Jared Huffman

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Minnesota for listing all of those States and places because it is important for the American people to know that if this becomes law, a free toxic dump site on your public lands is on its way in all of those places. That is what this is about. One of the cynical euphemisms we keep hearing is ``regulatory certainty,'' so let's talk about what that really means. Mining permitting has continued after the Rosemont decision. The Rosemont mine itself proceeded. It wasn't impacted. There is no legislative fix needed to this fake problem. This bill would codify only the most industry-friendly interpretations of the mining law and introduce additional uncertainty around the government's ability to enact basic commonsense regulations on mining on public lands. To expand on that, the bill's current definition says that mining operations include: ``All functions, work, facilities, and activities in connection with the prospecting, development, extraction, and processing of mineral deposits and all uses reasonably incident thereto, including the construction and maintenance of means of access, whether the operations take place on or off the claim.'' This is sweeping. Effectively, this means that mining operations don't need a mining claim at all to conduct operations on your public lands. While this definition is currently in regulation, the Interior Department, and the leading public land law treatise have found that offsite mining activities do not currently get the same rights and priority use as mining claims. That is what is at stake in this legislation. Permanently codifying this into law would further put mining over other uses of our public lands, doing an end run around the multiple- use balancing requirements that are foundational to public land management. While our land managers have limited discretion right now to deny a mine on public lands, they do at least have some authority over their roads, pipelines, and toxic waste dumping. That would all be taken away by this legislation. This is not regulatory clarity. It is regulatory charity to an industry that has already gotten 150 years of giveaways. Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record a letter of opposition from 189 organizations, Tribes, companies, and local elected officials. December 17, 2025. Dear Member of Congress: The 189 undersigned organizations, Tribes, companies and elected officials are writing on behalf of our millions of members and supporters to express our strong opposition to H.R. 1366, The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act (MRCA). The legislation includes sweeping provisions that would weaken the already outdated 1872 Mining Law and give even more control over our public lands to the mining industry. We ask you to oppose The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act. Most mining in the United States is governed under a 150- year-old, extremely permissive law enacted when Ulysses S. Grant was president. The law disempowers frontline communities, has no environmental guardrails, and doesn't require mining companies to pay a royalty on the billions of dollars of publicly owned minerals they extract. This law governs mining on public lands that are currently being dismantled by the administration and their Congressional allies with active threats to sell off millions of acres of our lands, roll back protections such as National Monuments and mineral withdrawals in secret, and firing thousands of workers whose jobs are essential for the future existence of our public lands. Additionally, recent executive orders were signed invoking emergency powers to increase domestic mining and processing of minerals, including those by foreign owned mining companies. They cover not just critical minerals, but others like gold. The executive order explicitly calls for agencies to prioritize mining above all other uses of public lands, and aims to provide funding and loans for mining projects, as well as accelerate permitting processes under the guise of the Defense Production Act. If you combine the antiquated mining law, the recent EO's, and the administration's efforts to dismantle our public lands, along with the now unpredictable compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (due to President Trump's executive actions) communities are now more at risk from mining harms than they were even 10 years ago. History already paints a clear picture of the risks posed by irresponsible, deregulated mining for critical resources across the country. The EPA estimates that 40% of headwaters and 50% of lakes have been contaminated by hardrock mines, decimating watersheds and the communities that depend on them for freshwater, including drinking water. Recent research reveals that the vast majority of critical mineral resources in the United States are located within 35 miles of Native American reservations. As demand for hardrock minerals grows domestically and globally, it is critical that we ensure mining laws and standards protect communities and the environment while strengthening and securing our supply chains. Unfortunately, the MRCA would take us backward, not forward, and create more conflict over mines, not less. First, the MRCA would allow mining companies to claim indefinite numbers of millsites on public land, without meaningful limitations, where multinational mining companies can permanently dump toxic waste and construct infrastructure like pipelines and roads. These millsites could block public lands from being used for more suitable purposes, such as renewable energy projects, watershed protection, cultural resource access, and recreation. This provision would remove any effective limits on millsites and eliminate the requirement that such claims be located only on non-mineral land, a key feature that prevents lands with valuable minerals from being buried under waste or made inaccessible. Second, several additional provisions contained within MRCA would weaken, if not negate, over a century of precedent that has limited the amount of damage to public land caused by our permissive mining law. According to current law, operators must first prove that there are in fact valuable minerals on a mining claim before they gain the right to conduct large- scale operations on those claims. Additionally, operators cannot conduct operations outside of their claims without obtaining further permits. MRCA could render these requirements meaningless by codifying a regulation that defines all activities related to mining under the term ``operations,'' even if they are not directly on a mining claim. This could allow mining companies to build pipelines, roads, and powerlines and conduct other activities across public lands without ever having to get a permit for them. The MRCA does not contain any meaningful limits to prevent abuses of the millsite provision. It states that mining companies may use public lands in accordance with an approved plan of operations. But that is of little assistance given the bill grants mining companies an unlimited, statutory right to use those lands--a right that cannot be denied in a mining plan of operations. The offered protections are thus no protections against the giveaway of public lands. Finally, MRCA includes a savings clause that states mining companies still have to prove that there are valuable mineral deposits on claims within lands that have been withdrawn from mining. However, the exclusion of similar language for claims on unwithdrawn lands could be read by a court to imply that Congress intended to eliminate the requirement for such checks on unwithdrawn lands, which make up the vast majority of public lands. Altogether, these sections essentially give mining companies a nearly unlimited right to dump waste across an indefinite number of acres of public lands under the proposed millsites provision. This bill's provisions will have a devastating impact on frontline communities, cultural resources, and sensitive ecosystems. Instead of passing this legislation, Congress should enact true reforms to our mining laws such as those identified by the 2023 Interagency Working Group on Mining Laws, Regulations, and Permitting, especially those that would close loopholes for foreign companies, improve environmental standards, and create competitive leasing to balance the nation's clean energy mineral needs with other public land uses. We urge you to oppose the passage of S. 544 & H.R. 1366, whether as a standalone bill or as a part of a larger legislative package. Sincerely, 1000 Grandmothers for Future Generations, 350 Bay Area Action, 350 Hawaii, A2 (Anthropocene Alliance), Access to Thrive, Alaska Clean Water Advocacy, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association, Alaska Wilderness League, Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Amigos Bravos New Mexico, Appalachian Citizens' Law Center, Arizona Faith Network, Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, Arizona Trail Association, Arizonans for Community Choice, Basin and Range Watch, Becky Daggett, Mayor of Flagstaff, AZ (as an individual, Biofuelwatch, Bitterrooters for Planning. Black Hills Clean Water Alliance, Black Hills Preservation Project, Bold Visions Conservation, Borderlands Restoration Network, Cabinet Resource Group, California Environmental Voters, Californians for Western Wilderness, CalWild, Cascade Forest Conservancy, Cascadia Wildlands, CDT Preservation Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Chilkat Indian Village, Circle Z ranch, Citizens for a Safe & Clean Lake Superior, Citizens to Protect Smith Valley (NV), Climate and Community Institute, Climate Justice Alliance, Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, Colorado Citizens Against ToxicWaste Inc, Concerned Citizens Retired Miners Coalition. Conservation Northwest, Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, Continental Divide Trail Coalition, Corona de Tucson Preservation Alliance, Day One, Deer Tail Scientific, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice Action, Earthworks, EcoFlight, Emily Mine Information Group, Environmental Protection Information Center--EPIC, Esker Cycles, Friends of Santa Cruz River, Friends of Sonoita Creek, Friends of the Amargosa Basin, Friends of the Bitterroot, Friends of the Clearwater, Friends of the Inyo, Friends of the Kalmiopsis. Friends of Santa Cruz River, Friends of the Sonoran Desert, Gallatin Wildlife Association, Gila Resources Information Project, Global Witness, Grand Canyon Trust, Grand Staircase Escalante Partners, Great Basin Resource Watch, Great Basin Water Network, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, GreenLatinos, High Country Conservation Advocates, Idaho Conservation League, Idaho Rivers United, Imperial Valley Equity and Justice, Inclusive Development International, Indigenous Environmental Network, Information Network for Responsible Mining, Investor Advocates for Social Justice. Izaak Walton League Rapid City SD Chapter, Jeff and Karen Ives, Kalmiopsis Audubon Society, Kalmiopsis Guides Association, Kettle Range Conservation Group, Klamath Forest Alliance, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, League of Conservation Voters, Living Desert Alliance, Living Rivers & Colorado Riverkeeper, LNE Engineering and Policy, Local Environmental Action Demanded (LEAD) Agency, Inc., Los Padres ForestWatch, Lower San Pedro Watershed Alliance, Lynn Canal Conservation, Madrean Archipelago Wildlife Center, Malach Consulting, Maricopa Audubon Society, Mennonite Central Committee U.S., Mining Impact Coalition of Wisconsin. MiningWatch Canada, Montana Chapter Sierra Club, Montana Environmental Information Center, Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center, Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment, Native American Land Conservancy, Native Village of Fort Yukon, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature For All, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, Nevada Conservation League, New Mexico & El Paso Interfaith Power and Light, New Mexico Environmental Law Center, Next 100 Coalition, Nicole Palese PLLC, Noowuh Knowledge Center, North Carolina League of Conservation Voters, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, Northern Alaska Environmental Center, Norton Bay Watershed Council. Oregon Natural Desert Association, Oregon Wild, Our Roots Multi-Cultural Center, Partnership for Policy Integrity, Patagonia Area Resource Alliance, Patagonia, Inc., Pipe Line Awareness Network for the Northeast, Prairie Hills Audubon Society (of Western SD), Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, Protect Thacker Pass, Protect the Kobuk, Public Citizen, Rachel Carson Council, Responsible Jewelry Transformative, River Alliance of Wisconsin, Rivers Without Borders, Rock Creek Aliance, Rural Arizona Engagement, San Juan Citizens Alliance, San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council. San Pedro 100, San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation, Save Lake Superior Association, Save Our Cabinets, Save Our Sky Blue Waters, Save Our St. Vrain Valley, Inc., Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, Save the South Fork Salmon, Sheep Mountain Alliance, Sierra Club, Sierra Protection Action Network, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice Team, Sky Island Alliance, Smith River Alliance, Soda Mountain Wilderness Council, Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Southwest Research and Information Center (SRIC), SPAN. Sustainable Ocean Alliance, Sustainable Tucson, The Becoming Project INC, The Calabasas Alliance, The Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, The Native Village of Dot Lake, The Ocean Project, The Wilderness Society, Tri-Valley CAREs, Tucson Bird Alliance (formerly Tucson Audubon), Turtle Island Restoration Network, Universidad Popular, Upper Peninsula Environmental Coalition, Uranium Watch, Washington Wild, Water Legacy, Weber Sustainability Consulting, West Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs, Western Shoshone Defense Project, Western Shoshone Nation. Western Watersheds Project, Wild Arizona, Wild Connections, Wild Hope, Wild Horse Education, WildEarth Guardians, Wildlands Defense, Wildlife for All, Yellow Dog Watershed Preserve.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, the signers of this letter express their strong opposition to this bill. Specifically, they argue that it would weaken the already outdated 1872 mining law and give the mining industry even more control over our public lands. They note that mining in the United States is already governed under a law that is 150 years old, enacted under President Ulysses S. Grant. These organizations, Tribes, and leaders remind us that the 1872 law has no environmental guardrails, that the mining industry is already the only industry that doesn't have to pay any royalty when it extracts our minerals on public lands, and that 40 percent of headwaters and 50 percent of lakes have been polluted by mining activity. They also raise specific concerns within the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act. First, the bill would allow multinational companies to claim an indefinite number of mill sites to permanently dump toxic waste on our public lands for free. Second, it could block renewable energy development, recreation, and other uses of our public lands by allowing mining companies to build roads, pipelines, and other infrastructure by right and without any permits, as long as they are connected to a plan of operation. Finally, the bill could be read to eliminate the requirement that mining companies prove that there are even some valuable minerals to validate their claims on the vast majority of our public lands. The letter urges us to enact real reforms to the 1872 mining law that would improve environmental safeguards for communities and ecosystems impacted by mining, give Federal land managers a say in deciding where mining is and is not appropriate, and close loopholes that allow foreign companies to exploit our public lands. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who has shown great leadership on this seemingly commonsense need to put some guardrails in place to make sure that foreign-owned mining companies, including those owned and controlled by our adversaries, don't have the benefit of all these lavish giveaways.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this bill is another unnecessary giveaway to the mining industry. It lets literally anyone, including foreign mining companies controlled by our adversaries, claim as much of our Nation's public land as they want for next to nothing, extract our publicly owned minerals without paying a cent in royalties back to the American people, and then permanently bury our public lands in toxic mining waste. Our mining laws need reform. They don't need this. With bipartisan interest in securing our critical mineral supply chain, we actually have an opportunity to create modern mineral policies that would empower American innovators to recover the minerals we need while honoring indigenous sovereignty, protecting the environment, and making sure American workers and communities share in the benefits, as well as the American taxpayers. Instead, the majority is doubling down on the extraction above all land grab from the gold rush back when we codified this 1872 mining law. They refuse to engage with Democrats to include even commonsense safeguards against letting foreign adversaries take our public minerals for free. They refuse to limit the industry's waste dump mill sites to only the public lands necessary for their operations. Ominously, they refuse to clarify that this bill does not affect the Federal Government's ability to regulate mining on public lands, which the unnecessary Savings Clause in this bill calls into question. It bears repeating that the mining industry already has a sweetheart deal on our public lands. We are the only industrialized Nation that lets anyone claim whatever they want on public lands and extract public minerals for free. This bill is no minor technical fix to overturn a court decision. It is a massive giveaway of public lands to an industry afraid that one of those many giveaways that they have had for all of this time was about to be challenged. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Oregon for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is right. If we want to talk about the occasional conflicts that exist between livestock and pets and any predators, that is a legitimate conversation. However, what we are hearing from across the aisle is really jumping the shark, if you will forgive another predator metaphor, Mr. Speaker. We are being led to believe that packs of wolves are about to descend on urban areas in New England and Madison, Wisconsin, and that they are looming outside of schools. I think my colleagues across the aisle need to understand: The American people are a little smarter than that. They are kind of going to see through this Little Red Riding Hood meets chupacabra narrative the gentleman was trying to spin to scare people about wolves. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you the way it actually works. The Endangered Species Act does not prevent wildlife managers from intervening any time a wolf or any other predator threatens property or human beings. In fact, just a few weeks ago in Northern California, I believe it was the Sierra Valley, a pack of wolves from one of our packs there had begun preying on cattle in an area where they are concentrated because of the way they move through the State, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife came in and took some. I think they took five or six of them, killed them. There was no ESA lawsuit, and there was no violation of the law. A little reality check on what we just heard from my colleague from Minnesota, that there was nothing anyone could do about this scary chupacabra wolf in the school parking lot. That is nonsense. That is not the way the ESA works. Now, let's be clear. This bill is not about protecting pets or livestock. It is about politics overriding science, and the consequences of doing that are disastrous. The precedent set by this bill would be very troubling. It would tell wildlife scientists that their expertise doesn't matter. It tells Tribal nations that their voices can be ignored, and it tells the American people they no longer have the right to challenge unlawful government actions. The ESA is simple and effective. It ensures decisions are grounded in science. That is the heart of it, and this bill throws that principle out the window. It mandates a nationwide delisting of gray wolves, and it explicitly blocks judicial review. It would prevent courts from doing their job to determine whether a government action even complies with the law. Now, we don't have to speculate about what happens when protections for gray wolves are lifted because we have seen it play out. In the State of Wisconsin where hunters like the group, Hunter Nation, which is led by Ted Nugent and Don Jr. on the board, swept in as soon as the wolf hunting season was open. Quickly they did that, despite objections from Tribes in the region. The result was devastating. Mr. Speaker, 218 wolves, about 20 percent of the State's population, were wiped out. By the end of the season, 30 percent were killed--nearly twice as many wolves as the State had authorized. Over the course of about 60 hours, thousands of hunters, including some unlicensed hunters, participated in coordinating hunting groups, engaged in a dangerous terrorizing campaign against the wolves using bait and wolf calls. They hunted at night. They used dogs. Mr. Speaker, 188 wolves were taken by dogs. They killed 130 wolf pups that were less than 2 years old. This is not thoughtful, science-based management of the State's wolf population. This is not celebrating the recovery of the wolf as we keep hearing in this debate. This week we received a letter from the Wisconsin Tribes who had sued to try to stop that hunt. In the letter, they object to this bill today. They point out the inadequacy of existing State-level regulatory mechanisms that led to that disaster in Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from six Wisconsin Tribes. December 17, 2025. Dear Congressperson: We, the federally recognized bands of Ojibwe in Wisconsin, oppose the legislation proposed by Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) to delist gray wolves and believe that the gray wolf should remain protected under the Endangered Species Act (``ESA''). We write to inform you of our continued opposition to proposed legislation that would direct the Secretary of the Interior to reissue final rules relating to delisting the gray wolf under the ESA, particularly where judicial review of the rule would be barred. The Pet and Livestock Protection Act, H.R. 845, would impact our rights and treaty-protected resources. The treaty- protected resources of the Ojibwe bands include gray wolves in the territory ceded to the United States under the Treaties of 1837 and 1842 (``ceded territory''), which has become the northern third of the State of Wisconsin. We previously expressed this opposition to lawmakers, including Sen. Baldwin and Sen. Johnson when they proposed legislation to delist the gray wolf in 2022. One of the requirements for a finding of recovery and delisting under the ESA is a determination that the species in question is no longer imperiled by ``the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.'' 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1533(a)(1)(D). However, Wisconsin's February 2021 wolf hunt resulted in the deaths of almost twice the number of wolves allowed to be killed by the state. This debacle clearly demonstrated that Wisconsin's existing regulatory mechanisms are not up to the task of enabling effective management of the state's wolf population. If the gray wolf is delisted, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (``WDNFR'') implements another hunt as required under Wisconsin law, Wisconsin's problematic legal framework for regulation and oversight of state-licensed wolf hunters and trappers will again threaten the wolves and Ojibwe treaty rights. This misguided legislation continues a long history of disproportionately targeting the gray wolf--the first endangered species ever to be legislatively delisted by Congress. This proposed legislation also disregards the fact that many Americans nationwide believe that wolves should remain protected. In 2013 for example, approximately one million Americans voiced opposition to the proposal to strip endangered species protections from gray wolves. In addition, widespread public opposition to the wolf hunt has been routinely disregarded by the WDNR Board, making federal protections even more important. Our position still stands that legislation to delist the gray wolf is misguided and continues to disregard strong tribal opposition to delisting, as well as widespread opposition from the general public. Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Sokaogon Chippewa Community, St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, Tribes support continued protection for wolves. Seventy-eight percent of Americans support continued protection for wolves. They want to see living wolf pups in Yellowstone, not news stories about tortured wolves in bars or wolf hunts with dogs. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. I would also like to just move to some additional remarks that are part of our motion to recommit. The entire debate so far has shown why Members of Congress have no business in listing and delisting decisions. We are not scientific experts. We are not objective scientists tasked with assessing population numbers, recovery goals, and continued threats to the species. That is why the ESA properly leaves those questions to actual experts, not politicians. For that reason, we shouldn't be passing this bill at all, but if Republicans are going to go down this road, then there should at least be some guardrails in place that are based on actual science. For this reason, at the appropriate time, I will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered this motion with an important amendment to this bill. We were not allowed to do that. My amendment is straightforward. The NRA gets to have this bill and its little hunting spree, but if Ted Nugent and Don Jr. and all the other folks who need to do this to prove their manhood actually go where scientists have warned us about and take the wolf population down below science-based recovery standards, then the Secretary of the Interior would have to issue an emergency regulation temporarily restoring Federal protection in that instance. This would provide a necessary backstop if Congress legislatively delists the gray wolf and it careens right back toward extinction again, which we know it would. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit in a few moments and keeping amodicum of actual science in the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

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

Mr. HUFFMAN

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

Mr. HUFFMAN

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

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise along with my colleagues, Representatives Nancy Pelosi, John Garamendi, Seth Moulton, and Ed Case to honor the life and legacy of Paul DePrey, who passed away on October 10, 2025, at the age of 58. A devoted public servant for more than 30 years, Paul demonstrated an unwavering commitment to environmental stewardship, conservation, and the mission of the National Park Service. Born in Edmundston, New Brunswick, Paul earned his bachelor's degree in history and anthropology from the University of Maine. He later moved to Bellingham, Washington, where he completed his master's degree in anthropology at Western Washington University. It was during this time that he met his wife, Cari Kreshak, whom he married in 1995. Paul launched his career as an archaeologist for the USDA Forest Service in the Cascade Mountain Range of Oregon and Washington, before serving in the USDA Office of the Secretary and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There, Paul contributed to the Northwest Forest Plan, the Headwaters Land Exchange, the Presidential Forum at Lake Tahoe, and critical efforts to improve federal-tribal relationships and advance endangered species conservation. In 2001, Paul joined the National Park Service, where he served with distinction for nearly twenty-five years. Paul first served as Resource Manager at Whiskeytown National Recreation Area and then at Joshua Tree National Park. In 2008, Paul became Superintendent of the Pearl Harbor National Memorial, where he oversaw the construction of a new visitor campus and renovation of the USS Arizona Memorial. During his tenure, he worked closely with the Japanese Cultural Center of Hawai'i to establish the Honouliuli National Historic Site, a vital preservation that remembers the stories of Japanese Americans incarcerated during World War II and serves as a powerful reminder of the need to protect civil liberties in times of conflict. Paul later served as Superintendent of Salem Maritime and Saugus Iron Works National Historic Sites, where he acted as the National Park Service liaison to the Essex National Heritage Area. Under his leadership, Paul expanded visitor access to park resources, addressed historic preservation concerns, and broadened interpretive programs to include Indigenous, colonial European, and Black histories found in New England coastal communities. In 2022, Paul was appointed to Superintendent of San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, where he led the complex task of temporarily relocating the park's fleet of national historic landmark ships to Mare Island, site of the Mare Island Naval Shipyard and the Nation's first naval base on the Pacific Ocean. Paul was widely admired as an exceptional leader who put people first, whether it was a twenty-year veteran of the park or a new gateway community member at Mare Island and Vallejo. Paul perfectly balanced stewardship and recreation, ensuring the preservation of maritime history and culture while also revitalizing and reimagining the role of recreation at Aquatic Park. While Paul left us too soon, his legacy as a leader and person will endure. Paul is survived by his wife, Cari; children, Sebastian and Ronan; his parents and sisters. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you join us in extending condolences to Paul's family and many friends and in expressing our appreciation for his decades of exemplary public service to our Nation.

Mr. HUFFMAN

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Cicely Muldoon upon her retirement from the National Park Service after 40 years of extraordinary public service. A Bay Area native, Cicely was born on the Presidio Army base in San Francisco. Her father was a World War II Army infantryman. She grew up in Sausalito and after earning her bachelor's degree in zoology from the University of California, Davis, began her first job with the National Park Service (NPS) in 1985 as a ranger at the Sitka National Historic Park in Alaska. During her tenure, Cicely had the wonderful opportunity to work in many parks across the United States, including Buffalo River National Park in Arkansas and the San Juan Island National Historic Park in Washington, before being appointed Superintendent of Pinnacles National Park in San Benito County in 2002. After three dedicated years, and significant progress in expanding the condor release program, Cicely became a deputy regional director for NPS. For five years she oversaw community partnerships, fire and safety initiatives, and education programs across the region while providing direct management of 10 parks including Death Valley and Joshua Tree. In 2010, Cicely was named Superintendent of Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS), a position she held for a decade. My staff and I worked closely with her in this role on many challenging matters including the aftermath of the Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar's decision to let the NPS lease to Drakes Bay Oyster Company expire and the ensuing years trying to deliver on the directive to pursue 20-year leases to the historic working ranchers in Point Reyes National Seashore. During her time in PRNS she also managed several vital infrastructure renovations, including the restoration of the 150-year- old Point Reyes Lighthouse. In January 2020, Cicley left PRNS to assume the role of acting superintendent of the iconic Yosemite National Park. After 10 months, she was promoted to permanent superintendent, overseeing the 750,000- acre park, its 1,200 employees, and more than 40 million visitors annually. The second female superintendent in Yosemite's 156-year history, Cicely led the park through historic reforms and unprecedented challenges. At the start of her tenure, she skillfully navigated the pandemic, successfully preventing any major COVID-19 outbreaks among visitors or employees. She also managed Yosemite as it faced wildfire challenges, an unexpected winter closure in 2023, and the introduction of the new day-use reservation system to manage long-term overcrowding concerns. Mr. Speaker, I personally worked with Cicely Muldoon for more than a decade on critical issues affecting the Point Reyes National Seashore and our natural resources. She is smart, committed, and has a great sense of humor. Always dedicated to the welfare of her employees and the protection of our natural lands, Cicely leaves an indelible positive impact on the National Park Service and all those visitors and staff whom she has taught and inspired. I respectfully ask that you join me in expressing heartfelt gratitude to Cicely 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I wish Chairman Westerman a happy birthday, but even that goodwill does not change the fact that this is bad legislation. So, unfortunately, I am going to have to rise in opposition to the bill while wishing the gentleman a happy birthday. Mr. Speaker, we are all grateful that the Republican shutdown is finally over, but millions of Americans are still on the cusp of losing healthcare. They are struggling to put food on the table. After their 7-week paid vacation, I can't imagine anything more disconnected than for House Republicans to come back here and make their first priority not helping working families to make ends meet but jamming through more favors for their billionaire buddies. These three Congressional Review Act, or CRA, resolutions treat America's public lands like they are just lines on a balance sheet. They silence public opinion, ignore the fires and storms that are made worse by climate change to make fossil fuel extraction the number one priority going forward for how we manage our public lands. Wildfire defense, public safety, recreation, and conservation all take a backseat now to maximizing corporate profits, even in our most fragile landscapes like America's Arctic. Americans want clean air, clean water, and accessible public lands, not handouts to polluters. Overturning balanced, forward-looking BLM plans in Wyoming and Alaska is a colossal mistake. Across the Federal land management agencies, plans like these are the foundation for responsible, sustainable management of our public lands. RMPs are the product of extensive public input, rigorous scientific reviews, and meaningful Tribal consultation. Balancing the activities on our public lands from energy development to recreation is what these plans do. They reflect the needs of communities, industries, and ecosystems. They outline a clear vision for the stewardship of millions of acres of public lands. Let's look at the Buffalo Field Office RMP targeted by this particular resolution. It was developed after a court found that the previous plan failed to address the public health and climate impacts of unfettered coal mining in the region. Importantly, the current RMP was also developed after robust Tribal consultation and public input. Are we just going to throw that all away? Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 130, which would repeal the current balanced RMP for BLM's Buffalo Field Office in order to prop up the coal industry in Wyoming's Powder River Valley. The plan targeted by this resolution ended new coal leasing in the region because of its harm to the climate and public health and because of decreasing demand for coal. At the same time, the plan allowed existing mines to continue to operate through the end of their current leases. Rescinding this plan means locking us into unnecessary emissions and energy costs at a time when the planet and the American people cannot afford it. It also puts us on a treadmill of litigation and uncertainty, sending us back theoretically to a plan that was already adjudicated to be illegal. Maybe Republicans are waiting for a new plan to come forward from the Trump administration, I guess, hoping that a future court will decide that it is not substantially similar to the ones that have been thrown out with your CRA. This is something that my friends across the aisle simply haven't thought through. There is so much chaos and uncertainty when the sledgehammer of the CRA is used in this reckless manner. House Republicans already passed, and the administration implemented, unprecedented giveaways to the coal industry through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including slashing the royalty rates for coal from 12 percent to 7.5 percent and opening more than 13 million acres of public lands for coal leasing. Yet, even with these handouts, it is not enough to reverse decades of market contraction in the coal industry. The coal industry is dying. What Republicans don't mention is that BLM's coal lease sales this year have either failed to reach market value, been indefinitely canceled, or received little to no bids. Rather than simply redoing this RMP through the well-established public process, which the Trump administration is already doing, House Republicans want to overturn it using the CRA, again an extremely blunt instrument, that will throw us into great uncertainty and litigation for sure. This choice would lock out the perspective from previous Tribal and public engagement and ban the agency from ever again issuing a substantially similar RMP, leaving land policy frozen in time and frozen in some kind of a limbo with incredible uncertainty and chaos. House Republicans want to permanently enshrine fossil fuel extraction as the top priority for millions of acres of public land across the country, no matter the cost. They are picking winners and losers here, blocking affordable renewable energy projects, and sacrificing our public lands in the process. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject these reckless resolutions that would upend millions of acres of public land management and reject this entire familiar playbook from congressional Republicans. They are trying to deepen our dependence on dirty fossil fuels that pollute our air, contaminate our water, and harm the public health while doing everything possible to slow, stop, or sabotage the development of affordable renewable energy. Our constituents deserve a lot better than this. We deserve clean, affordable, and reliable energy. We deserve good-paying jobs and affordable healthcare. We shouldn't sacrifice America's health, environment, and livelihoods in order to do it. This legislation and my friends across the aisle are on the wrong side of history trying to prop up the dying coal industry. They are on the wrong side of public land management. They are on the wrong side of the American people's pocketbooks as they face rising electricity costs. Mr. Speaker, that is why I oppose this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that as we are having this debate, pretty much the rest of the world is in Brazil right now for the climate conference. Of course, the Trump administration has disgracefully pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement once again, and we have no Federal delegation at all. As the rest of the world convenes to accept the reality of the climate crisis and to accept the related reality of coal being the biggest contributor to carbon pollution, and the entire world is talking about how to phase down our dependence on coal pollution and fossil fuel pollution, we are here in this alternate reality of the Republican majority, where my colleague from Wyoming calls it climate lunacy. It is a sad, sad testament to, frankly, the disgraceful leadership of this Republican majority that propping up the coal industry with discounted royalties, massive subsidies, millions of acres of land giveaways, and now this misuse of the Congressional Review Act is the official policy of the Republican majority. It is just almost unthinkable, yet that is where we are. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Vasquez).

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is a little bit rich to hear all of this concern about jobs and the poor electrician who is going to lose a job and to hear all of this concern about the energy that we desperately need to meet projected demand increase. What we are really hearing across the aisle is a very selective concern about some jobs and about some types of energy. At the same time as we are having this debate about a desperate scheme to try to prop up the dying coal industry, not just with this CRA but with the discounted royalties, the massive public land giveaways, and all of the other favors that have been doled out to this industry, the Trump administration is trying in every way it can to kill off the clean energy industry, which generates far more jobs than coal. Far more people stand to lose their jobs, far more electricians, like the one my friend was just so concerned about a moment ago, stand to lose their jobs because of this war on clean energy that my friends across the aisle are just fine with. Now, Chairman Westerman said we need all types of new energy. I guess we will have a chance this week to find out if that, too, is just more happy talk, more hollow words because there will be a markup on his legislation on permitting. Democrats have been asking for meaningful changes to this war on clean energy as the first item to have a serious negotiation and discussion about. We will find out. I hope that Mr. Westerman delivers on his promise to work in good faith with Democrats and to do something about the war on clean energy. Unless and until he does and unless and until my colleagues across the aisle stop pretending that an entire industry with far more jobs than coal and far more energy that can be brought to bear to meet rising demand at far less cost, until they stop pretending that that war on clean energy is not happening, all of this, frankly, is just political theater. Mr. Speaker, to the point about the so-called viability of coal, let's just zoom in on the coal industry in the Powder River Basin, the very place that would be impacted by this CRA. On October 6, the Bureau of Land Management held a lease sale for 167 million tons of coal on public lands on the Montana side of this specific basin. The BLM received one bid that valued each ton of coal at one-tenth of one penny. The administration rejected that bid and canceled the lease sale because that abysmal price did not meet the requirements of fair market value outlined in the Mineral Leasing Act. That is the reason that the BLM came together to finalize the Buffalo Field Office RMP amendment, to address decreasing demand for coal, which is both the dirtiest and the most expensive form of energy. House Republicans would give away our public lands and waters to big coal for pennies, fractions of pennies. The coin that they are phasing out as practically worthless is about as valuable as the coal they are trying to subsidize. This resolution will do nothing to address skyrocketing energy bills in Wyoming or anywhere else. A conservative former Wyoming State representative recently penned an op-ed that really speaks to what is happening on the ground: ``We need responsible legislators, who do not rely on wishful thinking, to make long-term policy decisions. It's time to take off the aluminum foil hats filled with wishful thinking, and make some real decisions based on responsible prediction.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I strongly oppose this resolution. Using the CRA to overturn this RMP and the others that we are debating this week will throw our public lands into chaos. It completely sidelines the input and perspectives of local communities that have spent years working with BLM on this plan. It is another reckless attempt to prop up the fossil fuel industry and line the pockets of polluters, all at the expense of affordable energy and good- paying jobs. The Buffalo Field Office RMP allows existing coal leases to continue with reasonable safeguards to reduce emissions and protect land and water. Congress should not be overturning this plan with the sledgehammer of the CRA. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution. I urge my Republican colleagues to think twice about the consequences of this action and setting this chaotic precedent. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 strongly oppose H.J. Res. 131. The Congressional Review Act resolution here would overturn BLM's Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision. My Republican colleagues are, once again, pursuing policies that expand our Nation's carbon pollution and expose our communities to future disasters. Not only would this legislation grant access to one of the most ecologically sensitive and, yes, incredibly difficult regions to drill but it would reverse significant strides that Democrats have made to protect lands that Tribal Nations have occupied since time immemorial. This misguided bill would lock in oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area known to the Gwich'in people as the sacred place where life begins. The Coastal Plain is the heart of the Porcupine caribou's calving grounds. It hosts nearly 200 migratory bird species annually, connecting the rest of the United States and also the world to this cradle of our natural heritage. Equally vital, the 9,000-strong Gwich'in Nation, whose subsistence and culture depend on the caribou herd, reside along the herd's migratory route, making any disruption not only a threat to biodiversity but also an assault on indigenous livelihoods and traditions. Let me read a quote from the Executive Director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, Kristen Moreland. She says: ``It is unthinkable that our congressional decisionmakers continue to push to exploit the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge for oil and gas drilling.'' She continues: ``We rely on the caribou, not only spiritually and culturally, but for our survival and subsistence. This action from D.C. is an insult to the Gwich'in people and ignores those realities.'' Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic also oppose this proposal. They said: Many Alaska Native communities are already facing negative health impacts from oil and gas development on their lands and are struggling to provide for their families due to impacts on the local fish and wildlife populations. Mr. Speaker, these words remind us that the climate crisis is here, it is real, and it is exacerbated by this administration's relentless push toward fossil fuels. In the Arctic, temperatures are rising four times faster than the global average. It is the indigenous communities in northern Alaska and in the refuge that are disproportionately feeling the devastating impacts of the climate crisis. Melting permafrost and changing species migration patterns are threatening food security, cultural traditions, and their ways of life. Mr. Speaker, you will hear my Republican colleagues argue that increased oil and gas development in the Arctic will be good for America's bottom line, but that is patently false. Let me take you back to 2017 when Republicans cut a backroom deal to help pay for Trump's billionaire tax cuts the first time around by drilling in the Arctic Refuge. Two Arctic Refuge lease sales were included, in part, to offset the cost of those tax giveaways for the wealthy. Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration promised that these lease sales would bring in $1.8 billion in revenue for the Federal Government and the State of Alaska. Well, when the first lease sale finally took place in 2021, guess what happened, Mr. Speaker? It generated less than $15 million, that is around 2 percent, of what the CBO had estimated. In 2022, two of those lessees actually asked BLM to cancel and refund their leases. Separately, in 2021, two development companies actually paid $10 million to walk away from their legacy leases in the Arctic Refuge. That is about the only revenue we have been able to generate in this spectacularly difficult place to drill. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group focused on deficit reduction, recently said that drilling in the refuge has never be a credible revenue offset, and it isn't now. They even found that new leasing in the area would only raise, at most, $30 million. That is a drop in the bucket, Mr. Speaker, when you consider my Republican colleagues' big, ugly bill will cost American taxpayers $3.4 trillion. This resolution is the latest attack from my Republican colleagues to undercut our public lands, to prop up fossil fuel polluters, and the expensive energy sources that they peddle and leave people out of the decisionmaking process, all while driving up energy prices for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in the longstanding, bipartisan support for protecting the Arctic Refuge by opposing H.J. Res. 131, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. 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 the balance of my time. In closing, I strongly oppose this resolution. It would open up ecologically sensitive, culturally important, and incredibly remote regions of the Arctic to oil and gas drilling. Drilling proponents have grossly overstated how much oil industry interest there is in drilling in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic refuge. The Arctic is an extremely remote and harsh environment requiring specialized equipment and infrastructure, making it one of the costliest places to drill in the entire world. There have been multiple lease sales held in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which I want to emphasize is a wildlife refuge, and still no legitimate oil and gas company currently holds a lease there. Even during President Trump's first term, no oil and gas company kept their leases. In fact, a recent report from Taxpayers for Common Sense outlined the lack of economic viability for any oil and gas development there, citing astronomically high costs in this remote region. Let me be clear. House Republicans' actions today will do absolutely nothing to lower your energy bills, but it will allow for the sell-off of some of our most special and sacred public lands. That is why I oppose H.J. Res. 131 and all the CRA resolutions on the floor today. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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. I oppose S.J. Res. 80, which would overturn the BLM's 2022 Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision for the National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska, more commonly referred to as ``NPR-A.'' Now the name National Petroleum Reserve is more than a little misleading. This is not some industrial sacrifice zone. It is not some untapped oil field just waiting to be developed. On the contrary, the NPR-A is the largest contiguous unit of public lands in the United States. It spans 23 million acres, and this area of the western Arctic is home to a diverse ecosystem, where iconic species like wolves, polar bears, and caribou roam. Beluga and bowhead whales shelter in its coastal waters. Millions of migratory birds rely on this intact landscape and the critical waters and wetlands that are the NPR-A. The legislation before us today would withdraw a smart and well- thought-out plan to balance conservation and development in the NPR-A. The 2022 NPR-A plan was developed over more than a decade of engagement with a variety of stakeholders: scientists, experts, indigenous communities, NGOs, and industry. It aimed to limit the disruption and ecological harm from existing oil and gas development while also designating special areas to protect habitat for the many species that call this amazing place home. I respect that there are a variety of views on how to manage our Nation's public lands, but it won't be possible for future administrations to incorporate feedback and comments on proposed actions in the NPR-A if Congress approves the resolution before us today. The CRA, as we have said several times in the course of this debate, is a blunt instrument. It would prevent BLM from ever issuing a substantially similar replacement, and so this path would strip local land managers of the ability to respond to on-the-ground changes and needs for the future of the NPR-A. My friends across the aisle don't need to do this. There are already processes in place for administrations to propose new management decisions if they don't like this plan. The Trump administration is doing just that already: pursuing updates to the land management plans that we have been debating here using the standard, inclusive mechanisms that allow for public input. Interior Secretary Burgum withdrew conservation protections for the NPR-A in July. Just last week, the Interior Department finalized a new rule that overturned the previous plan. The Congressional Review Act is simply the wrong tool to address any changes to management of these lands, and it is not even necessary. Why do my Republican colleagues need to take up our valuable floor time here debating a rule that their friends in the administration have already rescinded? They just returned from a 53-day, taxpayer-funded vacation, canceled 5 weeks of votes, and still have a long to-do list before the end of the year. That list, I hope, includes figuring out how to avoid another government shutdown in January. You may wonder if my colleagues are spending time on polluter giveaways to maybe distract from something; maybe something like the fact that President Trump has been mentioned more than 1,000 times in the Epstein emails. President Trump and House Republicans continue to push their drill, baby, drill agenda even though it makes no sense for people, for the planet, or for our pocketbooks. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this distraction, this S.J. Res. 80, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again, the plan that this resolution targets for disapproval is not in place. It has been rescinded by the Trump administration. If ever there is a case for a misapplication of the CRA, it would be this right here. I think, Mr. Speaker, it is an important time for us to step back and consider why using a CRA for any, frankly, public land management plan, but certainly for one that has already been rescinded, is just a recipe for uncertainty and conflict and litigation. Nearly a third of our Nation's land mass, 640 million acres, is managed by the Federal Government. The Forest Service manages 193 million acres. BLM manages 244 million in addition to 713 million acres of Federal minerals. For nearly 50 years, BLM and the Forest Service have managed these lands under management plans required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Forest Management Act. These plans, known as resource management plans, or RMPs, establish safeguards for watersheds and recreation areas. They facilitate energy development and grazing and logging and other commercial activities and provide a mechanism for harmonizing the needs of local communities with our national goals and perspectives. Now, just a few months ago, we debated some other CRA resolutions targeting management plans, and we explained at that time how unprecedented that was. We still don't know the extent of chaos that is going to result from these actions that have already been taken, but we do know this: Under the CRA rules and ``rules'' is a technical term of art here, normally cannot go into effect unless they are submitted for congressional review. Here is the problem, BLM and the Forest Service have never considered RMPs to be rules that they would submit to Congress. They have just never done that, and that has long been the case under both Democratic and Republican Presidents with precedence being set by those Presidents. Now that Congress has decided apparently to disapprove of individual RMPs, what does that mean for every other plan that is in place that wasn't submitted to Congress? What does that mean for the small businesses, the local communities, and other public land stakeholders who depend on a stable and predictable land use planning process? If the validity of these land use plans is challenged, then leases, permits, and other authorizations that depend on those plans could be called into question. This is already creating uncertainty and delays, making it nearly impossible for new projects to proceed on time. Here are a couple of examples for consideration. What would happen to the White River oil and gas resource management plan in Colorado, which authorizes 15,000 oil and gas wells? What about the Rosemont Copper plan amendment for Forest Service lands in Arizona, approving a 5,000- acre open pit mine in the Coronado National Forest? What about the TransWest Express and Gateway South RMP amendments for three transmission lines through Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah? Does Interior now need to go back and submit all of those RMP amendments to Congress for approval under this new Republican interpretation of the CRA? Is Congress prepared to take on day-to-day management of public lands and minerals, thousands of miles from Washington, D.C.? I don't think so, but I am not the only one who has concerns about this treadmill of litigation and conflict and uncertainty that is being created here. Let me read a quote from Kathleen Sgamma, President Trump's first nominee for director of BLM. She said: ``There are some additional legal risks that can arise from the CRA. It's uncharted ground, and if not used wisely, there could be some legal risks introduced and some bad legal precedent.'' Just a few months ago, the House passed several other CRA resolutions, overturning land management plans. As we said at the time, that was unprecedented. These resolutions before us continue to chart unprecedented ground, and I don't think anyone, including my colleagues across the aisle, have thought a heck of a lot about where it leads. 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 will point out that we have heard a number of times now that more drilling is necessary in the name of energy independence. I want to remind my colleagues that the United States is already the number one producer of oil in the world and the number one producer and exporter of gas in the world, but you would sure never know it when you look at the energy bills that are facing families all over this country. It is abundantly clear that the drill, baby, drill agenda is not working for everyday Americans. As long as we are dependent on the fossil fuel roller coaster, American consumers will be at the whim of the global oil and gas market, but if we want energy independence and if we want lower utility bills, we need to get back on track with the transition to clean energy. It is cheaper. It is safer. It is generated entirely here at home instead of being at the mercy of global price shocks like oil and gas just inherently are. Instead, this legislation would make us more reliant on fossil fuels and more entangled with the price effects of this fossil fuel roller coaster. Plus, oil from America's Arctic will not come online for many, many years. The Willow project, for example, won't start until 2029. Meanwhile, the Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world. Even at the Willow project, developer ConocoPhillips will use artificial chillers to freeze melting permafrost before drilling for oil. That is the kind of complexity and additional cost that is inherent in drilling in these remote pristine parts of the Arctic. The project itself will release nearly 300 million metric tons of carbon pollution into the atmosphere over its lifetime, the equivalent of at least 66 coal-fired power plants. Again, Mr. Speaker, if we want true energy independence and security, we need to combat the climate crisis and transition to clean, renewable energy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.