Bruce Westerman

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the letter states: ``Disapproving the withdrawal in Minnesota will undo an unnecessary and damaging action. It will also correct a course in which industries seeking to generate jobs and revenue for generations to come were simply no longer allowed to propose mining projects in the area and forbidden to go through the law and science-based environmental review process.'' Mr. Speaker, I will just say that I actually have taken hydrology courses. I am a professional engineer. It has been a long time ago, but I remember something very distinct from those hydrology and hydraulic engineering courses, and that is that water flows downhill. If it doesn't, you can get a pump. That is an engineering joke. It is probably not very funny. The thing about these mines in Minnesota is, they are below-grade mines. They are not pit mines. They are actually digging tunnels down into the earth to pull this ore out to take it to the top to refine it. If there are tailings, these tailings will be placed in a secure area where there is no way they can be leached back into the watershed. Don't let the scare tactics influence the way you vote on this legislation because the inputs we need to sustain our fast-growing electricity grid are right under our feet. We should be leading the world in technological innovation and AI infrastructure. The only reason we are mired in mineral dependence today and not enjoying or sharing the benefits of American mineral dominance is because of outdated or misguided policies like the one we are overturning today. The resolution before us would correct these policies by reopening mineral-rich land to exploration and reducing our reliance on China for minerals. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) for his leadership on the issue. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Congressional Review Act resolution, which would overturn the Biden administration's reckless withdrawal of more than 225,000 acres in the Superior National Forest from mineral exploration and development. Mr. Speaker, at issue is the Duluth Complex in northern Minnesota, one of the largest mineral deposits on the planet, including the world's largest copper-nickel deposit. The Federal Government routinely granted and renewed mineral leases to these deposits beginning in the 1960s. Decades of planning, exploration, investment, and environmental reviews have gone into the region, and with good reason. The minerals in the Duluth Complex include copper, nickel, and cobalt. They are the ones that make up the 21st century economy and help it run. They are the essential inputs for telecommunications devices, cutting-edge defense systems, and much more. As we are all keenly aware, the Chinese Communist Party has a stranglehold on far too many mineral supply chains. Mining in the Duluth Complex was poised to change that. It was going to help usher in a new era of American mineral dominance and create and support thousands of American jobs. It was going to help end our dependence on foreign adversaries and reorder the entire global mineral market, positioning the United States at the center and driving our rivals to the margins. When President Biden abruptly closed off 225,000 acres of Federal land in the Duluth Complex for mineral development, he threw a future of American abundance, security, and global leadership into chaos. The decision undermined America's economic, military, and strategic interests and those of our allies. The minerals in the Duluth Complex are called ``critical'' for a reason. We need them. The whole world needs them. Nations, businesses, militaries, and individual consumers are going to acquire these minerals. The only question is whether they will be mined here in the United States by American workers, protected by American labor laws, and with the strongest environmental standards and most advanced mining techniques, or not. The Duluth Complex is also home to a world-class helium reserve, which has attracted investment from investors. Specifically, the withdrawal itself locks up roughly 11,000 acres for helium exploration, blocking development of one of the largest and most concentrated helium deposits in the entire world. Don't let the rhetoric around this issue confuse what is at stake here. The resolution before us today is about more than just one project. There are two options, Mr. Speaker: mineral dominance or mineral dependence. There isn't a third option, and it is long past time for the Federal Government to act like it. Our global allies rely on America's leadership. If we are to remain a leader in the global economy, then domestic mineral abundance is a strategic necessity, not a political football. The resolution before us does not mandate projects, mining sites, firms, or schedules. It simply reverses the Biden administration's unilateral short-circuiting of the normal permitting process. This resolution is a step toward balance and the rule of law. It is a step toward the mineral abundance that the American people deserve and that Washington has denied them for too long. I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) for introducing this resolution and for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Facts can be stubborn things. There are some things that we all can agree on. The Boundary Waters Canoe Area is a wonderful place, but the Boundary Waters Canoe Area has been protected, is currently protected, and will be protected even after this CRA is passed. The Congresses that came long before us made sure this was the case, long before the Obama administration ever did a lease withdrawal in the area. They established the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. Then, they set a buffer zone around the Boundary Waters Canoe Area, and they said this other part of the Superior National Forest could be used to develop mining and also used for forestry purposes. Any deposits that we are talking about are not inside the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. They are not inside the buffer zone to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. They are out in the forest that the Biden administration said can't be developed anymore, even after Congress had already said this was the case. I think what we are doing today is we are exercising our Article I power where an administration abused it and tried to make rules. The Government Accountability Office said this bill or this rule is subject to the Congressional Review Act, so here we are, to right the wrong. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources and the lead sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, again, I can't emphasize this enough: There is not going to be any mining in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. There is not going to be any mining in the boundary area around the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. If there is ever a project approved, it would be in the land set aside by Congress in the Superior National Forest for mining and timber harvesting. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time. I am prepared to close, and I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are here today as President Trump has returned H.R. 504, the Miccosukee Reserved Area Amendments Act, to the House of Representatives without his approval. H.R. 504, sponsored by Representative Gimenez, would amend the Miccosukee Reserved Area Act, or MRAA, to include the Osceola Camp, a Tribal village within the Everglades, as part of the Miccosukee Reserved Area. It also directs the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Tribe, to safeguard structures within the Osceola Camp from flooding events. The Miccosukee Tribe is currently located in the Greater Everglades in southern Florida. Following Federal recognition of the Tribe in 1962, the Miccosukee's northernmost villages within what became Everglades National Park were managed under a special use permit until 1998, when Congress placed that permit framework with the MRAA, authorizing the Tribe's use of the area and noting it as Indian Country. The original law did not include Osceola Camp. H.R. 504 would include the Osceola Camp in the Miccosukee Reserved Area and formalize a partnership between the Tribe and the Federal Government to address flooding risk in the area. H.R. 504 passed the House Committee on Natural Resources in June 2025 and the House of Representatives in July 2025. However, I respect the President's views on this legislation and his commitment to fiscal responsibility, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I respect the administration's views on this legislation. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the veto message of the President of the United States to the bill H.R. 504.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hurd).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. General Leave

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I respect the administration's views on this legislation, and I respect my colleagues from Colorado's passion for their districts and for their State. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the veto message of the President of the United States to H.R. 131.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert), the lead sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 131, the Finish the Arkansas Valley Conduit Act, facilitates the construction of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, or AVC, by easing the repayment requirements for project beneficiaries. The AVC is designed to provide potable water from Pueblo Reservoir to 39 communities in southeastern Colorado, many of which are dependent on groundwater supplies that contain unacceptable levels of naturally- occurring heavy metals and radionuclides. According to the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, 18 of those communities are currently failing to meet Federal drinking water standards due to these contaminants. H.R. 131 passed the House Committee on Natural Resources and then the House of Representatives in July 2025. However, President Trump has returned H.R. 131 to the House without his approval. I respect the administration's views on this legislation and its commitment to fiscal responsibility. President Trump's record demonstrates a commitment to prioritizing unleashing abundant water supplies across the West. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let's talk about some of the issues that were just brought up. First, the foreign entity of concern restrictions, I agree, and I think everybody would agree, that we should scrutinize foreign direct investment to ensure that it does not pose a threat to the United States. We have programs to do that, programs that possibly should be strengthened. However, imposing arbitrary standards could prevent publicly traded, non-Chinese companies from mining domestically. Doing what? Forcing a continued reliance on China. We all know that China is already doing whatever it can to prevent us from building out secure domestic supplies of critical minerals. The CCP has repeatedly used its dominant market position to strategically flood markets and make U.S. projects uneconomic. Mr. Speaker, when they see a project announced in the United States, they dump product on the global market, lowering the prices and making our mining operations uneconomical to investors. If we create an arbitrary standard, they will continue to play even more dirty. The CCP will simply buy shares of publicly traded companies to disqualify the companies from mining on Federal lands. We are being naive if we think that China won't use any tool and loophole at their disposal to stop mining in the U.S. In any event, this bill is about regulatory certainty so that we can start mining again in America. I have already mentioned this, but we are blessed with resources here in America. A lot of those resources are on Federal lands. This issue has come up about royalties. It continually comes up. People say this bill would allow mining companies to extract valuable public assets without paying any royalties to Americans. I want to remind everybody of something. U.S. mining companies already pay between 40 and 50 percent of earnings in Federal, State, and local taxes, as well as other fees. These taxes are vital to funding school systems, roads, and other infrastructure projects, especially in rural communities. Now, thanks to the Rosemont decision, on top of paying those taxes, companies must pay millions more in litigation. The developers would be required to pay fees for any mill sites established under this bill. These fees would go toward remediating abandoned hardrock mine lands, something my Democrat colleagues have repeatedly pushed for. If we want to encourage investment in safe, responsible, and cutting- edge mining practices that provide billions to the public's coffers and essential materials to the American people, we need to support H.R. 1366. Mr. Speaker, I also want to call attention to a letter we received, signed by 28 organizations from A to Z. It is literally from A to Z. Starting with A, the Alaska Miners Association, American Exploration and Mining Association, Bipartisan Policy Center Action, Battery Materials and Technology Coalition, Colorado Mining Association, National Mining Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Women's Mining Coalition, Wyoming Mining Association, and I will round it out with Z, the Zero Emission Transportation Association. These organizations stress the importance of Congress enacting this bipartisan legislation. They stated: This legislation will ensure the U.S. can utilize its vast domestic resources to build essential mineral supply chains. Your efforts to enhance mineral supply chain security, while upholding our leading safety and environmental standards, are crucial. The passage of H.R. 1366 will support the trajectory of innovation in the U.S. and maintain the Nation's economic leadership. Mr. Speaker, this bill is common sense, supporting American industries that are working to bolster our domestic mineral supplies. I also want to draw attention to a letter we received from Nevada democratic Governor Joe Lombardo in support of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act. His letter states: Advancement of this bipartisan, bicameral legislation is indispensable to the long-term economic resilience of our rural communities and Nevada's ability to help achieve domestic mineral security. Again, this bill is common sense. It is bipartisan, and it bicameral. It supports a key industry for States like Nevada. It should be strongly bipartisan. Mr. Speaker, when we look at the abundant minerals that we are blessed with across the United States, I think of the claim that our colleague from Alaska (Mr. Begich) also says. He talked about the Ambler Road district. Of 50 things listed on the U.S. List of Critical Minerals, he says in the Ambler Mining District, 49 of those exist in abundant capacity to develop, process, and mine. Yet, we are yet to be able to get a road into this area to process these materials. When I look at my home State of Arkansas, we have the largest deposit of lithium possibly in the world. At least 15 percent of the world's lithium is in brine water on public land in the great State of Arkansas. We have all these minerals available all across the country. According to the ``2025 Mineral Commodity Summary'' from the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. is 100 percent dependent on imports for 14 critical minerals, many from China and Russia. Mr. Speaker, I have met with the Navaho Nation. They have abundant deposits of uranium they could recover from former mining operations. We are so dependent on uranium imports. The last number I saw, we produced only one-half of 1 percent of the uranium we use for fuel in U.S. reactors. Do my colleagues know where most of that comes from? It comes from Russia and Kazakhstan. These are the kinds of minerals we are dependent on foreign actors for. If my colleagues support growing our domestic supplies of critical minerals, this bill provides the regulatory certainty necessary to strengthen domestic mineral supply chains. If my colleagues support weakening China's global control over minerals, join us in voting for the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act. Let's talk a little bit more about China. We need not only more mining here in America, but we need to do more processing and refining in the U.S. to meet our energy infrastructure and national security and defense needs. The Mining Regulatory Clarity Act will help strengthen domestic mineral supply chains. I have a chart here that shows where we are at with China on rare earth and their monopoly. They control 70 percent of the mining in the world. It is not in China. It is all over the world. My colleague mentioned child slave labor being used to extract cobalt in Africa. It is atrocious where they go and mine these materials and the lack of standards that they have. The environmental, human health, human safety, and human rights that are violated in the mining is also appalling. They take that back to China, and they process 90 percent of it in China. This is all of the world's critical minerals. Then they manufacture 93 percent of the things that are manufactured with critical minerals. If my colleagues want to help China maintain their stranglehold over our critical mineral supply chains, we should oppose this bill. Look no further than the chart behind me. We will see we can't continue to allow China to have the monopoly and the stranglehold on our economy and on our defense that they currently have through the critical mineral supply chain. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill. I appreciate my colleague from Nevada (Mr. Amodei) for bringing it to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for speakers. I am prepared to close and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1366, to restore clarity and stability to mining operations and support reclamation of abandoned hardrock mine land. First, I thank my colleague from Nevada, Representative Amodei, for his work on this bipartisan legislation. In 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals revoked an approved mine plan of operations for the Rosemont Copper Mine in Arizona. The ruling, known as the Rosemont decision, limited the Forest Service's ability to approve support activities necessary for conducting mining operations on Federal land. This decision upended over 40 years of regulatory and legal precedent. Before developing a mine on Federal lands, an operator must obtain a mine plan of operations from the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. This plan must detail the intended uses of the surface of the mining claim, including waste rock placement, mills, offices, and roads. Under the Rosemont decision, however, operators must prove the existence of a commercially developable deposit on a claim before a plan of operations can be approved. This obvious problem is that the economic viability of a site cannot be determined until after the mine plan of operations is approved by the Federal Government. The ramifications of the Ninth Circuit's decision are substantial. Although the Rosemont decision involved Forest Service lands, it has prompted multiple lawsuits targeting projects on BLM lands based on similar regulations. If allowed to stand, the Rosemont decision will thwart hardrock mining projects across Federal lands, further jeopardizing domestic mineral supply chains, energy security, and national security. Mr. Amodei's bill provides needed regulatory clarity by creating a new category of mill sites for activities ancillary to mining that operators can include within the boundaries of an approved plan of operations. The legislation also creates an abandoned hardrock mine fund to support the reclamation program by using claim maintenance fees to inventory, assess, and remediate abandoned hardrock mines. Simply put, our reliance on foreign critical minerals is one of the greatest strategic vulnerabilities facing our Nation today. America has been truly blessed with vast natural resources. This bill would create the regulatory clarity and stability that companies need to attract investment and responsibly develop these resources. With mineral demand expected to grow exponentially in the coming decades, Congress must safeguard and defend the country's ability to access its own resources. Again, I applaud my colleague Mr. Amodei for this commonsense but urgently needed bill. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1366.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 951, I call up the bill (H.R. 845) to require the Secretary of the Interior to reissue regulations removing the gray wolf from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 845.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have a question: Which will it be? What is the good science? As I have mentioned before, the Obama administration, the Bush administration, the first Trump administration, the Biden administration all said the wolf has been recovered. The experts, the scientists at U.S. Fish and Wildlife have said it has been recovered. Yet my friends argue it has not been recovered because there are some places where its native range is that the wolf is not there. I remind everyone, we are in gray wolf territory, historical gray wolf territory. Mr. Speaker, like many, like you probably and myself, I have walked around D.C. at night, and this is a rat-infested city. I think there would be at least a little bit of food for the wolves if we were to turn a pack loose on The Mall. However, what happens when they eat all the rats? What do they go after next? Now, this is a preposterous situation because I don't think anybody really wants a pack of wolves on The Mall. However, if you go down the logic trail that my colleagues are making, the wolf is not recovered until it is back in its historic range. Why do we want to sit in a big city where wolves once were and say: We want wolves, just not in our backyard. We want them out in the Midwest or West where it is somebody else's problem, but we don't want those problems here because it makes no sense to put wolves back here in the big cities and across the Northeast. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. LaMalfa), where they have a lot of wolves.