Joe Neguse

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, to discuss this proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu), who has been a tireless leader on this issue among so many others from California.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a respected member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, this is not particularly complicated. Since 1790 and the first population tally done in the United States, citizens and noncitizens have been included. Never before has the 14th Amendment been construed as the way that the gentlewoman from Indiana proposes now. It is a radical view that is not supported by the plain text of the Constitution or the amendments thereof. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, not to belabor the point, but when the gentlewoman from Indiana uses the phrase ``current practice,'' what she is referring to is the entirety of American history. Let me repeat that, Mr. Speaker. For hundreds of years, this is the way population counts have been done. That is why the current practice is consistent with the plain reading of the 14th Amendment, a plain reading of the Constitution, and hundreds of years of precedent. What House Republicans are proposing is a radical departure from it. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. Mr. Speaker, today's rule is, unfortunately, a testament to the House Republican playbook since assuming the majority--chaos, political theater, and infighting. This Republican-controlled House has passed the lowest number of laws for the first year of session in nearly 100 years. It is safe to say it is the least productive Congress in any of our lifetimes. House Republicans have been focused on other priorities: A baseless, politically motivated impeachment inquiry into the President that went nowhere; impeachment proceedings against the Secretary of Homeland Security, which were immediately dismissed by the Senate, the first time that the Senate has dismissed Articles of Impeachment without trial after the reading; and now microwaves, freedom for refrigerators, and liberty for laundry. That is the focus of this House Republican majority. It makes sense that Republicans would spend their time on such ridiculous legislative efforts given the chaos that the majority has engulfed this body into-- the vacating of the Speaker 7 months ago, seven rules that have failed on the House floor as Republicans engage in open rebellion against their own leadership. The American people are tired, Mr. Speaker, of the political stunts and the messaging bills. They are tired of the infighting. They want to see leadership, and that, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what they have seen through the leadership of Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries and a united House Democratic Caucus. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that House Democrats have rescued this failing House Republican majority at nearly every turn. It was House Democrats who ensured that the U.S. didn't default on its debt last year, House Democrats who kept the government funded, House Democrats who carried the votes on the NDAA, and House Democrats who got the national security supplemental bill across the finish line and to the President's desk. At every opportunity, Mr. Speaker, House Democrats have used this Chamber to stand against legislation that would hurt average Americans. While House Republicans are busy fighting each other, House Democrats are fighting for the American people, and we will continue to do that each and every day. We implore our Republican colleagues to join us. One way my colleagues could do so is to oppose the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bills, and we implore them to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. NEGUSE

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

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Madam Speaker, first and foremost, let me thank Representative Jacobs for her determined leadership on this particular issue, among many others. I stand here today in solidarity with Representative Jacobs, Representative Wild, and the leaders of the Pro-Choice Caucus in the United States Congress to help shine a light, as my colleague from California has done so well, on House Republican hypocrisy. In February, as we now know, the Alabama Supreme Court issued a dangerous ruling that upended fertility care and opened the door for extremists to push through their destructive agenda. In the months that followed, as Representative Jacobs referenced, many House Republicans have rushed to this House floor, to any TV camera that they may be able to find, to profess their support for IVF, the reproductive technology in question. To them, I say the same admonition that Representative Jacobs offered: Their actions have clearly shown otherwise. They have already shown who they are and what they believe. Make no mistake, Madam Speaker. If given the chance, unfortunately, extreme Members of the Republican Conference will find every opportunity to deprive Americans of their fundamental freedoms, criminalizing abortion nationwide, prosecuting the doctors and nurses willing to perform lifesaving care, and pursuing this dangerous legislation that Representative Jacobs so eloquently described. We, of course, are already seeing the consequences of that extremism across the country, in Ohio, in Alabama, and in Florida, where just today, a ban on abortion past 6 weeks of pregnancy has taken effect. Madam Speaker, the American people will not stand for this. House Democrats will not stand for this. We will keep pushing back against these plans to drag Americans back to the laws of the last century, and we will keep working to protect the right of every woman to make her own healthcare decisions. I again salute Representative Jacobs, and, in particular, I want to salute Representative Wild, who introduced legislation that this body must pass in the days and weeks ahead. I salute her for her leadership and her determination on behalf of every American in our land.

Mr. NEGUSE

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

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

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, look, I have, again, great respect for the chairman and the gentleman from Utah who just spoke, but balance is exactly what we are trying to achieve. As a Representative from the West, I can tell you that my constituents support this rule, as do the vast majority of folks out West. There have been these repeated references to Washington. I think the phrase was Washington bureaucrats. I don't know about the gentleman from Utah. Perhaps he doesn't have a relationship with the land management in his State. I certainly have a very productive and robust relationship with our BLM partners in Colorado, including the Western headquarters, which is based in Grand Junction, Colorado--one of the reasons, by the way, that one of the comment sessions, the forums hosted by the BLM with respect to the rulemaking on this particular rule, was held in Colorado. The agency is listening to the folks on the ground, to citizens, to folks in rural America, to folks in the Rocky Mountain West, to hunters and anglers who, by the way, also support this rule. There have been multiple references to this notion that somehow, by the BLM promulgating this rule, that enables multiple use and does not put one use ahead of another, that that would somehow negatively implicate hunters or anglers--not true. How do we know it is not true? Because the back-country hunters and anglers sent a letter yesterday to the Speaker of the House. I will read from it: We strongly urge the House of Representatives to vote ``no'' on these bills. The bills that they are referencing include, among others, the WEST Act. In particular, I will again read from their letter, not my words: H.R. 3397, that is the WEST Act, would prohibit the implementation of the recently finalized BLM public lands rule. Hunters and anglers widely supported this forward- looking, comprehensive rule that will have a meaningful impact on fish and wildlife habitat by prioritizing conservation and restoration alongside other types of land use. This is a reasonable rule. It is a prudent rule that unfortunately is being threatened by this extreme bill that I don't think the majority of the American people will support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Kamlager-Dove).

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just simply add, and then I know we will continue with this debate, but echoing the sentiments of my colleague from California, there have been repeated, in my view, misstatements about the full ambit of the BLM rule. To be crystal clear, this is from the executive summary of the rule, it says: ``To support efforts to protect and restore public lands, the proposed rule clarifies that conservation is a use on par with other uses of the public lands under FLPMA's multiple-use and sustained-yield framework.'' This is later in the same summary: ``The rule does not prioritize conservation above other uses. Instead, it provides for considering and, where appropriate, implementing or authorizing conservation. . . .'' on an equal footing with other uses consistent with the plain language of FLPMA. That is from the rule. Context matters, and I think it is an important clarification. Lastly, I would say, Mr. Speaker, there was some commentary with respect to the full spectrum of engagement by the BLM with citizens across the country as it was promulgating this rule and reference was made to the locations where these forums were held. I trust that the chairman, my good friend from Arkansas, has been to the communities that he listed--I certainly have--to Reno, to Albuquerque, and to Denver, and I can tell him that every one of those municipalities is nestled within 10, 15, 20, 25 miles of extensive lands that are managed both by the BLM and the Forest Service. How do I know? Because I live in Colorado, and I happen to represent many acres of land managed by the BLM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

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

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just simply say, again, there have been a number of misstatements with respect to the constitutionality and the statutory authority of this particular rule that has been promulgated by the BLM. It is clearly constitutional. It is consistent with the statutory authority that Congress has ultimately conveyed to the BLM via FLPMA. You don't have to take my word for it. You can read the statute. Section 302 very clearly states that the agency has the authority to ultimately ensure multiple use by ``the management of the public lands and their various resource values so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.'' Now, that phrase arguably could be nebulous to some. Well, the good news is that Congress did, in fact, clarify what those present and future needs of the American people happen to be. Again, I will quote from the statute: ``The use of some land for less than all of the resources; a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural, scenic, scientific and historical values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the . . . productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.'' That is the statute. You have the statutory authority supporting a rule that by its plain language simply puts conservation on par with other uses. This is not complicated. The American people support this rule. Hunters and anglers support this rule. Recreationists support this rule. Constituents in Colorado and States across the West support this rule, and so should the Congress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for closing. Mr. Speaker, I have participated in a lot of debates during my time in Congress. This has got to be one of the most confounding for me, because repeatedly, unfortunately, I have colleagues, friends on the other side of the aisle, making statements about what this rule does when the plain language of the rule says the exact opposite. There are folks here in the gallery, I suspect, who are just as confused as I am. One need look no further than the plain language of the rule. The rule says that it is putting conservation on par with these other uses. Grazing is allowed under the rule. Oil and gas development is allowed under the rule. Conservation is allowed under the rule. If my colleagues don't want conservation considered by the BLM with respect to how these lands are managed, which is clearly what they believe, then they should just say so. They should just be candid with the American people that they don't think these lands should be managed with conservation in mind at all. I disagree with that view, and the American people disagree with that view, but that is an intellectually honest position. Be that as it may, don't mischaracterize the rule that the agency ultimately promulgated because the American people can see it for themselves. They can read the same plain language that I have read repeatedly on the House floor over the course of the last hour of debate. Mr. Speaker, Congress charged the Bureau of Land Management with seeking balance statutorily. That is the word we used in the statute giving BLM its authority: ``so that they are utilized in a combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.'' That is what the Biden administration has done with respect to the development of this rule. When we had the hearing on this bill in the Natural Resources Committee, a constituent of mine testified in support of the bill. Eagle County Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry said that she made the trip to Washington to be here to support this particular rule. I think her testimony said it best, so I will quote it here: ``I support the BLM's proposed public lands rule. It will empower the agency to deliver on its multiple-use mandate by placing conservation values on equal footing with other uses on our public lands.'' That is it. People in Colorado, in my State, in my district, and throughout the West rely on our public lands for a wide variety of uses and benefits. I speak with some authority on this particular subject because I represent a congressional district that is larger than eight States in the Union. That includes over 40 percent of it being public lands managed by the BLM and the Forest Service. When I talk about the need to prioritize resilience and balance, I speak about it on behalf of those communities that I am so honored to represent. I appreciate the dialogue that we have had with my colleague from Utah and, of course, with my friend, the chairman from Arkansas, but I respectfully disagree with respect to this bill. Mr. Speaker, I hope that perhaps my colleagues will see the light and vote against H.R. 3397. I certainly will be. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida (Mrs. Cherfilus-McCormick) for her leadership. I also thank the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Chairman Horsford, and all of my colleagues gathered today to honor a great man, a kind man, and a good man, our beloved colleague, Congressman Donald Payne, Jr. With incredible style and a bone-deep optimism that was truly contagious, Don was a kind and gentle giant in the people's House. His dedication to the people of New Jersey was inspiring. His good-natured spirit and his humor were a comfort to us all. Don used his voice, often standing in this very Chamber--delivering more speeches in the people's House in this Congress than any other Member of this august body--to elevate the issues that matter to his community, the people of New Jersey, and the American people. His impact has been felt and will be felt by countless folks across the State of New Jersey and across our great country, including those who benefited from his efforts to expand access to safe drinking water, to implement better pay and safer working conditions, and to do so much more. Above all else, he was a kind, good, and decent man. I was proud to call him a friend, as we all were. As we prepare to lay him to rest, our hearts go out to his wife, Beatrice, and their triplets. May they find comfort in their loving memories of a good, kind, and decent man.

Mr. NEGUSE

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

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), for the customary 30 minutes. (Mr. NEGUSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, while I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), the chairman of the distinguished Rules Committee, I must say I am confounded by the audacity of any House Republican to come to the floor and lecture any of us about national security when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have held hostage a bill that passed the United States Senate on a bipartisan basis to address the national security needs of this country. For months, the majority has held that bill hostage and refuse to put the bill on the floor. Republicans also have the audacity to come to the floor and lecture us or the White House. The White House needs no reminder about the necessity of supporting our allies. My colleagues have implored this institution to do its job in supporting our allies abroad. It is the Speaker and the House Republican caucus that refuse to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, today's rule, as Mr. Massie articulated, again provides for the consideration of four bills. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that you will be familiar with these four bills because these four bills were under a rule 2 days ago. What happened to that rule? It failed, and that is part and parcel of the chaos and dysfunction that House Republicans have engulfed this august Chamber in for the better part of the last 15 months. As of 2 days ago, seven rules--seven--have failed on the House floor, Mr. Speaker. You might be wondering and those watching from home might be wondering how many rules failed when Democrats had the majority under Speaker Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi. In fact, from 1999 to 2023, only two rules failed on the House floor, neither of which happened when House Democrats were in control of this Chamber. The last bill, Mr. Speaker, to pass the Rules Committee and make its way to the President's desk without suspension of our rules was almost 1 year ago. That is unprecedented. It is not hyperbole to say that Republicans have literally presided over the most ineffective session of Congress in history. Despite, by the way, Mr. Speaker, the pressing challenges that our Nation faces, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle repeatedly show that Republicans have no capacity or desire to govern, instead prioritizing unwarranted censures, sham impeachments, and nonbinding resolution after nonbinding resolution. Instead of debating core issues, like lowering costs, growing the middle class, building safer communities, addressing our critical national security needs, we have spent yet another week here in Washington wasting time. This is the third time that we are considering a variation of one of these nonbinding resolutions today. Stunts over solutions, Mr. Speaker, has become unfortunately, the majority's motto. This is not how governing is supposed to work. I have served in this body for some time now. I know there are serious Members on the other side of the aisle. I wish Republicans would pull back their caucus and this institution from the brink and work with us in a bipartisan way to address core needs of the American people. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have yet to show any desire to do so, but hope springs eternal. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California.