Melanie Stansbury

Ms. STANSBURY

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Emma Brundage. Emma is a member of Girl Scouts of New Mexico Trails, Troop 10141, and has exemplified extraordinary leadership, creativity, and demonstrated a commitment to making a lasting impact, by earning the most prestigious award in Girl Scouting, the Gold Award. Gold Award Girl Scouts are recognized as trailblazers who are willing to tackle the most pressing challenges facing their communities and the world with measurable, sustainable, and far-reaching results. To earn the Girl Scout Gold Award, high school-age Girl Scouts must identify and investigate an issue they care about, devise a plan, and then lead a team of experts and community members to implement a project that produces lasting change. Over the course of 1-2 years, Gold Award Girl Scouts demonstrate significant initiative, commitment, and leadership, distinguishing them from their peers. Through their resourcefulness and perseverance, they embody the Girl Scout Law to truly make the world a better place. Emma's project, ``My Hair is My CROWN'', was an excellent endeavor to address hair discrimination in our community. Emma took action by creating an educational exhibit, leading workshops on hair care and legal rights, and advocating for awareness about the CROWN Act at the New Mexico State Legislature to empower young girls to embrace their natural hair and feel confident in their identity, which will have a positive impact on our community for years to come. On behalf of the 1st Congressional District of New Mexico, congratulations to Emma Brundage for her efforts put forth in achieving the highest distinction in Girl Scouts, the Gold Award. I thank Emma for all the hard work she has done for our community.

Ms. STANSBURY

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

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

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

Ms. STANSBURY

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I am happy to be here once again on another set of energy bills and amendments. While I certainly support the goal of this bill to deploy more clean, renewable geothermal energy on our public lands, unfortunately I and other members of our Caucus are unable to support this bill in its current form and urge opposition to the bill. Throughout this Congress, geothermal energy has been a bright spot of bipartisanship. Geothermal is an extremely promising and growing source of sustainable and reliable renewable energy. We have heard from geothermal developers that there can be challenges to permitting new plants and new facilities, so we understand the intent of this bill. That is why our committee has worked on a bipartisan basis to get to solutions that will help support the industry and deploy more renewable energy. I am grateful to my colleagues who have taken up this issue, bills like the Geothermal Cost-Recovery Authority Act from Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, the GEO Act from Representative Curtis, and H.R. 6474 from Representative Steel and others. I was pleased to see these responsible permitting solutions pass the House, and I hope to see Senate action on them soon and continued bipartisan work. Unfortunately, this bill is not in a place where we can offer bipartisan support. H.R. 1449, the CLEAN Act, does contain some important provisions that we would be supportive of, but it also contains some serious technical flaws that could create major constraints and unintended consequences for geothermal projects. First, the bill mandates that more geothermal lease sales happen. Democrats, in general, support this. We want to see additional geothermal facilities and the use of our Federal resources where appropriate to do that. We would love to see more resources offered through our agencies so that they can actually do this work, but we will take it as it is. Next, however, the bill says that the Department of the Interior must notify an applicant for a geothermal drilling permit as to whether the application is complete within 30 days. When the Department of the Interior testified on the bill, they recommended increasing the timeline to 90 days to provide sufficient time for the limited situations where staffing, project size, or complexity would prevent an office from complying. For example, let's say an office is understaffed at the moment. We offered this change in committee and again today are offering it on the House floor. Ranking Member Grijalva's amendment would change the first deadline from 30 days to 90 days, an easy fix. We are willing to negotiate on the exact number, but unfortunately, we have not had willing partners in that negotiation. They are continuing to insist on a timeline that is not workable for our Federal Government. Next, and most problematically, the bill would require that the Department of the Interior make a final decision on a permit, either approving or denying it, within 30 days of the application being complete. The Department has called this essentially impossible to achieve. Issuing a decision within 30 days would not allow adequate time to complete the analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. There are other permits from other agencies, like Fish and Wildlife, EPA, and Tribal consultation that must occur before a permit can be issued. In the best case scenario, this bill would result in uncoordinated, rushed approvals where the Department and our communities barely understand the potential environmental and cultural impacts required by law, which would result in lawsuits and delay projects even further. In a worst case scenario, good, worthy projects could get denied simply because an agency doesn't have sufficient staffing and time to comply with the deadline in the bill. All the possible scenarios here are just a bad deal for geothermal developers and a bad deal for Americans who would like to see clean energy deployed responsibly, effectively, and quickly. To solve this, we filed several amendments at markup for consideration on the floor to provide necessary flexibility and time to complete the reviews and prevent avoidable denials, but unfortunately, those were not taken up at the committee level. I will also point out that the House passed a bill along these lines by voice vote earlier this year. The GEO Act from Representative Curtis of Utah addresses similar permitting concerns but directs the Department to issue a decision on a permit within 60 days of the completion of the review under NEPA and other laws. That is a Republican-led bill that the agency believes they can work with, so we have a possibility of a path forward. Even in the Senate, we have a Manchin-Barrasso bipartisan permitting bill that would adopt similar language to make a more workable timeline, which is similar to the amendment offered by Ranking Member Grijalva today. We hope that our colleagues across the aisle will come to the negotiating table if this bill does move forward. It is important that we fix these timelines. I understand that we are trying to expedite and improve the deployment and permitting of these projects, but we have to make sure that they are workable from a practical standpoint within our communities and agencies. We want positive outcomes, clean energy, and geothermal. This is a bipartisan issue. We can do this. Let's come to the table and get something done that we can all support. Unfortunately, today, I have to urge opposition to this bill. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chair, I want to respond to one comment that was just made about the employees of the Department of the Interior. For many folks who are not familiar with the Department of the Interior, I will note that there have been people in history who have called it the department of everything because it manages our public lands, water resources and reservoirs, wildlife through the Fish and Wildlife Service, and mineral leasing. It does our geologic surveys. It manages and provides programs and responsibilities to our Tribal nations. The reason why there are 70,000 employees in the Department of the Interior is because they work across all of those bureaus and missions. The reality is, if you have ever had to work with the Federal Government, Mr. Chair, is that many of these kinds of decisions are made at the most local level in a field office in the Bureau of Land Management, which is the agency responsible for permitting at the most local level. Oftentimes, the agencies find themselves with staff vacancies, a lack of resources, or they have multiple permits come across the desk of a local resource manager. To expect somebody who is working in a field office, potentially in a rural or remote area of the United States, to process a sophisticated permit and all the related interagency and interbureau coordination and Tribal consultation required in 30 days is just not realistic. While I appreciate the assertion, that is just not how it works. Let's be reasonable. We all want the same outcome. Let's not create a law that just results in lawsuits and difficulties for our Federal agencies so that we can move on and get this done. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the debate. Democrats are strong proponents of geothermal energy and support the intent of this bill. This technology is critical for the clean energy transition, jobs, and replacing other kinds of energy. We want to see responsible development in relation to our public lands. To make that goal a reality, Democrats have supported bipartisan legislation that increases efficiency in permitting processes and other legislation that gets at the same challenges that this bill is trying to address without taking away the necessary environmental and community input. Unfortunately, there are technical aspects of this bill, including the timelines, that are just not realistic. In addition to those arbitrary timelines that would undercut community voices and potential protections in sensitive places, this would make projects themselves more vulnerable to delays should lawsuits happen or there are shoddy reviews or a lack of outside input. I want us to be good bipartisan partners to all of you in this work, but we really do have to come up with some commonsense fixes. Mr. Chair, as I mentioned just a few moments ago, I hope that we can work together to resolve those technical issues. I ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the bill as it is currently drafted, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. STANSBURY

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

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in opposition to another Natural Resources bill which, much to my dismay, I would love to have the opportunity to work on, on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, this bill is another technical bill that is masquerading as an effort to support energy development on public lands but is another assault on permitting processes, and, specifically, on the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. Under this bill, a geothermal project that starts on non-Federal surface lands and drills into Federal subsurface would not need a Federal drilling permit if the subsurface makes up less than 50 percent of the total area drilled. If your eyes crossed when you heard me describe that technical language, let me explain. The Federal Government manages our Federal lands on the surface. That is where the soil, the trees, and all of that is. There is a separate permitting process for the subsurface. That is where we find oil and gas, other valuable minerals, and, in this case, geothermal resources that we may want to develop for energy sources. They are two different permitting processes. What this says is if you have a power plant or some other energy source on a piece of private land that is adjacent to or nearby Federal lands, you don't have to go through the permitting process to figure out whether or not the drilling from here down, across, and under our Federal lands would be harmful. That is crazy. Mr. Speaker, wouldn't we want to know as a scientific basis and a community basis whether or not the drilling under our Federal lands would be harmful for our communities? Of course we would. That is why we have Federal permitting laws. That is why we conduct scientific assessments on whether or not drilling or permitting of resource extraction in the subsurface is a good or bad idea. As we have seen in some cases, it can cause seismic activity with certain oil and gas operations. In other cases, it can cause contamination of groundwater. In other cases, it can cause subsidence of the surface which could damage a national park or some sort of sacred site for a community or just your viewshed. Taking away the permitting process means that folks can do things on private lands, using our Federal resources, without having to ask the public if they think it is a good idea. I am a fan of geothermal. It is a great energy resource. There is nothing wrong with geothermal, but all of our energy resources have a footprint. They all look like something. In this case, as you can see in this picture, geothermal is also an industrial activity. So what we are talking about is building these kinds of facilities which might be an energy facility on a piece of private land, next to your favorite national park, next to your favorite BLM lands where you like to go fishing, next to Tribal lands that are sacred and important to our Tribal communities. Don't you want the ability to weigh in with the Federal Government about whether or not you want this to be happening in your backyard? Again, it is just common sense. Why are we running bills that are trying to take away commonsense protections for our public and for the communities that would be impacted by them? Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for Representative Kim. We have worked on a bipartisan basis on many issues including fire and science. Like I said, I am a fan of geothermal. In fact, we have been working on a bipartisan basis with our Republican colleagues on a number of geothermal permitting bills. In fact, there are two of them that passed by voice vote here on the House floor. Representative Curtis' GEO Act supports efficient approval of geothermal permit applications without sacrificing environmental and community review. A lot of Members on this side of the aisle think that is a good idea. Why are we not trying to pass that bill? Maybe it has something to do with what was said during the last debate about what happens on January 20. Representative Steel's H.R. 6474 would create a narrow categorical exclusion--again, more technical language--for geothermal exploration and development in recently studied or developed areas, giving geothermal parity with oil and gas development. Again, going back to the science, if we have already done an assessment of subsurface and we know it is not going to have impacts, maybe it makes sense to have some sort of streamlined purpose. Mr. Speaker, to give carte blanche to private entities that might want to use Federal resources without creating a process to look at the scientific integrity, the potential environmental impacts, the potential community impacts, to not provide a legal process for communities to weigh in and potentially hold them accountable just doesn't make sense. We do have a problem with this particular approach. We would support responsible, well-balanced stewardship of our geothermal resources that do protect the public interest and do protect our Federal lands. This bill is not really about that. Mr. Speaker, while I have great respect for the intent, which I hope is good, behind this bill, we do need to protect the public interest as we develop these large-scale projects, big or small, that are adjacent to and that would impact the Federal subsurface. No matter what, we are seeing time and time again in the final waning hours of this Congress that our friends are trying to advance bills that we know are really a setup for the next administration. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. We have other bills that would address the needs of this industry. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will start by agreeing with my colleague across the aisle. We do not live in a Utopia where energy just magically appears. I completely agree that we are in a massive transition where we have to explore all options to produce and to supply the energy needs that our Nation needs in order for people to survive and to thrive, as long as it is done in a way that informs the community, it is done in a responsible, environmentally friendly way, and a way that does not affect climate. Of course we want our communities to have a say in what we do. I want to address what we heard: Well, it will be protected under the States. We are not talking about State resources. We are talking about Federal resources. The United States public lands belong to all of us. The surface, our national parks, our favorite streams on BLM lands and in our national forests, the subsurface belongs to the American people. All of the things that we have been talking about today are the American people's resources. The minerals that will be mined are the American people's minerals. The geothermal resources are the American people's resources. Even the oil and gas are the American people's resources. The reason why we have permitting processes is because the American people get to decide: Do we want to give the great riches of this Nation over to private companies who want to provide a good or service to the American people? The American people get to decide because those are our resources. Mr. Speaker, that is why we have Federal processes to determine, one, if it is a good idea from a scientific and engineering standpoint; and two, to decide if it is going to impact our communities adversely. Imagine going to your favorite stream to go fishing and find out that a permit for subsurface materials had caused the bottom to drop out and a land subsidence that destroyed your favorite fishing spot and nobody ever told you because the geothermal plant had gone in a few miles away and drilled underneath it. That is why we have Federal permitting processes. It is so that the American people can decide if this is what we want to do with our precious lands, our precious resources, and the things that belong to all of us. Mr. Speaker, there are solutions here in Congress. There are solutions that are supported by the vast majority of Members across the aisle that would protect the public interest, that would protect the environment, and would protect American interests in our resources. Unfortunately, permit streamlining that does away with subsurface permit authority and public comment of our democratically owned natural resources is not the solution. For these reasons, I oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. While I appreciate that part of the debate has been framed as a difference in perspective, it is actually a difference in the actual facts on the page of what the bill says. Let me read to you from the bill that is being proposed to be passed right now. In General, the Secretary--they are talking about the Department of the Interior--shall not require an operator to obtain a Federal drilling permit for geothermal exploration and production activities conducted on non-Federal subsurface estates. I know this is confusing. They are talking about those lands that the Feds manage for the American people. The claim that was just made was that, oh, this isn't about exempting Federal permitting, that is what the bill says. Mr. Speaker, I am reading from their bill. Now, it has the specific reasons under which the permit would be allowed to be excluded, and, as was stated, it says: ``The United States holds an ownership interest of less than 50 percent of the subsurface estate. . . .'' Now, I love when my colleagues across the aisle claim that industry is so confused and that is why we have to streamline these bills. I ask the American people: When you hear this language, does it sound streamlined? I don't think so. Mr. Speaker, I have a very high-tech drawing I will use to help the American people understand what they are talking about here. You have got this geothermal energy producer. Here is a good example of a power plant using geothermal. If they are taking subsurface geothermal resources from private lands, let's say this side, and over 50 percent of their geothermal resources are coming from the private side, they are saying, if you drill down underneath this plant and go under your favorite national park, your favorite stream on BLM lands, your favorite place to go fishing on public lands, they don't have to get a permit. They can just do it. That is what the bill says. This isn't a difference of perspective, it is literally what the bill is trying to do, and that is to exempt Federal permit requirements on the Federal subsurface estate adjacent to private lands. The claim that State permitting would apply is not true. State permitting only applies to private lands. State permitting requirements do not apply to Federal lands. Even if you have a State permitting regime like States that protect the environment, it is not going to help you over here on the Federal estate. If you live in a State where there are not State environmental protections for the environment, then guess what? You are screwed. That is why we are trying to protect the Federal estate and the community and environmental interests here. We are not trying to stop geothermal. As I said, we are fans. Let's do this, but let's do it in an environmentally responsible and community-informed way. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will go back to the language of the text. As I read the text as it appears on the page as introduced, it is seeking to exempt Federal permitting requirements for the subsurface estate, so that means Federal resources. They are saying, if it is private land on top but public on the bottom, you don't have to get a permit. That is what they are saying. Now, I know that boggles the mind for some folks, but that is essentially an American resource. The people of this country should have a say as to whether or not they want an energy plant to go in, for drilling to happen under their lands, for resources to be extracted. It is just common sense. Mr. Speaker, I will also make the point that there were some comments made about the administration trying to restrict geothermal. That is just patently untrue. This is not about trying to restrict or trying to stop geothermal; this is just about maintaining the existing requirements that we have in protecting American resources in the subsurface so that the taxpayers get a fair shake and that the American public can say whether or not they think it is a good idea to have a private company drilling and removing resources under our feet. It is common sense. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 7409 is another loophole disguised as permitting reform and streamlining. It would create a path for geothermal projects to bypass critical environmental and community reviews based on arbitrary line drawings and new convoluted, not streamlined, language regarding the Federal subsurface estate. It sets a dangerous precedent. I know they keep saying this is about streamlining and making it easier. This bill is not common sense when you read it. It would allow more energy projects to move forward without community input and oversight. We have already worked on bipartisan solutions. We already have some bills that we all agree on, but here we are debating, in the final hours of this Congress, a bill that would do away with just basic, commonsense public input through the process. We didn't spend a lot of time talking about it today, but the Federal agency that manages our subsurface, the Bureau of Land Management, has raised legitimate concerns about this bill, opposes this bill, and has warned that it would undermine our ability to enforce safety regulations, to uphold environmental laws, to do Tribal consultation, and to ensure that these projects are aligned with our multiple-use mandate, meaning we can protect our public lands for other uses. As experts on the process, we have to listen to these folks. This is what they do every day. We understand that there are opportunities to improve permitting. It is part of why we passed the Inflation Reduction Act. It is part of why we are making an over $1 billion investment in expediting the permitting process and helping to get energy projects on the ground. We are in the middle of a major energy transition, but we can't do that in an irresponsible manner by fast-tracking projects that need public input. All energy projects have impacts, and this bill takes away the opportunity to just take a look and give the opportunity for the public to weigh in. We have to keep this in mind as we move forward and work to build a more just and sustainable future where our communities continue to have a say in what we do with the Federal estate, whether it is on the top or it is underneath our feet. For these reasons I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 7409, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. STANSBURY

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think this is a really important debate for the American people to hear. I want to first address the comments that were made about these companies, which are seeking to get access to public lands for copper and other minerals, as being confused. Let's talk about the specific corporations that have been lobbying for this bill and variations of this bill for years. Freeport, which is one of the largest copper mining companies in the United States, is worth $61 billion. Rio Tinto, an international conglomerate, the very one that is held by Chinese Government holdings, is worth $159 billion. I ask my friends across the aisle: Do you really believe that a multinational corporation that is worth $159 billion in multiple countries and continents is confused about permitting? I don't think so. Mr. Speaker, $159 billion is 18 times the annual budget of the State of Arizona. Come on, guys. We are not fools. These companies have spent decades lobbying to open public lands and specifically the sites that they are looking to mine on in Arizona. In fact, it is why places like Oak Flat were set aside, because they are cultural, sacred lands of Tribes. The copper industry, 100 years ago, had tried to mine on those lands, but we recognized as a Nation that we don't want to mine on every single inch of American lands because there are places where it is not suitable. It is not suitable for cultural reasons. It is not suitable for environmental reasons. It is not suitable because we don't want to look at a giant hole miles across in our backyards. Now, we need mining and we need minerals, but let's be clear: These companies are not confused. They spend millions of dollars every year lobbying the United States Congress and giving campaign donations to our friends who are running for Congress. This is not confusion. This is influence. Let's be very clear about what we are talking about. Now, I want to also address the claim that this is not about copper. Well, last night I went onto Congress.gov. The American people can go do this. There are like six different variations of this same bill. Some of them actually specifically name copper and some do not. Guess what? It is the same sponsors, literally the same sponsors of this bill. I can appreciate and I always try to take my friends at face value. Okay. You are saying this has nothing to do with copper, but I encourage the American people to actually go do their own search because this same bill has many iterations. Now, let's talk a little bit about the statutory and the cost considerations of this bill. Again, we heard the claim this is just about streamlining definitions, no big deal. Let me repeat: The USGS list not only confers the benefit of billions of dollars in potential tax subsidies and grants under many different Federal programs, which the Department of Energy list does not, but it will permit actual streamlining and reduction of timelines, public review, and judicial review of mining operations, which effectively means for all of you out there who are listening, you don't get a say if this multinational corporation, which the Chinese Government partially holds, gets to put a mine in your backyard. My friends across the aisle are always asking us to have common sense. Does this make common sense to you out there? Of course not. The public has a right to comment. The public has a right to be participants in decisions that the Federal Government makes on our public lands. Tribes have a fundamental right, under the Constitution, treaty, and trust responsibilities, to help inform and decide whether or not we mine our Tribal lands, or lands that are important to our Tribes. The public has a right to say we don't want this because it is going to impact our future livelihoods. Our friends claim that, oh, this is just a simple definitional change and streamlining. It is really about taking away fundamental rights. Now, I think it is instructive that we had a lot of conversation before the election about Project 2025, and our friends across the aisle kept trying to distance themselves from it and say, oh, we are not actually planning to do that. However, we printed out some of Project 2025 today, and I want to point you to some of the choice sections on page 376. They want to pursue critical minerals. Oh, yeah, that is right. On page 537, there is a whole section in Project 2025 about opening Tribal lands to critical minerals mining. Does that sound familiar? Ironically, also, on page 725 of Project 2025, there is an extensive discussion about how the Chinese Government is plundering mines and critical minerals here in the United States. It sure does make you wonder why my friends are pushing this in the final hours of this Congress as we are headed toward the closure of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 8446. This bill has a fairly innocuous seeming purpose on its face. It would amend the Energy Act of 2020 to add critical minerals as designated by the Department of Energy to the USGS, which is the agency that handles minerals issues for the United States, to a list of critical minerals. My colleagues across the aisle will argue that this bill is simply for consistency and to streamline, that we have too many lists to manage critical minerals and materials, which, of course, are so important to our country, so it is important to harmonize these lists and make sure that we are operating the Federal Government in a streamlined manner. It is critical that the American people understand that this is not the full story. In fact, this bill is the direct result of years of heavy lobbying and influence on the critical minerals list because, as you see, the critical minerals list is defined as all nonfuel minerals that are used as essential materials for national security or that may pose a supply chain vulnerability to disruption. The critical minerals list is designed to focus attention and vital resources on the most essential and at-risk mineral supply chains. USGS' critical minerals list and DOE's Critical Materials List may sound similar, but they have different purposes because of the differences in how these lists are used and the Federal mandates for these agencies. They have different purposes that are not interchangeable. The Energy Act of 2020 directed USGS to update the list of critical minerals to guide its use for infrastructure investments under the legislation that we passed here in 2021. As directed by a separate provision in the Energy Act of 2020, the Department of Energy undertook its own assessment of critical materials that were specific to energy needs because that is what the Department of Energy focuses on. USGS is the agency that has existed since the 19th century here in the United States to take stock of, identify, and support the Federal Government in understanding our geology and minerals and what we do with them. It affects the entire economy. It may sound very simple to streamline and combine these lists, but not only do they have different purposes, they have far-ranging consequences. The importance of the USGS critical minerals list cannot be overstated. This list drives billions of dollars in Federal investment and permitting decisions. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a little bit about what happens if you get placed on the USGS list, which does not apply to the DOE list. It means that companies are eligible for millions of dollars in tax credits and grants under various bills that Congress has passed, including the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and many others. It also allows for permit streamlining under previous legislation that Congress has passed. What that essentially translates into is expedited reviews. Folks at home may be saying, well, isn't that a good thing? If you look at the environmental, social, and cultural impacts of mines and how they affect communities, you need a Federal process that makes it possible for our communities to weigh in. There is a public comment process so that you can go and say that we don't want this mine in this place. For our Tribes, it puts into place a Federal consulting process so that our Tribes can protect their sacred and ancestral lands. For communities, they can comment on the environmental and water impacts of potential mine operations. For our public lands, it means we can protect the sites that are used for recreation for fishing and the values that we hold dear for both environmental and recreational purposes. Importantly, it also affects the impact of whether or not, after mines go in, there is liability and legal remedy for the pollution that mines cause. If our public is not able to comment on mines during the permitting process, they will not have judicial standing if these mines are abandoned or there is not appropriate care taken in the aftermath of the mine operations and efforts to close the mine down and remediate the lands. That means that the public taxpayers and the people are left holding the bag, not the multinational mining corporations that are seeking to open these lands for mining. When you look at it in its totality, the very seemingly simple act of just saying let's harmonize these two lists and put it all under the rubric of the Department of Energy's list may seem like a simple no- brainer. What it amounts to, in its totality, is a massive multimillion-dollar giveaway to multinational corporations that are seeking to mine public lands in the United States. It should be no surprise that it is industry lobbyists that have been working to get this change in the law for years. We have seen many different incarnations of this bill, some of which have been very explicit about copper, in particular, being added to the list, and some of which are a little more opaque like the bill we see in front of us today. It is very clear that the copper industry is driving this bill in front of us today. We have to be realistic. Copper is an incredibly important resource. It is used in everything from our transmission lines to our electronics, consumer products, and cars and trucks. Even though it is designated as a critical material for energy purposes under the DOE list, it is not currently on the USGS list because it is not at risk of supply chain disruption. In fact, the United States is a net exporter of copper. Let me repeat that. Copper is not at risk of supply chain disruption. We are exporting our copper. So why is industry pushing so hard to open new mines on our public lands? Well, guess what? There is a lot of money to be made, and it turns out that the major holder of the two companies that are pushing for this bill is the Chinese Government. How ironic is that? In fact, we know that over 10 percent of one of the largest copper mining multinational companies in the world that is seeking to open a copper mine in Arizona is pushing for this bill to expedite the permitting, reduce the timelines, and make sure that the public and Tribes cannot comment on whether or not they want the mine there. We know that there are mine sites that have been identified that would be on sacred lands, and we know that it would have devastating impacts for the water supply of the State of Arizona and the entire Southwest. In addition to that, copper mining is an incredibly disruptive activity. It is pollution heavy. It impacts the landscape. Smelters are notorious for emitting air pollutants. In Arizona, arsenic levels have been recorded at 150 times higher than State health guidelines, posing higher cancer risks to communities. We know the well-known impacts to water and to acid mine drainage in our communities. On top of all of this--and I think this is the part that should raise all of our concerns--is that the copper industry is trying to use its influence through lobbying and through campaign donations to our colleagues. It should be of no surprise that the primary sponsor of this bill and the other bills like it come from the very State where these mine companies are seeking to mine are on sites that have already been identified as unsuitable for copper mining. They are Tribal sacred sites, in a number of cases. There have literally been decades of effort from the copper industry because there are high-quality copper deposits in many of these places, including in Oak Flat, which is a place that has been held sacred by the Apache people since time immemorial. Why are our friends across the aisle trying to advance a lobbying bill on behalf of a multinational set of corporations, which are held, in part, by Chinese Government inholdings on American lands that would violate the basic human, cultural, and religious rights of our indigenous communities? I will let the American people decide why they think that is happening, but it is certain that we just came out of an election, isn't it? I think it is crucial that people understand this isn't a simple streamlining bill. This isn't about just harmonizing this list with that list. This is about foreign influence on the mining industry, on the copper industry, here in the United States. I ask my colleagues across the aisle who have voted time and time again on this very floor to prevent foreign companies held by our adversaries, including China, from buying American lands, from trying to take American water rights, why on Earth would you be advancing a bill that would literally give away mining concessions to companies that are held by foreign adversaries? Why would you do it when we know that our communities have already resoundingly said that they do not want these mines in our communities, that they will harm our cultures, communities, waters, and public lands? I look forward to hopefully getting some answers to these questions, but the American people should understand what this bill actually is, and I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 8446. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as I may consume. To my colleagues across the aisle: Absolutely. You are so right. We do want to prevent our foreign adversaries like China from working to out- compete us and to make sure that they do not have access to control our supply chain. This makes it particularly confusing that the bill you are trying to advance today is about copper. I want the public to know that they said that it is not about copper, but they just happen to have all the talking points about copper right there printed out ready to talk about copper. It is about copper. This is about the copper industry, who has been lobbying for this bill for decades; and, in particular, several large multinational conglomerates, including Rio Tinto, which is one of the largest in the world, which is held, in part, by the Chinese Communist Party who would like to mine on specific sites in the State of Arizona that have already been identified as unsuitable, unsuitable for cultural reasons, unsuitable for Tribal reasons, unsuitable for water reasons, and unsuitable for public lands reasons. They can say that this is just about harmonizing lists, but the Department of Energy does not have purview over permitting on our public lands. The Department of Energy's legislative mandate as created by this body is to oversee our Nation's energy systems. The Department of the Interior, where USGS sits, who manages our public minerals and our understanding of them, is the Federal agency that makes the permitting decisions, the legal decisions, the executive decisions, and the Tribal consultations that affect when, where, and how minerals are accessed on our public lands. This is about a lobbying effort by multinational corporations to move the list in such a manner that it will open up public lands to mining on sites they have already identified in which the public has, in various ways, already said no, no thank you, or they want a process for the public to actually weigh in on. I hope that my friends across the aisle, because it does sound like we have a lot in agreement, will agree that the Chinese Communist Party is buying up minerals and mining projects around the world. In fact, the Chinese Government has been stockpiling critical minerals for years which has created a crisis for the United States. Yes, while they are mining copper in their land, we have to ask ourselves: Why is a multinational company that the Chinese Government is massively bought into and trying to open copper mines in the United States getting a free pass by U.S. Congressmen on the House floor? Mr. Speaker, I really would like to know why this is happening. I hope that we can agree that we should not be allowing that kind of foreign influence in our permitting decisions. Mr. Speaker, for this reason, and at the appropriate time, I would like to offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. It was noted a moment ago that USGS supported this bill. I want to tell you all that we contacted USGS last night based on the testimony that they submitted. While they said that they agreed with concepts in the bill, that it needed technical changes in order for them to actually support it. If the House rules permitted, I would have offered a motion with an important amendment to this bill. My amendment, my motion to recommit, is common sense. It would prohibit any Federal benefits associated with being on the critical minerals list, what this bill is trying to accomplish, from going to our foreign adversaries, including companies they own and the subsidiaries of these companies. 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.

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit so that we can protect our Nation's natural resources and our supply chain from our economic adversaries abroad. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I stand here, once again, today to oppose H.R. 8446, a bill that ignores science, ignores the facts, and would add copper to the critical minerals list to help wealthy multinational corporations, some of which are held by our foreign adversaries, to gain critical benefits, Federal tax breaks, and access to our Federal lands and Tribal sacred sites. There have been some claims today about the Department of the Interior and the USGS's stance on this bill. I want to be clear that while the USGS did respond to the bill and share information about how to harmonize the list, they identified specific issues with the bill about its scientific integrity. Let's be clear. USGS scientists used peer-reviewed methodology to determine whether or not copper or any other mineral here in the United States should be considered a critical mineral and be given the benefits that come along with being included on that list. Now, while copper and many of the minerals discussed here are important to our economy, they are important to our national security, and they are important to the future of this Nation, they do not currently have the same supply chain vulnerabilities that other minerals on that list have and, therefore, do not qualify for the permitting and subsidy benefits that come with being included on that list. I think that the American people would agree with all of the things that my colleagues said, that we should not be giving giveaways to our foreign adversaries who are trying to stockpile these minerals right now. Why on Earth would we advance a bill that would give companies that the Chinese Government holds financial interest in access to copper and other critical minerals here in the United States? It is crazy. Designating copper as a critical mineral will divert precious resources and attention away from other critical supply chains that need it critically right now. It will open permitting, environmental review processes, and Tribal consultation. We know from history because it has told us in every chapter and every generation that it is our most vulnerable communities without power, influence, and money who will suffer the consequences, and, in this case, particularly our Tribal communities who have sacred lands that they have protected for countless generations. While my colleagues may claim that this bill is necessary to support and build up our domestic supply chain, we have already seen how foreign influence is trying to grab a hold of U.S. copper. There are no safeguards in this bill, and I cannot emphasize it enough: This bill will allow foreign actors through their financial holdings, including our adversaries, to benefit from the U.S. public lands and resources and materials that they are trying to take and stockpile, and it will leave our communities with pollution and devastation. We just heard an argument that everything is going to change on January 20. If my colleagues don't know, January 20 is Inauguration Day. Project 2025, it turned out, was real: critical minerals, opening public lands, opening Tribal lands, not protecting sites that we already knew were precious for sacred and other reasons. We just heard it right here on the floor: It is all going to change on January 20. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues: Who is going to benefit? At what cost to our communities? At what cost to the American people? Mr. Speaker, there were claims made on this floor today about Democrats not caring about our supply chain and about our people. We have one of the largest copper mines in the United States in New Mexico. We support our miners. We support our laborers. I would not be standing here on the House floor if my mother had not been one of the first women operating engineers to work at a coal-fired power plant in New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate the assertions that we have heard here today that we are trying to attack workers, that we are trying to attack American sovereignty and national security, and that we don't care about our economy and supply chain because we are here fighting for the people. We are fighting for our communities. We are fighting for our Tribal nations. Mr. Speaker, we will see changes on January 20. That is why we have to stop this bill, so that it doesn't give carte blanche to Chinese financial holdings to mine with impunity on our public lands. That is why I oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have thoroughly debated the merits and significant impacts of this bill on the American economy and national security, as well as our communities. I point out that my colleague started this debate by saying this is not about copper and ended this debate showing us it is, indeed, about copper and the companies that own them. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the spirited debate. I hope we will protect our national security. I hope we will pass my motion to recommit. I hope we will stop this bill and the devastating impacts that it will bring. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. STANSBURY

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Ranking Member Raskin in support of Congresswoman Steel's bill. This bill would name a post office in Orange County, California, known as Little Saigon in honor of the veterans of the Vietnam war. This is truly a symbolic act. Little Saigon is home to an estimated 140,000 members of the Vietnamese community, one of the largest and most vibrant Vietnamese communities outside of Vietnam and in the United States. Many of its residents came here to the U.S. during the Vietnam war to build a better life for themselves. The Vietnam war has left an indelible mark on our country and the servicemen and -women who served there. Mr. Speaker, 58,000 soldiers lost their lives during the war, and many more came home bearing the physical and emotional, the seen and unseen, scars of the war. Their sacrifices shall never be forgotten. It is especially fitting that Representative Steel's bill honors veterans of a war that so many of the residents of Little Saigon fled to come to America. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mrs. Steel for her courage and for bringing this bill forward. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 8057, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. STANSBURY

Ms. STANSBURY. Madam Speaker, wildfires are devastating our communities across the country. In fact, just 3 months ago, one of the largest and most destructive fires in New Mexico's history tore through Lincoln and Otero Counties, over 24,000 acres were burned, 1,400 structures were lost, over 900 homes were burnt to the ground, and hundreds more were lost in devastating floods that have torn through Ruidoso and Mescalero Apache in the months since. These fires will change forever the fabric of our communities. Homes and businesses were lost costing millions in damages and there will be years of recovery to come. There is no question that climate change is here, and climate change is intensifying these fires. They are linked. Their intensity, their frequency, and the events are coming in the aftermath. We must support our communities. We must support them as they recover from these devastating fires, and we must support them as they chart a future to a more resilient future. That is why I have been working with State leadership to help secure $100 million to recover from the Salt and South Fork fires, why we are fighting to make sure that our communities do not get left behind in the disaster relief funds that we must pass this session here on this House floor this month with the CR. It is why I am leading and cosponsoring legislation for wildfire recovery and resilience, why I am leading and cosponsoring legislation to protect and restore our watersheds, and, of course, to support our firefighters and first responders. It is why we are working to ensure that FEMA, the Forest Service, and other Federal agencies are held to account and have the tools and resources they need to support our communities. It is why my staff and all the people in our communities who are leading are on the ground serving our communities and helping the families who have been impacted by these fires every day because our communities and their future literally depend on it. The time to act is now, so let's do this.

Ms. STANSBURY

Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Chair, I was absent for the vote on ordering the previous question for H. Res. 1370. I was also absent for several votes on amendments to H.R. 8997. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 359, NO on Roll Call No. 363, NO on Roll Call No. 364, NO on Roll Call No. 365, and NO on Roll Call No. 366. Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mr. Perry

Ms. STANSBURY

Ms. STANSBURY. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition not only to this rule but the bills that it advances. I have to say that I am amazed daily by the debates that I hear in this Chamber and in our committees and outraged that the GOP is using the floor to advance a hateful agenda to take away voting rights and to advance insane legislation. One week after we celebrated this great Nation's independence, we are here today as they are putting forward legislation to protect our kitchen appliances. That is right, folks. They are running bills on the floor titled the freedom for refrigerators and dignity for dishwashers. I am not making this up. These are the real names of the bills they are running this week. Apparently, they are more concerned about the freedom of our refrigerators than the freedom to make decisions about our own bodies. They are more concerned about our dishwashers than they are about democracy. They are more concerned about appliances than an autocrat who is seeking reelection and says he wants to be a dictator on day one. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues, honestly, how do they do this with a straight face? Y'all, this ain't normal. This is insane. Is this the freedom and democracy that our country fought for, arguing for kitchen appliances? Is this what constituents are telling my colleagues? Mine are telling me they are terrified about the future of this country, their families, and their rights. They are asking us to fight to protect LGBTQ+ rights and abortion, address climate change, lower costs, and protect voting rights. You are over here asking us to vote on a bill to protect the rights of dishwashers and refrigerators. It is insane. I am just at a loss. It is time to wake up. It is time to get to work. It is time to serve the American people because, literally, our democracy depends on it.