Bruce Westerman

Mr. WESTERMAN

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 to add extraneous material to H.R. 755, the bill now under consideration.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Onder), the lead sponsor of this bill, a gentleman who cannot only pronounce the Aldermanbury Church correctly but has been to the Aldermanbury Church.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This legislation before us today accomplishes two objectives: First, it eliminates the requirement for undersea cables to obtain a special use permit for operating within national marine sanctuaries. Again, undersea cable projects would still need to undergo review under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. None of that permitting is waived in this bill, and I would dare say anybody wanting to run one of these cables would say they are getting to do it and to avoid all environmental laws and protections. I don't think people running these cables want to do that. Second, it removes the 5-year timeline for any special use permit within any national marine sanctuary. Together, these reforms reduce regulatory burdens. They protect our national security, and they ensure that America can lead the way in deploying undersea cables while protecting our marine environments. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressman Carter for his leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the article featured behind me found that adversaries like Russia and China are taking disruptive action against undersea cables on a more frequent basis around the world. Here is an article just from yesterday talking about a Chinese cargo ship captain who has been charged with severing a natural gas pipeline and a communication cable in the Baltic Sea. If we stick to the status quo, we are leaving ourselves more vulnerable to similar threats at our doorstep. Our adversaries are taking an increasingly aggressive posture in targeting critical infrastructure. Congressman Carter's legislation promotes route diversity, reduces threats to global communication systems, and ensures that the United States wins this global technology race. That is why it is important that we pass this legislation and that we give companies the certainty that they can build these communication lines and diversify where they are locating them so that we can protect our economic security and also our national security. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we understand exactly what is going on here. If you look at this map, this is an example along the California coast. These pink areas are national marine sanctuaries. You have this one zone down here by Morro Bay and Grover Beach, where cables can actually leave the shore. You can see the concentration of all of the existing cables in this area. Mr. Speaker, it is possible to put a cable across a marine sanctuary right now. There was a law or a rule passed in 2002, I believe, that set up this special use permit. The problem is that it gave a 5-year special use permit, and these are 25-year-plus projects when you put one of these cables in. Mr. Speaker, NOAA had the assignment to come up with what the lease cost would be to put these cables across a marine sanctuary. In all of NOAA's infinite wisdom, they came up with a price tag of $40,000 to $100,000 per mile, subject to inflation. Nobody has gotten one of these permits. Nobody has put a cable across because this rule by the Federal Government has disincentivized all of these companies from being able to run cables. It seems that the purpose of the rule in the first place was just to keep cables out of the marine sanctuaries. Mr. Speaker, if somebody were to put a cable through a marine sanctuary, they would still have to go through the NEPA process. They would have to go through the entire regulatory process to get a permit to put the cable across the sanctuary. It is not like you are throwing away all environmental oversight and all environmental guidelines to be able to bury one of these cables, or not bury but run it along the ocean floor. Again, they are 1 inch to 2 inches in diameter. If you just looked at 1 mile at, say, 4 inches in diameter, that strip of land at a rate of $40,000 per mile would be the equivalent of a yearly rent of about $1 million per acre every year. The whole rule and the law was stacked against doing anything, and that is exactly what has happened. We want to open this up where American companies can invest in American fiber cables so that we can communicate across the ocean and we can get away from all of this consolidation in one area where it is easy to target. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), the lead sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Miller).

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 H.R. 261.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 261 sponsored by Congressman Buddy Carter of Georgia. Undersea cables play a crucial role in the global economy. These cables are roughly 1 to 2 inches in diameter. Yet they crisscross the globe and carry approximately 95 percent of global internet traffic, facilitating trillions of dollars in global financial transactions. The Undersea Cable Protection Act of 2025 eliminates the requirement for undersea cables to obtain a special use permit under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act as a condition to route these projects through a national marine sanctuary. Undersea cables are and will continue to be subject to numerous environmental statutes including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. These are just statutes in the Committee on Natural Resources' jurisdiction. Many of these laws are implemented by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. We will hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that this bill hinders NOAA's ability to conduct an environmental review of these projects. That is simply not true. What is true, however, is that the specific use permit, which under current law only lasts 5 years, has caused national marine sanctuaries to effectively become no-go zones for undersea cables. This means reduced routes of diversity, consolidation of cable landing zones, and an increased threat to our national security. Notably, this dynamic does not just cause stress on the physical infrastructure of these projects. Many of us are aware of the stories from around the world of undersea cables being severed with recent examples of this occurring in both Taiwan and the Baltic. In the United States, as these cables have a limited number of landing areas, our adversaries would have the ability to cut off an increasing portion of communications, internet activity, and financial transactions by attacking just a few points. Combine this looming threat with the increasing number of cables required in the coming years to keep pace with demand, and their growing role as critical infrastructure in our daily lives, and failure to support the continued development of these projects could pose a grave national security risk. Removing the requirement for a special use permit advances the objectives of House Republicans and the administration to reduce regulatory burdens and encourage American competitiveness, an objective that President Trump emphasized when he signed Executive Order 14267, Reducing Anticompetitive Regulatory Barriers. Advancing this legislation will allow for the deployment of undersea cables while providing appropriate protection of our marine resources. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1057, I call up the bill (H.R. 261) to amend the National Marine Sanctuaries Act to prohibit requiring an authorization for the installation, continued presence, operation, maintenance, repair, or recovery of undersea fiber optic cables in a national marine sanctuary if such activities have previously been authorized by a Federal or State agency, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will reiterate the fundamental fact of this debate. In the 21st century, America's economy, military, healthcare, communications systems, and transportation infrastructure depend on hardrock minerals. There is no scenario where the United States and the rest of the world aren't competing to purchase these critical minerals. The only question is whether we are all competing for minerals mined here in the United States or in mines controlled by our foreign adversaries. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, in 2024, the United States was 100 percent net import reliant for 15 nonfuel mineral commodities. Additionally, of the 60 minerals identified as critical by USGS, the United States was 100 percent net import reliant for 12, and at least 50 percent net import reliant for an additional 30. Mining them here is better for our economy, our national security, our allies, and the environment. H.R. 4090 will help close America's mineral production gap and begin to end our dependence on foreign minerals. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in preparing for this floor debate, I should have asked my staff to bring posters of smoke and mirrors because it would be fitting for the arguments that we are hearing that seem to try to distract us from everything but the real issue. That issue is that we are not producing the minerals and elements here in our country that we need for our economy and our defense, and China is dominating those markets. Now, I agree with the gentlewoman from New Mexico: We should be processing these mined materials here in the United States. We have to ask ourselves the question: Why aren't we processing more minerals in the United States? Number one is that we can't get new mines. Why do we need a processing facility if we can't get the material we need to go through the processing facility? The other one is that we can't permit a new processing facility in a timely manner and build it in a cost-competitive manner because of our overburdensome permitting and regulatory processes and laws that we have here in the United States. This is the argument why we need permitting reform, why we need to speed up the process, and why we need to give certainty to investors that we can build here in America again. When we talk about refining metals, let's talk about copper. In 1995, we produced three times more copper than China. Today, they are producing 10 times more copper than we are. We have two copper smelters. They have 50. It is not because we don't know how to build copper smelters, don't have copper deposits, or don't want to produce copper in the U.S. It is the fact that there have been so many obstacles and barriers put in place that it has driven that industry overseas to other places. It is time we bring it back here and do it in a more environmentally responsible manner--again, with human rights protections, health and safety protections, environmental protections, and the standards of the United States. It is time we start doing this in our backyard and not exporting our issues to other countries while we turn a blind eye to it. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let's look at the issue at hand here. I want to address the policy issue and the weakness in the argument that we could restrict mining companies to 10 percent Chinese ownership. That is a bad policy decision. It is a bad policy decision, Mr. Speaker, because if you are the Chinese Communist Party and see a mine is getting ready to happen in the United States, and it is going to be done by a company that is traded publicly, you could go buy 10.1 percent and stop the project. We don't need that kind of policy. Plus, that policy doesn't apply to the jurisdiction of this bill. If a policy like that needs to be designed, then it needs to go through the Financial Services Committee. Also, don't think, Mr. Speaker, that our opposition on this--being China, for the most part--will not play dirty. What they do is when they see any kind of mining project or processing facility considered in the United States, they dump product onto the global market, driving the price down to make the economics such that nobody would invest in that project. Fortunately, that is being addressed. Just this week, the administration announced something called the vault, which will be a repository for critical minerals. It will be similar to our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We will have strategic critical mineral reserves. We need to be able to produce those critical minerals here in the United States to put in that reserve, which will insulate against foreign bad actors dumping in our markets to drive the prices down to make projects not economically viable. Again, the real issue here is that we need this material in America, sourced by American mining companies, processed in America, and going into American manufacturing. We can partner with our allies around the world to help make this happen, but when we look at where the deposits are, they are here in America. We have to produce oil and gas where the oil and gas deposits are. We have to mine copper where the copper deposits are. Again, we are blessed to have all of those things here in our country, but we are not utilizing them. Because we are not utilizing them, we are allowing our adversaries to control the markets. It is not just an economic issue. It is a national security issue. That is why we need legislation like this legislation. That is why we need permitting reform. We talk about building processing facilities in America. We passed the bipartisan permitting reform bill, but, unfortunately, many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted against that. The Senate is considering that now. Hopefully, the Senate will pass that bill in a bipartisan manner, like we did in the House, but with a larger bipartisan group. We can get it to the President's desk so we can create certainty, so we can start building more processing and manufacturing here in our country, and so we can utilize these abundant resources that we have. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for speakers. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4090, the Critical Mineral Dominance Act. This legislation addresses one of the most urgent challenges facing our Nation today: our growing and unnecessary dependence on other nations for the critical minerals that drive our economy and sustain our national defense. The United States has never been more reliant on hard rock minerals than it is today. Copper is the backbone of our electricity grid. Nickel, cobalt, and lithium go into the batteries that power our communications devices and back up critical infrastructure such as hospitals and data centers. Rare earth elements make possible the cutting-edge technologies that enable our economy to innovate and our military to keep us safe. The global mineral race is not optional. Over the next 15 years, demand for copper and rare earth elements is expected to rise by 50 percent; cobalt, 150 percent; and lithium, up to 500 percent. Shortages of all the above could be upon us within a decade. Yet these minerals are right here under our feet. We have the safest, most sophisticated, efficient, and environmentally friendly mining technology and workforce anywhere in the world. The United States should be the world's mineral supply chain. The only reason we are not is because of our outdated, shortsighted Federal policy that hinders domestic mining. President Trump recognized the dangerous gap between America's mineral needs and mineral production. Upon returning to office a year ago, he signed three executive orders to help close that gap. The first directed Federal agencies to correct or rescind regulations that unduly burden domestic mining and instructed the Secretary of the Interior to accelerate geologic mapping. A second executive order required Federal agencies to prioritize mineral development on viable Federal lands. The third directed Federal agencies to assess the economic costs and national security risks of our dependence on foreign minerals. H.R. 4090, sponsored by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), would codify the natural resources-related provisions of these EOs and require additional reporting from the Department of the Interior. The reports will, for the first time, reveal the true costs that mineral dependence imposes on the U.S. economy. They will clarify the scope and location of America's vast mineral deposits. During markup, the Natural Resources Committee worked in a bipartisan manner to strengthen the bill, adopting two minority amendments that required DOI to report to Congress on barriers to byproduct mineral production on Federal lands and to examine projects with the potential to produce hard rock minerals from coal ash and coal byproducts. Mr. Speaker, the alternative to American mineral dominance is buying foreign minerals from supply chains controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. That is where we are now: mineral dependence. Mineral dependence benefits no one except the CCP. Mineral dependence does not help the environment. It does not drive economic growth. It doesn't make us or our allies safer. American mineral dominance will create thousands of new mining and mineral-related jobs. It will establish the United States as the hub of the world's mineral market. It will secure critical mineral access for the U.S. military and for our allies. Mr. Speaker, we need these minerals to build a better future. Our choice is whether to lead the world in meeting that need as only we can or to cede that responsibility to corrupt regimes, systems, and foreign enemies we know will abuse it. The American people have made their choice. It is time for us to honor it. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Stauber for his work on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4090, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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. 4090.

Mr. WESTERMAN. 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a lot of agreement on this issue. There is the fact that we need more critical minerals in the United States, and the demand for that is not going away. We need it for economic security. We need it for national security. The rub seems to be where these critical minerals and elements are going to come from. What we are promoting is that they come from America. The other argument seems to be that we need them but not in our backyard. That has been the position of our country for far too long. Mr. Speaker, instead of not in our backyard, it is much better in our backyard because we have better labor standards, better environmental standards, and better health and safety standards. God has blessed our country with these deposits of minerals really from sea to shining sea. We just need to be getting them out of the ground here, creating American jobs while doing that, creating more American jobs and more wealth while we refine those ores into metals and then manufacturing from that. That is what our vision is. We want to see Americans use American resources to promote American security and American economic growth. I wish we could all agree on that, but that is what this bill will help to promote. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, if you read the bill, there is absolutely nothing in the bill about allowing foreign mining companies to come into the U.S. and exploit our Federal lands, to bypass all Federal regulations, and create scenarios like may have happened in some other country. Those are just scare tactics to continue this idea of not in my backyard. We all want these things. We all recognize that we need these things. We have to have these critical minerals. We have to have these rare earth elements, but the mindset is that we will just get them from somewhere else. We will ship off our environmental issues to some other country and let them deal with it instead of dealing with them here in America, where we, again, have the most stringent rules, have the highest expectations, protect human rights, protect the environment, and promote occupational health and safety. Show me some place in the world that does that better than we do. It is certainly not Communist China, where all of these rare earths and critical minerals are coming from right now. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1032, I call up the bill (H.R. 4090) to codify certain provisions of certain Executive Orders relating to domestic mining and hardrock mineral resources, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I rise today to honor the life and legacy of Richard Taylor ``Dick'' Schulze, a distinguished public servant, conservation advocate, and a true champion for America's outdoor legacy. Today, along with my Co-Chair, Congressman Jimmy Panetta, and our Vice Chairs, Congressman August Pfluger and Congressman Troy A. Carter, Sr., we are proud to carry on the legacy of Congressman Schulze as bipartisan leaders of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus. Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1929 to John L. and Grace (Taylor) Schulze, Mr. Schulze pursued his education at the University of Houston, Villanova University, and Temple University. A veteran and patriot, he also served this country in both the U.S. Merchant Marines and the United States Army. Beyond his military service, he was a successful businessman and devoted public servant. His commitment to service extended into a remarkable political career, where he was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1975 and served for 18 years. During his tenure, he rose to the position of Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee, a further demonstration of his leadership. Throughout his distinguished career, Congressman Schulze maintained a deep and abiding passion for conservation. He also served on the Natural Resources Committee and was a member of the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, where he championed the protection and management of America's fish and wildlife resources. Recognizing his expertise and dedication, President George H.W. Bush appointed Schulze to serve on the board of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, further cementing his lifelong commitment to conservation and the outdoors. Among his most enduring legacies, Schulze co-founded the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation in 1989, working in bipartisan fashion alongside former Congressman Robert Lindsay Thomas to bring together Members of Congress who shared a passion for hunting, fishing, and wildlife conservation. Through the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Mr. Schulze helped establish the largest and most effective bipartisan platform in Congress to advance policies that benefit sportsmen and women, America's incredible outdoor heritage, and a Caucus that we are proud to lead today. Congressman Schulze died peacefully at his home on December 23, 2025, at the age of 96, with his wife of 33 years, Nancy Schulze, at his side. He was an avid outdoorsman whose life was defined by service to his country, his community, and the natural world. Today, we remember and celebrate Richard T. Schulze, not only for his service in Congress but for his visionary leadership in the conservation community. His work exemplified a rare combination of policy acumen, practical conservation knowledge, and an enduring commitment to bipartisan cooperation. His legacy will continue to guide and inspire Members of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, and countless individuals who value our Nation's outdoor traditions. We extend our deepest condolences to his family, friends, and colleagues, and we join the Nation in honoring a life well lived and a legacy that will endure for generations to come.

Mr. WESTERMAN

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, Mr. Stauber said it, I have said it, and others have said it. This CRA simply reverses the withdrawal that the Biden administration put out. It takes us back to Congress' original intent to allow somebody to propose to develop a project. It doesn't change any of the permitting laws. They still have to go through every permitting law. There seems to be a lot of scare tactics on what this mine, which hasn't even been permitted or approved yet, is going to do, but we know one thing. It will have to stand up to all the rigorous permitting requirements that the U.S. has to offer. It will also have to stand up to the labor, health, and safety requirements that we have here in the U.S., unlike many of the places around the world where these critical minerals are mined. This gives somebody a chance to develop a project to provide the things that we need here in America, to provide jobs for northern Minnesota, and to provide a stronger sense of national security, as we all saw the equipment that these critical minerals go into that Representative Zinke showed in the poster. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I include in the Record a coalition letter from over 140 organizations in support of H.J. Res. 140. These groups include the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Minnesota Power, MiningMinnesota, Minnesota State Building and Construction Trades Council, Ely Public School District, Jobs for Minnesotans, Laborers' International Union of North America, and more. January 20, 2026. Hon. Mike Johnson, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. John Thune, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Charles Schumer, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Johnson, Majority Leader Thune, Minority Leader Jeffries, and Minority Leader Schumer: Our organizations represent a broad range of Americans who care deeply about advancing opportunities for individuals and families across the country and fostering a stronger nation. We represent vital industries such as mining, manufacturing, transportation and energy; we represent hundreds of thousands of union workers; we include economic development associations; we are business leaders and much more. We are writing to express our strong support for Congress' efforts to utilize the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of the mineral withdrawal that was enacted in northeast Minnesota by the Department of the Interior (DOI) in January of 2023 on more than 225,000 acres of federal lands. Minerals are fundamental to everything in our modern world, from wiring in homes, to energy technologies and infrastructure, medical technologies, transportation, defense capabilities, smartphones and laptops and more. Simply put, critical minerals are vital for a safe, secure and prosperous America. Currently, China and other adversarial nations dominate the globe in critical mineral production and processing, while U.S. dependence on foreign sources for these materials has recently reached an all-time high. The ban on mining across a significant portion of Minnesota only set us further behind as a nation. As a result, this mineral withdrawal, an administrative action which forbids any mining or exploration activity on these lands for 20 years, was enacted in an area of the United States that contains enormous amounts of the critical minerals our nation needs to achieve its goals of energy independence, stronger domestic supply chains and American job creation. These are goals our organizations collectively work to advance. Northeast Minnesota is home to the world's largest known undeveloped deposits of copper, nickel, cobalt, platinum group metals and more. The area contains 95 percent of domestic nickel resources, almost 90 percent of domestic cobalt and about a third of our nation's copper. Industries pursuing the responsible development of these resources, from the mining companies who have invested in the region to the suppliers to the high-skilled workers seeking employment, have been negatively impacted by the enactment of the mineral withdrawal, as have the communities in the region that want to see mining projects move forward for the betterment of the local and statewide economy. Congress now has the opportunity to correct a detrimental action that ran contrary to our national interest, and to do so assures that these minerals will be produced domestically according to some of the world's most rigorous environmental standards. Minnesota and the federal government have already put in place comprehensive rules and a framework to ensure the environment is protected and that any proposed industrial activity in the area meets stringent regulatory standards. The U.S. also has some of the most robust safety standards for workers. To ignore the opportunity to produce domestically for materials we use in our everyday lives means that we are relying upon nations with low-to-non-existent worker protections. 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 to prove they can meet the high standards in place before earning permits to construct a mine. We collectively support the use of the Congressional Review Act to overturn the mineral withdrawal currently under consideration in Congress, as it is an essential step forward in unlocking the resources that our nation needs to reduce our dangerous reliance on China and other adversarial nations. Signed, Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA); Minnesota State Building and Construction Trades Council; The National Association of Manufacturers; International Brotherhood of Teamsters; MichAuto; Indigenous Business Advisors; Better in Our Back Yard; Iron Range Building Trades; Minnesota Pipe Trades Association; LIUNA Minnesota and North Dakota; Northern Midwest Regional Council of Carpenters; Minnesota Power; Whitebird Services Inc.; Duluth Seaway Port Authority; Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions; Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; Women's Mining Coalition; ClearPath Action; International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49; Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 589; Area Partnership for Economic Expansion (APEX). Range Association of Municipalities and Schools (RAMS); Mining Minnesota; Jobs for Minnesotans; American Exploration and Mining Association; Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration; National Mining Association; United Way of Northeastern Minnesota; American Chemistry Council; Teamsters Joint Council 32; Teamsters Local 346; Laborers Local 1097 ``Iron Range''; Sprinkler Fitters Local 417; UA Plumbers Local 15; Local 6 Plumbers and Pipefitters; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Minnesota State Council; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 242; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 110; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 31; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1426; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 160. Up North Jobs Inc.; Minnesota Conservative Energy Forum; Green Bridge Metals; City of Babbitt, MN--Mayor Andrea Zupancich; Duluth Area Chamber of Commerce; Laurentian Chamber of Commerce; Hermantown Area Chamber of Commerce; Copper Development Association; Mt. Iron-Buhl School Board, MN--Lisa Kvas; Grand Rapids Area Chamber of Commerce; American Coal Council; Industrial Township, St. Louis County, MN--Don Carlson; Northeast Technical Services; Grand Itasca Clinic and Hospital; Lakehead Constructors; Ely Public School District--Anne Oelke; Fight for Mining Minnesota; Road Machinery & Supplies Co.; Feeley Township, Itasca County, MN--Deb Langanki; Lake Country Power; Encampment Minerals, Inc. Giant; B.R. Clark Consulting LLC; RMS Tritec; Global Minerals Engineering; Wyoming Mining Association; American Peat Technology; Millcreek Engineering Company; Mine Development Management LLC; Borell Consulting Services LLC; StarPoint Resources, LLC; Geobrugg North America; Clementine Exploration; Idaho Mining Association; Agnico Eagle; Pebble Limited Partnership; Archkey--Parsons Electric; Superior Rock Bit; Innate North; GEOTEMPS/GEOPROS, Inc.; Superior Marine Charters. American Peat Technology; Wescom Inc; Furin & Shea Welding & Fabricating, Inc.; Sandvik Mining and Rock Processing; City of Hibbing, MN--Mayor Pete Hyduke; City of Kinney, MN--Mayor Patrick E. Haley; APi Group Inc.; ME Global Inc; A Martin Consulting, LLC; Malton Electric Co.; Quick Supply Co.; North Star Manganese Inc & Electric Metals (USA) Limited; GR Engineering Services; Amvest Capital Securities; Twin Metals Minnesota; Kalenborn Abresist Corporation; Larkin Hoffman Attorneys; ME Elecmetal; City of Biwabik, MN--Mayor Steven Biondich; Solenis LLC. Kirscher Transport; General Equipment & Supplies Inc; JBW Consulting Engineers; PX4 Software; Gerdau Amersiteel US Inc; QT Environmental; Wolverine Fuels; Alaska Miners Association; Furin & Shea Welding & Fabricating, Inc.; Universal Polymer And Rubber; TJR Technical Services, Inc.; Beaver Bay, Inc.; AMIGOS; Hayday; Tidal Health; Northeast Title; Marshall Area Chamber of Commerce; Timberline Drilling; Ziegler Cat; Kalenborn Canada Inc. Superior Fuel Company; Baldwin Supply Company; Dodge Industrial; Baldwin Supply; Avivid Global Water; Vics Crane & Heavy Haul; Hamilton Monroe & Co; Electric Power Door; Duncan Co.; Victaulic; General Equipment and Supplies, Inc.; LRL Construction; Contour Inc.; Borealis Fuels & Logistics; Cenovus Energy Superior Refinery; Hibbing Taconite Co.; Snowbird Willies Boat Canvas; Hamilton Monroe; MHE Consulting; Salem Republic Rubber; Enbridge.

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. 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.