor. We could be reining in the out-of-control agency ICE, which is terrorizing communities around the country and murdering people in the streets. We should be addressing skyrocketing healthcare costs, which our Republican colleagues seem to have forgotten entirely about. We could be talking about how to lower energy prices, including the skyrocketing utility bills caused by Donald Trump's crazy war on clean energy, but no. We are back here, once again, talking about deregulation designed for and by the mining industry. H.R. 4090 would codify parts of President Trump's executive orders on mining. I will say that we can agree on many of the bill's stated goals: creating good jobs, strengthening our supply chains, reducing the global influence of our adversaries, and safeguarding national security. The stated goals are one thing. Then there is what actually is in the bill, what the bill does, and that is quite another thing. We should not confuse the mining industry's best interests with the public interest. This bill would direct the Interior Secretary to take all necessary steps to expedite and approve certain priority projects with no restrictions on who operates the projects, what they mine, or where. There is nothing to stop this administration right now from prioritizing mines owned and controlled by our foreign adversaries. That loophole, that glaring problem, that national security threat, is not corrected at all in this bill. There is nothing to require a focus on minerals actually needed for clean energy and national defense. There is nothing to prevent the administration from approving mines on sensitive public lands or even in our national parks. These are all simple safeguards that, for some reason, are not in this legislation. That is ripe for abuse and misuse of our public resources when you advance a bill like this. In prioritizing lands for mining, the bill makes no mention of minimizing conflict with neighboring communities, like Tribes, or protecting other important natural resources and uses of public lands like logging, grazing, and recreation. The bill also looks to the mining industry itself for direction on which regulations to roll back, and again, no public input and no Tribal consultation. My colleagues across the aisle often tout the United States' environmental and labor protections as the best in the world, but as protections are eroded in favor of polluters over people, who is to say that basic protections for drinking water and worker safety aren't the next targets? Mr. Speaker, our environmental laws have reined in the industry's worst pollution and abuses, but regulations being successful doesn't mean that we no longer need them. Nothing in this bill guarantees that minerals mined here will stay here or benefit Americans. Time and again, we have suggested guardrails that could be put in place, into bills like this, to make sure that foreign adversaries don't end up taking advantage of all of these corporate giveaways that our Republican friends keep putting on the table. It ensures that they don't come here and, practically for free, extract our publicly owned natural resources and take them to other parts of the world and use them in ways that are not in our interests. We keep offering these guardrails. Our Republican colleagues keep saying no. Under the General Mining Act of 1872, anyone, including subsidiaries of foreign adversaries, can claim our publicly owned materials, mine them for free, ship them abroad into the global market, and do nothing to help the interests of the United States of America. Time and again, we have raised this glaring vulnerability with legitimate solutions on the table to address it, and our Republican friends refuse to work with us. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 4090, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there we have it, and I am sure not for the last time in this conversation. The risk of terrible environmental harm by this huge corporate giveaway is nothing to worry about because we have NEPA. We have the Clean Water Act. We have the Environmental Protection Agency. We have all of these environmental safeguards, every one of which is under withering attack from the same colleagues across the aisle who are moving bills like this and from this administration. This is across the board. There is legislation to gut all of these bedrock environmental laws. There are actions by this administration and litigation moving forward from the industry. Mr. Speaker, it is cold comfort indeed. I am, frankly, shocked that anyone across the aisle could even say these things with a straight face and point to our bedrock environmental laws as an assurance that nothing will go wrong for the environment, our public lands, our natural resources, Tribes, and others who are worried about this corporate giveaway. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from upstate New York (Mr. Tonko).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Grijalva).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there they go again. For the second time, we hear references to NEPA, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the bedrock environmental laws, that they will protect us from all of these terrible scenarios that they say Democrats are raising as scare tactics. I just can't think of anything less persuasive than hearing that kind of cold comfort from the very folks who are attacking every one of those bedrock environmental laws with other legislation and through administrative actions by this President and in the courts. It is remarkably hypocritical and certainly not very persuasive. Now, when we think about this mining free-for-all that our Republican friends are trying to create with this legislation, we are not having this conversation in a vacuum. We have to think about who benefits. Just 2 weeks ago, the Trump administration announced that it would invest over a billion dollars and take an equity stake in USA Rare Earth, a mining and manufacturing company. So much for concerns about socialism. Reporting uncovered that USA Rare Earth hired Cantor Fitzgerald to help with fundraising, a firm chaired by Brandon Lutnick. If that sounds familiar, it is because he is the son of Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. In October, the Trump administration announced equity investments in the mining company Trilogy Metals, while simultaneously directing agencies to fast-track permitting for Ambler Road, the controversial project needed to access Trilogy Metals' proposed mine site. Trilogy Metals' third largest shareholder is John Alfred Paulson, a Trump mega donor and an economic adviser. His Trilogy shares increased by $70 million in value after that announcement. It is a similar story for Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who personally sold shares worth between $50,000 and $100,000 in the mining company MP Materials following a July announcement of one of these lucrative equity deals. The administration is making a pattern out of picking winners and losers in the mining industry, and a suspicious number of those winners have close ties to Trump officials or Trump family members. This is an incredible grift that our friends across the aisle are playing into. These deals tie taxpayer dollars to corporate balance sheets and incentivize administration officials to prioritize individual corporate interests over the broader public good. Earlier this week, myself, Ranking Member Robert Garcia of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Ranking Member Martin Heinrich of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources sent a joint letter to the administration, demanding answers on Trump's taxpayer-funded mining spending spree. To date, there has been no public disclosure of procedures or safeguards in place to ensure these ownership stakes do not influence permitting decisions, regulation, enforcement, contracting decisions, or other agency decisions relating to these mining and mineral projects. Before we give this administration even more power to enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of everyday Americans, let's get some answers to these basic questions. Now, with that, Mr. Speaker, a lot has been said about China, the boogeyman of China, our adversary on the global stage. Yet, we have a bill before us that, my guess is, the People's Republic of China would absolutely love. Here to tell us more about that is the gentlewoman from New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if my friend from Minnesota actually heard us say the things that he just says he heard in his own mind, I am genuinely worried that we need to get an audiologist in here. I am glad that we have a court reporter and that we have a video record because we said nothing of the kind. My friend, Mr. Westerman, did say something very important. I don't know if this was his intent, but he sort of made one of our points for us. We cannot mine our way to security with brute force because China controls 80 percent of the world's processing power and nearly 90 percent for rare earth elements. If our only solution is to just have more and more mines and to open up this mining free-for-all in the United States, as Republicans seem singularly focused on, we are essentially giving a gift to our largest adversary. Let me tell you what this bill does to address the lack of processing capacity here in the United States--or anywhere outside of China-- nothing, absolutely nothing. That is what it has been throughout this Congress from our friends across the aisle--crickets about addressing the real problem when it comes to our competitive threat of China on processing but a rush to open up our public lands and gut our environmental laws for the mining interests. Setting up a safe, environmentally sound processing industry in the United States and with our allies does have some barriers right now, but rarely is the lack of raw mine materials one of those barriers. Take copper and lithium, for example. The Bipartisan Policy Center published a report last year that found that sourcing feedstock domestically or from free trade agreement countries was not a primary barrier to processing. Much bigger barriers are competition for labor and a lack of price competitiveness, which are major barriers across the board. For some of the other essential minerals like cobalt, nickel, and rare earths, while feedstock is a challenge, it certainly isn't the only one. It is naive to think that fast-tracking mines alone will secure our supply chains and fix these problems. Instead, we should support a responsible processing strategy, build a more circular economy, and innovate around low-impact mineral sources, like byproduct recovery from mine tailings and recycling, as Mr. Tonko from New York talked about a moment ago. We need to train the highly skilled American workforce that we need to do all of these jobs. These are things that we need to be working together on. Instead, it is always a rush to open up public lands and give more corporate giveaways for mines. It has been suggested that there is some sort of a spiteful agenda behind all this, a NIMBY interest where some States allow oil and gas extraction but they don't want it done in Minnesota and other places. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez) to speak about some of those accusations that have been made.

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

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I oppose H.R. 4090 for all the reasons that have been discussed. This is a bill that directs the administration to prioritize and approve mines, any mines that it wants, even ones owned by foreign adversaries, giving them an expedited path to mine our publicly owned minerals and to export them, usually straight to China. The Republicans have named it the Critical Mineral Dominance Act, but they forgot to make sure that it was America that would benefit. Democrats have tried again and again to add commonsense guardrails to stop foreign adversaries from benefiting from our minerals. Republicans have repeatedly blocked these efforts with creative new excuses every time. Let's drop the facade. This bill is not about American mineral dominance. It is not about critical minerals, either, because nothing in this bill limits the special treatment to strategically important minerals. Nothing in this bill would stop the administration from declaring a gold mine a priority and fast-tracking it. We have already seen them give millions of taxpayer dollars away to a gold mine in Nevada. Gold has never been critical, except when it comes to, I guess, decorating the White House. This bill is an industry giveaway, pure and simple, and it leaves Americans footing the bill. We have heard a lot of passionate talk from across the aisle about mining more here in America because we do it best and because we have such strong environmental and labor safeguards. However, this bill tells the Interior Department and the Forest Service to roll back those very regulations that my colleagues brag about and to go ahead and weaken pollution protections if the mining industry thinks they are too ``burdensome.'' Communities around the country know the consequences of unregulated mining all too well, especially Tribal communities who have borne much of the brunt of mining pollution: toxic waste, poisoned land, polluted water, and generations of pollution and disease. Is this what it means to Make America Great Again? I think we can do a lot better than that. Democrats are willing to work to find responsible, strategic solutions to securing our critical mineral supply chains, but this bill takes us in the wrong direction, creating an industry-led free-for-all that allows anyone to mine our minerals, profit from them on the global market, and then leave Americans with nothing but the pollution. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.