Harriet Hageman

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Moran).

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ellzey).

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. There are several points that I think need to be made in relation to this bill, but also to the obvious misunderstanding not only of what the bill does but of the rulemaking process and procedure that occurs under the Administrative Procedure Act in this country right now. First of all, it applies to small businesses, not large businesses. By definition, it applies to small businesses. The allegation that this is going to somehow help these huge corporations is absolutely incorrect. In addition to which, the Prove It Act does not authorize the SBA to review the substantive policy of any particular regulation. Again, any allegation that this would allow the SBA to address the substantive aspect of a regulation is again incorrect. If the agency has complied with the RFA, then the regulation will apply to small businesses as normal. Here is something that I think is important. We often talk in the abstract about regulations and the regulatory impacts and regulatory agencies and unelected bureaucrats. Let's just talk about a real-life situation for once. Let's talk about what really happens when a regulation is adopted by an agency and the impact that it has on our small businesses. Let's use the USDA EID rule as an example. On November 5, the U.S. Department of Agriculture issued a rule mandating electronic identification ear tags on cattle and bison. It will place a substantial burden on small ranchers when it goes into effect. The USDA, however, in assessing this rule, only completed a brief, two-page initial regulatory flexibility analysis, finding that using the Small Business Administration's guidelines that the majority of cattle operations in the United States are considered small. In other words, the majority of our ranching operations are considered small businesses. In 2013, when the USDA first considered imposing a rule like this, they estimated that the cost would be between $1.2 and $1.9 billion imposed against our small ranchers, yet in this latest analysis, they did a two-page RFA analysis. I can't imagine that anyone on the other side of the aisle would actually believe that that is adequate considering the circumstances and the fact that so many of our ranchers will be financially broken by such a rule. After acknowledging that the proposed rule would have a substantial impact on small businesses, the agency then conducted an insufficient analysis based upon outdated and incorrect information. This entire analysis relies on a cost estimate created by APHIS. This estimate undervalues the cost to ranchers, and it has not even publicly disclosed how it calculated those costs. This example of avoiding the RFA requirements resulted in the USDA ignoring the true cost of the rule and how the burden is shouldered by our small businesses. The USDA and the ear-tag manufacturers are also wholly unprepared to alleviate the harm caused by the rule. In fact, many States have run out of the ear tags before even being able to provide them to the ranchers. Under the Prove It Act, the USDA would be required to account for the additional, reasonably foreseeable indirect costs that are borne by ranchers because of this rule, costs that the USDA is currently ignoring. The Prove It Act would give a voice to the ranchers and the organizations that represent them to point out the obvious flaws in APHIS's proposals, flaws which were ignored during the finalization of the rule. I think it is also incredibly important to understand that we are passing this bill today to help small businesses understand the true cost of compliance with regulations and to force regulators to be transparent when crafting their regulations. If this bill becomes law, regulators will have to come to terms with the enormous weight that they place on small businesses in the form of regulations. In fact, under the Biden-Harris administration, the regulatory burden in this country is approximately $2.1 trillion a year. It is almost $16,000 per household. I cannot understand, for the life of me, why anyone on the other side of the aisle would not want the agencies to have to disclose the real cost of these regulations. Maybe it is because they don't want the American public to understand the costs imposed by unelected bureaucrats. In an ideal world, regulators would think twice before imposing massive costs on our small businesses that are the lifeblood of so many of our communities. I also want to point out that the claim that this would slow down rulemaking is absolutely absurd. The Prove It Act is designed to ensure that agencies are complying with existing law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, when they are crafting their regulations. Agencies must already comply with the RFA's requirements. They are just not doing it, and this is a law that would force them to meet that requirement. The RFA has been the law since 1980. Why are we allowing these agencies to get away with ignoring the law as written by Congress? No agency can credibly claim that compliance with the RFA, which Congress enacted, improperly slows down the rulemaking process. I also want to point out the comment that this would result in a bottleneck created by these large corporations filing petition after petition after petition. Again, that argument is absurd. The claim that small businesses, large businesses, or trade associations would abuse the Prove It Act's petition mechanism is just simply misguided. The Prove It Act gives a method for the chief counsel for advocacy at the Small Business Administration to dismiss any petition that lacks merit. Following an initial review, the chief counsel can close the petition without any further action if the case does not warrant it. To be clear, big businesses are not allowed to petition the SBA under the Prove It Act. I would like to repeat that. Big businesses are not covered by this act. Finally, the CBO score. The CBO score for this bill is clearly wrong. The generic language that the CBO cites does not remotely support its finding that this bill will increase the deficit. CBO claims that direct spending would increase by $10 million, and Congress would need to appropriate an extra $35 million to Federal agencies for them to do much of the same work that they were supposed to be doing for the last 40 years. Every Federal agency that engages in rulemaking should already have the staff and resources on board to comply with the law. The Prove It Act simply requires the already existing staff perform some additional analyses to report on the reasonably foreseeable indirect costs of their regulations. This should be relatively straightforward for the personnel already tasked with the RFA analysis. Finally, any agency that is burdened by the Prove It Act's requirements probably did not comply with the RFA in the first place. One of the things that I find so interesting in these debates about our efforts to force transparency and good government provisions on our agencies is often this discussion that it is going to destroy the air and water, we are going to have sick kids, the toys are going to be destroyed, and everything is going to be dangerous. That is absolutely absurd, and it is a red herring. There is nothing wrong with requiring our agencies to be transparent and up-front about the costs that they are imposing on our businesses when they adopt regulations. I am actually surprised that anyone would oppose the Prove It Act in light of what it is intended to do. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there are a few more points I would like to make. Despite SBA's best efforts to help agencies comply with their obligations under the RFA, those efforts are being ignored. Agencies have had 40 years to develop the experience and expertise necessary to comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and still regularly come up short. The claim that training is the answer is simply an attempt to distract from the importance of the Prove It Act. If we adopt this amendment and training is mandated instead of adopting the Prove It Act's provisions, nothing will change. Small businesses around the country will still be harmed by regulatory agencies blatantly ignoring their obligations under the RFA and discounting the costs of regulations. The only legitimate solution is to adopt the Prove It Act, which strengthens the RFA and creates mechanisms to force regulatory agencies to comply with the law. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment. This amendment simply strikes the entire bill and replaces it with a training mandate. Claiming that training is all that is necessary to help agencies comply with their obligations under the RFA completely ignores the problems that the Prove It Act is going to solve. The Small Business Administration already offers training sessions for regulators and has done so for over 20 years. According to the SBA, they held nine training sessions and trained 139 Federal officials in 2023 alone. Further, the SBA has already trained personnel at nearly every Federal agency and department since 2003. Despite this training, however, in 2023, SBA sent 46 letters to agencies across government outlining the deficiencies in their RFA analysis. In 30 cases, the SBA found that agencies conducted inadequate analysis of small business impacts. What this means is that during the rulemaking process for 30 rules, agencies did not comply with already existing law despite the SBA training they likely received. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the incredible strength and resilience of Janelle Jones, a grieving mother who has turned her profound loss into a mission to protect others. After the tragic loss of her beloved son, Makaili ``Mak'' James Evans, to a distracted driver, Janelle has shown extraordinary determination in advocating for pedestrian safety. Her courage is a testament to her strength and a meaningful way of honoring Mak's memory. Janelle's advocacy has brought much-needed attention to the importance of protecting our children by making our roads safer. Her efforts have led to enhanced pedestrian safety measures, including improvements at the same intersection where young Mak tragically lost his life. Her work serves as both a tribute to her son and a call to action for all of us. As we remember Mak and others who have lost their lives on our roads, let us commit to honoring their memory by taking meaningful steps to prevent tragedies like this as we draw inspiration from mothers like Janelle.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the life and legacy of Dessie Bebout. Born as the fourth of nine children and raised in the small town of Hudson, Wyoming, love of family and community quickly became guiding principles that steered the course of Dessie's life of unending service. Following the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, Dessie was one of the first women to join the war effort under the newly established Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service program where she took part in recording and tracking the arrival and departure of sailors to and from the Pacific fleet throughout the war. Despite her excelling in this role and later being presented with the opportunity to participate in officer training school, Dessie chose to return to Wyoming with the love of her life, Herbert Hugh Bebout, after getting married while they were both on leave. However, it was in 1962 that Dessie began her notable 13-year-long career at the Shoshoni Post Office where she would serve as the postmaster with great distinction, and upon her retirement, received the Order of the Vest, the highest and most prestigious recognition given to postmasters. Dessie peacefully passed away in May 2023 at the age of 102, after living a remarkable life rooted in public service. Happy Birthday Mom

Ms. HAGEMAN. Madam Speaker, shout out to my mother today for her birthday. She is 101 years young. Happy birthday, Marion Hageman.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, amendment No. 18 to H.R. 8997, which prohibits funds from the Department of Energy's implementation of its proposed Industrial Decarbonization roadmap. The Industrial Decarbonization roadmap radically reforms four different categories of CO2 emitters in the residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation sectors. We have seen this administration target residential carbon emissions by going after everything that works in your home, from gas stoves to washers and dryers to water heaters. Additionally, we have seen this administration go after the transportation sector through tailpipe emission requirements, fuel efficiency standards, and propping up the electric vehicle industry. The Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap specifically targets a few key industries that significantly contribute to the stability of our Nation's economy and supply chain--namely, the petroleum refining, chemicals, iron and steel, cement, and food and beverage industries. This so-called roadmap actually recommends the use of less efficient energy sources, including so-called clean energy to ultimately replace the use of affordable and reliable energy resources. This roadmap is anti-energy independence and in favor of forced transition away from fossil fuels. According to the Department of Energy, this initiative is ``critical to equity goals, specifically the administration's Justice 40 initiative.'' However, there is nothing just about forcing millions of Americans into energy poverty. For those of my colleagues who may support this roadmap, remember that it is your fellow Americans who pay for it. One of the goals mentioned in the roadmap is to ``prepare the existing 11.4 million American manufacturing workers and future workforce for the clean energy transition.'' Mr. Chairman, I can tell you this administration is not concerned about our workers. I recently met with coal miners in Wyoming whose livelihoods have been threatened by a recent BLM action. I asked OSMRE and the BLM in a recent hearing what their plans were to mitigate for the tens of thousands of job losses that will result from this regulation, and they couldn't answer. As the sole Representative of a State whose legacy industries have been undermined by the Federal Government in the name of this so-called transition, I voice my strong opposition to this roadmap. Mr. Chair, I urge passage of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, the Biden-Harris administration hasn't been shy about its distaste for American workers who provide affordable and reliable energy to the rest of the country. This administration cares more about filling the pockets of OPEC, Venezuela, and Iran than it does about energy independence, energy affordability, and energy reliability. The main component of the roadmap is a transition to what they refer to as no-carbon fuels. Not only is such a goal ludicrous and infeasible, but Americans see through these claims. The reality is that this so-called no-carbon fuels receive four times more in subsidies and yet produce only one-fifth of the energy. They are simply unreliable and unaffordable, even with the ridiculous amount of taxpayer money being thrown at them. This so-called clean energy is completely propped up by the Federal Government. Figures from the U.S. Energy Information Administration show that renewables received at least $15.6 billion in subsidies during fiscal year 2022. Ironically, the second largest recipients of subsidies, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration are low-income families, who are struggling to pay their utility bills under this administration. Why are they struggling? They are struggling because of rising energy prices and rising utility rates that come as the result of forcing this so-called transition--forced energy poverty by an out-of-touch Biden- Harris administration. We cannot afford to pursue these failed energy policies imposed upon us by this radical administration. I ask my colleagues to join me in defunding the Department of Energy's implementation of its proposed Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment No. 41 to H.R. 8998, which prevents the Bureau of Land Management from finalizing, implementing, administering, or enforcing its Western Solar Plan. On January 19, 2024, the BLM published a notice of availability for the newly introduced Programmatic Environmental Impact Assessment and corresponding Research Management Plan Amendment. This plan amendment will have serious implications regarding current uses of public lands throughout the West and particularly in my home State of Wyoming. The plan amendment would implement sweeping changes to resource management plans, or RMPs, in 11 States on 162 million acres and affecting hundreds of counties in the West. In Wyoming alone, it will impact 18 million acres of land. I have heard from many county officials in Wyoming that this plan amendment simply glosses over the analysis that would otherwise be given in a planning document developed at a local level. This planning amendment is detached from the priorities held by most Western communities when it comes to economic development on their public lands. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I want to push back against the false narrative that solar energy is actually clean energy or would protect our environment. This has actually become a political battle for government subsidies. Many power companies are being subsidized tens of millions of dollars for so-called clean energy, and the American people are paying the price for it. Just across the State line in Nebraska in July of 2023, the panels of a solar farm in Scotts Bluff, Nebraska, were destroyed in a hailstorm, only to be taken to a landfill because they are not recyclable. Even when solar panels aren't destroyed by hailstorms or other extreme weather events, they gradually stop producing electricity and reach the end of their lives in less than 20 years. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency, over 78 million tons of solar panels will come to the point and will be filling a landfill near you. Aren't we all glad about that? Only about 10 percent of solar panels are recyclable, and those that are recyclable, only a small part of a single solar panel contains recoverable minerals. There are many other examples of solar panel catastrophes related to extreme weather events, including filling rivers with shards of panels and other events that hurt wildlife and fisheries, but above all these concerns are the fact that they replace affordable and reliable energy sources with expensively subsidized, nonreliable power that results in power companies looking to the spot market to mitigate for what they cannot produce when the Sun doesn't shine, or the wind doesn't blow. This Western Solar Plan is forcing energy poverty on our communities. It is taking our productive economic activities away and replacing them with nonreliable and unaffordable energy. It is impacting jobs in Wyoming and starving our communities of the essential services that are funded by our more productive industries. I don't believe in energy poverty, and for that reason I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, one of the things about this plan is that it includes an irrelevant socioeconomic analysis that neglects to consider the most important activities impacted by this proposal. It reviews without explanation the population, employment, income, State sales and income tax revenues, housing, and State and local government expenditures, but fails to address a very significant and important variable, which is the fact that the largest contributor to the funding of local governments in the State is through our energy producers. The BLM socioeconomic analysis doesn't include anything related to the loss of revenue generated by our most important revenue-generating industries in the State, and that is very telling. This plan should not go forward, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Quite ironically, this plan amendment directly impacts mining of trona, which is developed into soda ash, which is a critical component in many industrial and consumer products, including flat glass and solar energy infrastructure. The Known Sodium Leasing Area located within the Green River Basin encompasses 1,100 square miles within the BLM's Rock Springs and Kemmerer field offices. Searching where the U.S. produces most of its trona, it is ironically right where the Biden-Harris administration is trying to force these solar panels. The Biden-Harris administration has failed at every energy policy level since day one. The Western Solar Plan is just one more example of such failure. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment, amendment No. 42 to H.R. 8998, which prohibits the finalization of the draft resource management plan, or RMP, revision for the Bureau of Land Management's Rock Springs Field Office. This RMP revision severely restricts grazing, mining, energy production, recreation, and other activities on 3.6 million acres of land in Wyoming. The BLM field districts are required to update their RMPs in accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and in 2011, the Rock Springs Field Office started that process. The draft revision that was released for public comment in 2023 has gained national attention for its unprecedented policy shift to prohibit access, management, and use to literally millions of acres of land. The RMP contains four alternatives for the planning area, including alternative A, which amounts to no action; BLM's preferred alternative B, which would have tremendous negative consequences for the State and the Nation; alternative C, which severely restricts recreational activities; and alternative D, which was not viewed favorably by the local community. Unsurprisingly, the BLM chose the plan that Wyoming and the Nation are most opposed to in terms of its preference. In total, under the preferred alternative, about 2.5 million acres would not be available for new rights-of-way. This would be an increase of more than 480 percent in acreage off-limits to important things like power lines, pipelines, and maintaining roads. The RMP severely restricts vehicle access, including 4,505 miles of routes to all use and then removing an additional 10,000 miles of routes from the transportation network. The plan even calls for limiting vehicles to designated roads across the landscape, but it doesn't clarify which roads will be designated for travel. The draft RMP designates 1.8 million acres of the planning area as areas of critical and environmental concern, which undermines all opportunities for economic development, particularly as it relates to energy production and mineral extraction. This is an increase of 1.3 million acres when compared to current BLM policies. The Rock Springs RMP is bad policy from beginning to end. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, this amendment is not just about mining or energy and mineral extraction. This RMP is one of the largest land grabs we have ever seen, and it impacts everything from grazing to recreation. Grazing will be severely impacted by the preferred alternative of this RMP, including through a ban on livestock grazing and big game parturition habitat during the birthing season; prohibiting range improvement projects, such as troughs, reservoirs, and fences; and suspending AUMs currently authorized within the planning area. Perhaps what is most disheartening about this RMP is the fact that the BLM chose to move forward with the least studied plan out of all alternatives. In fact, Sweetwater County's public lands director verified in a hearing a few months ago that the BLM spent about 1 week out of 11 years on the preferred alternative. What is now its preferred alternative is clearly in violation of FLPMA and the obligation to take a hard look at the alternative chosen. A former BLM employee who worked on this RMP testified in front of State legislators in Wyoming that the preferred alternative was created as a bookend alternative and mentioned that they spent 1 week on alternative B and then the next 6 years on alternative D. It was also said to a reporter that this plan takes the public off of the public lands. The alternative laid out in this plan, particularly alternative B, will destroy Wyoming's local economy and dramatically decrease the development of energy resources needed to power this country, undermine our national security, and destroy our local livestock industry. We cannot go on like this. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, which would nullify the implementation of this monstrosity of a plan. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment No. 43 to H.R. 8998, which prohibits the establishment or operation of an Office of Agriculture and Rural Affairs within the EPA. I am completely opposed to the creation of this office due to the fact that it is duplicative, lacks congressional authorization, and because of the EPA's poor track record in assisting rural and agricultural communities in America. I appreciate that the bill report language also expresses concern over the creation of this office, stating that the impact of the agency's actions on agricultural production and rural America can't be overstated. The EPA suggested this office serve as the primary liaison between stakeholders and the agency. The reality is that this office does not fill any gap in the Federal Government's engagement with agricultural and rural communities and is, therefore, duplicative. An entire Federal department, the USDA, along with numerous USDA subagencies exist to address ag issues along with countless offices and other departments and agencies. On top of the USDA, the EPA already has a Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee to advise the EPA on environmental issues and policies that are of importance to agricultural and rural communities. The fact is that there is little necessity for this office. I am concerned that the very creation of this new office is an attempt to use government solely for the benefits of a single Federal employee. As noted in the press release announcing the office, it will be headed by Rob Snyder, who served as Administrator Regan's Senior Advisor for Agriculture since October 2021. It is incumbent on the EPA to provide further justification for this office and prove that this action isn't just a pet project or reward for a Federal employee. This is a bad policy that the EPA is pursuing. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, the EPA has advertised the creation of this office as an opportunity to better hear and understand the concerns of rural communities. Its website, however, reveals its true purpose, which is to ``advance the U.S. agriculture sector's climate mitigation and adaptation goals.'' The EPA even touts Mr. Snyder as a longtime champion of agricultural solutions to climate change. Our Nation's food producers are increasingly targeted by the Federal agencies for climate disclosure and mitigation action, likely spurred by a political agenda developed outside of government. Clearly, this office is being created to further a political agenda rather than to address the issues that are most important to our rural communities. The Biden-Harris administration has directly said we have to reduce emissions from the food system. That has been their goal, and Director Snyder, whom they have appointed to head this new office, will dutifully carry out their efforts to decrease our food supply. Again, this agency is not needed, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, an administration that cares about prosperity and abundance should be more concerned about the availability of food and what everyday Americans pay out of their pockets at the grocery store. Instead, the Biden-Harris administration expresses concern over animal- and food-related emissions and proposes goals and regulations to address this. I have already highlighted some of the ways that the EPA has gone after rural communities. This office will not be the eyes and ears for our rural communities. Instead, it will continue to support climate- related policies that hurt our farmers and ranchers. The Biden-Harris administration has a history of adopting rules and policies suggested by international NGOs. The Federal Government, unfortunately, has a tendency to follow the poor examples of other countries by adopting terrible policies after they do, especially if it is related to this nonsense surrounding so-called climate change. We don't need this office within the EPA. We already have to deal with the USDA. Mr. Chair, I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of my amendment No. 44 to H.R. 8998, which would block the Bureau of Land Management's proposed Resource Management Plans in the Buffalo, Wyoming, planning area and the Miles City, Montana, planning area. I am grateful for the support of Congressman Rosendale as these RMPs impact his district as much as they impact mine. The Buffalo field office is located in the Powder River Basin, which is the largest coal-producing region in the United States of America. More than 40 percent of the Nation's coal is produced in Wyoming in the Powder River Basin. Without our coal, we can't power this country. Yet, the BLM has chosen to pursue the no-new-coal leasing alternative, seeking to end coal mining in the region by 2041. The State relies on the basin for revenues used for things like local education, but as importantly, the Nation relies on the basin for power. While seemingly a local decision only affecting a local area, its going into effect would mean disaster for Wyoming and lights out for America. Wyoming coal producers produced 244.3 million tons of coal in 2022, the vast majority from federally owned Powder River Basin coal. Even with this high volume of production, it wasn't enough to meet contracted demand, as producers lost an estimated 60 million tons of production because of the inability to move coal to customers due to poor rail service. This demonstrates the high demand for Wyoming coal. Coal contributed $562.7 million to State and local governments from taxes and royalties. Additionally, according to the Wyoming Mining Association, Wyoming's share of Federal mineral royalties--royalties paid on mining the leased Federal coal--was over $184 million, with $229.7 million being paid to the Federal Government. When I asked the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement in committee a couple months ago if they had any plans to mitigate for this lost revenue and jobs because of the BLM's decision to move forward with this rule, they had no answer. Despite what Democrats have to say about helping coal communities, they have no plan to mitigate for their reckless damage to these communities and have no legitimate effective or feasible way to replace this valuable energy resource. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.