Bruce Westerman

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Representative Curtis' bill, H.R. 3397, the Western Economic Security Today Act, or WEST Act of 2024. The WEST Act withdraws the flawed and illegal Conservation and Landscape Health Rule, which was finalized earlier this month by the Bureau of Land Management, or the BLM. You may be asking, why is a rule focused on conservation and landscape health so bad. Well, it wouldn't be bad if that was what it was really focused on, but the name is very misleading. This rule is a poorly concealed effort to lock up more lands to advance the Biden administration's radical 30x30 agenda. It has absolutely nothing to do with true conservation or improving the health of our landscapes. Responsible uses of BLM lands are central to the Western way of life. This rule would fundamentally upend more than 50 years of land management practices across the West that rural communities have relied on for their livelihoods. Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, or FLPMA, the BLM is mandated to manage lands in accordance with multiple use and sustained yield. If responsible use and development of public lands are prohibited, family and small businesses, multigeneration ranches, local communities, and schools will suffer from a lack of economic development, access, and tax revenue. This is more than just a Western issue. If you ate a hamburger this week or filled your car with gas, this rule affects you. This rule will severely impact the lives and wallets of every single American. Haven't we had enough of that already? Haven't we had enough of inflation and rising prices? The finalized rule will broadly allow the BLM to lease lands under new and vaguely defined ``restoration and mitigation leases'' and change standards around land use decisions. The rule will elevate conservation as a use of our public lands. This is clearly contradictory with both the plain reading of FLPMA and Congress' intent. Congress very clearly defined the principal or major uses of BLM lands to ``include, and be limited to, domestic livestock grazing, fish and wildlife development and utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and timber production.'' Nowhere in the act do the words ``conservation,'' ``restoration,'' or ``mitigation'' appear as a use. Conservation is not a use. It is a value and an outcome that can be generated by the uses that I just mentioned. If the administration determines that uses such as grazing, timber production, energy production, mining, or recreation are incompatible with the lease, they would not be allowed and could be prohibited indefinitely from those lands. At best, the rule is duplicative, unnecessary, and burdensome. Meaningful conservation work is already being done on the 245 million acres of BLM land with multiple stakeholders. Often uses overlap on BLM land and coexist with each other. Meaningful conservation occurs simultaneously with and often for the mutual benefit of other uses, like grazing and recreation. At worst, restoration and mitigation leases are a guise to restrict any meaningful activity on Federal land, including energy and mineral production, and timber management. The final rule allows the BLM to issue mitigation leases indefinitely and waives fees on restoration leases. That would take land that could otherwise be creating a return for the American taxpayer and give it away for free to environmental extremists. What will this rule look like on the ground and mean for Westerners? Specifically, the Biden administration can kick off the multigenerational rancher who has been grazing on the land since before the Bureau of Land Management existed. They can restrict the mining of the minerals we need for phones, computers, cars, and batteries to sustain life. They can limit oil and gas development, creating dependence on hostile foreign nations and threatening our economic prosperity. In addition to this new convoluted leasing system, the rule would also expedite the designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern by removing public comment periods and allowing the BLM to ``temporarily'' restrict land use without public input. This provides the BLM with virtually unlimited authority to lock up millions of acres without any input from the public or support. The rule sorely favors types of energy development the administration likes and hurts other responsible energy development they have deemed unworthy. The rule chooses winners and losers. Wealthy elites who want to protect views from their mansions or extreme environmental groups who want to kick locals off of public lands are the winners. Guides and outfitters who bring young and old alike to our public lands or the ranching family who works every day to put food on millions of American tables are the losers. In finalizing this rule, the Biden administration has jeopardized the activities and land used to feed and fuel our country. Make no mistake: This affects every American. This impacts every acre, every user, every lease, and every American. The finalized rule comes after a year-long effort by Western Governors, communities, stakeholders, and Members of Congress calling for the abandonment of this flawed rule. The concerns fell on deaf ears within the Biden administration. This prompted us to bring this bill to the floor this week, forcing the withdrawal of the rule. Mr. Speaker, I again thank Representative Curtis for his work on the bill, and I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 3397, the WEST Act of 2024. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we really must pass Representative Curtis' WEST Act. This burdensome and unnecessary law that is being disguised as a rule is not only a threat to the West, but it is also a threat to our national security, to American energy dominance, to our food security, to the environment, and to the separation of powers that are established in our Constitution. Passing the WEST Act and withdrawing this rule will restore Congress' intent over the multiple uses of BLM land and protect the over 700,000 jobs across the West that rely on access to our public lands. We can't allow the Biden administration to singlehandedly upend 50 years of congressionally mandated land use policies to the whim of environmental extremists and coastal elites. We can't allow an unelected, unaccountable, and unnamed bureaucrat to write law. I thank Representative Curtis for his strong leadership on this issue. I know that he has heard many concerns about the rule from his constituents, including as recently as last week at a Federal Lands Subcommittee hearing in southern Utah. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Utah (Ms. Maloy).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As my colleague, Mr. Bentz, read from the Federal Register and then my friend from Colorado read from the rule, the summary of the rule, I thought what would be more intellectually honest is if that summary said the proposed law because this goes way beyond a rule. I also thought, who wrote this? And the answer is: I don't know. It is some nondescript bureaucrat over at the administration that wrote this law. He is rewriting law, and as Congress, we have to stand up to the administration and say: Congress writes the laws, the administration enforces the law, and we have to put a stop to this administrative state that writes laws that have just as much effect as if Congress had passed a law. If Congress wanted to add conservation, restoration, or mitigation to multiple use, then Congress should do that. Right now, the law says: The multiple use is domestic livestock grazing, fish and wildlife development utilization, mineral exploration and production, rights-of-way, outdoor recreation, and timber production. That is the law, and it is time that we put a stop to bureaucrats writing laws that are not held responsible by anybody. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), the chair of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

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 insert extraneous material on H.R. 764.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 764, sponsored by the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert). This bill instructs the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue its 2020 final rule delisting the gray wolf from the endangered species list in the lower 48 States. Defining success under the Endangered Species Act is crucial not only for species but also for landowners. Understanding recovery goals and accurately measuring progress informs management actions needed to improve a species' health and habitat. When a species is recovered and is a candidate to be delisted, the achievement should be celebrated. Mr. Speaker, by every definition, the gray wolf is a recovered species and should be celebrated as an ESA success story. Gray wolf populations are healthy and thriving in every region where they are currently found. The Great Lakes region has the largest concentration of gray wolves in the lower 48 States, with approximately 4,200 wolves that inhabit the States of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. The recovery plan and criteria for delisting the gray wolf in the Great Lakes is clear. The region must have a stable or increasing population of wolves in Minnesota and at least 200 wolves outside of the Minnesota population. According to former wildlife biologist at the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Nathan Roberts: ``These goals have been met since at least 1994.'' He went on to say: ``It is remarkable to note that given the natural lifespan of wolves, every wolf on the landscape in the Great Lakes region was born long after recovery goals were met.''

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Backing up this record of success, in February, the Service announced it had denied two petitions related to the gray wolf, one calling for wolves to be relisted in the Northern Rocky Mountains ecosystem and another calling for wolves to be relisted in the entire Western United States. In denying these petitions, the Service stated wolves are ``not at risk of extinction in the Western United States now or in the foreseeable future.'' The Service also stated that wolf populations in the Western United States had a healthy abundance, retained genetic diversity, had the ability to respond to high mortality events, and maintained adaptive capacity. This announcement, coupled with the fact that most wolves in the Western United States are in States where they have already been delisted, shows that States are responsibly managing their wolf populations. Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time the House of Representatives debated wolf management. In 2011, Congress directed the Service to reinstate a 2009 rule that delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana and prohibited judicial review. In fact, delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48 States has bipartisan support. In 2013, the Obama administration proposed delisting the gray wolf in the lower 48 States. The Biden administration is currently appealing the Federal court orders that are preventing the 2020 delisting rule from taking effect. This is a rare occurrence where the Biden administration is actually defending an action taken by the Trump administration. In 2018, the House of Representatives passed language similar to the bill before us today with the support of nine Democrats, some of whom are still in Congress. Yet, we are here again, pursuing a delisting that should have been accomplished long ago. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to celebrate the recovery of the gray wolf and support its delisting and the legislation that is before us today. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to point out that although the accusations have been made that hunting would adversely affect the populations of wolves, that is contrary to proven data that we have from all species that are hunted. In particular, in each State where wolves have been delisted, there is a State management plan in place that has been proven to be effective in managing wolf populations. Each State recovery plan calls for wolf populations to remain well above recovery goals, and science from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proves that wolf populations remain healthy post-delisting. While States may vary on population and size management, they all plan for and set policies to have a sustainable and secure population. To be clear, a reduction in population size is not the same as eliminating a population. Each State recovery plan calls for wolf populations to remain well above recovery goals. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. Boebert), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. WESTERMAN. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the only rule or the only science that this bill would maybe not hold up to is the political science that is being pushed back and forth in this Chamber today. If you look at real wildlife management, we know that maintaining healthy populations of wolves also affects other species. I would say if you could talk to an elk or a deer, you might ask them if a wolf is a violent killer or talk to somebody's cattle because they do kill. They are apex predators. We need them in the ecosystem, but we have to manage those numbers. Just because a species hasn't been recovered in its native range doesn't mean that that species should be on the endangered species list. If that were so, we would have black bear and elk on the endangered species list. The real science data shows that delisting the wolf and letting States manage the wolf population, and we are not talking about wiping out the wolf population, we are talking about maintaining it at healthy levels, that is what would be best for the wolf and for all others concerned. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Hageman).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, running down any kind of animal and running over it with a vehicle is not considered hunting in any jurisdiction that I know of. That is illegal, it should not be tolerated, and it shouldn't be used as an example of why wolves shouldn't be managed using traditional hunting methods and letting States manage those populations. I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bentz), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. The gray wolf is a recovered species. The administration is ignoring the facts. They are derelict in their duties, and it is time for Congress to act. As we have heard from Members today, the impacts of an unmanaged wolf population are growing and will continue to grow as long as the administration doesn't take action. That is why Congress must take action. I want to emphasize that passing this bill does not declare open season on wolves, as some would have you believe. Rather, it puts the management of wolves where it should be, with State game and fish departments. They are the ones who are best able to manage the wildlife in their State. My colleagues across the aisle talk a big game about supporting State fish and wildlife agencies, but as we see here today, when the rubber meets the road, really talk is all that it is. Today, by passing this bill, Congress would celebrate an ESA success story and confirm what three successive Presidential administrations of both political parties have tried to do. It is time for every Member of this Chamber to reject the political science, examine the facts, trust the facts, and delist the gray wolf. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congresswoman Boebert for her leadership on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WESTERMAN

Mr. WESTERMAN. The Biden administration's recent actions to restrict access to this treasure trove of vital and increasingly scarce minerals simply does not make sense for our national security, for the people of northern Minnesota, or even for President Biden's own mineral-intensive goals to build out renewable energy production and achieve net-zero emissions. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3195 and reinstate Minnesotans' rights to access their abundant resources.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3195, the Superior National Forest Restoration Act of 2024. First of all, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my good friend, for his leadership in this area. Since his first day in Congress, Mr. Stauber has fought tirelessly for his district and has done an excellent job representing the people and the interests of the Iron Range through his work here in Washington. This bill is the culmination of years of meetings, hearings, and hard work to ensure that the voices of those living in northern Minnesota are heard in Congress and the White House. I have been to northern Minnesota many times, even with Mr. Stauber's predecessor, Democrat Congressman Rick Nolan, and I have seen how important the mining industry is to the region, as it has been for over a century. I have also seen American mining companies' dedication to producing essential minerals with exemplary regard for their employees, the environment, and the communities in which they operate. In doing so, U.S. domestic mines set the global gold standard for responsible resource procurement. The Duluth Complex in northern Minnesota contains one of the largest deposits of minerals in the world, including the world's second largest deposit of copper. According to S&P Global Market Intelligence, global copper demand is expected to be double current production in the next decade, driven primarily by the push to electrification. In fact, annual copper output from the Twin Metals project alone would support the production of 13,000 megawatts of wind turbine power or 10,000 megawatts of solar power per year. Yet, from 2022 to 2023, U.S. copper production dropped by 11 percent, even as our net import reliance--meaning the amount of copper we have to buy from foreign sources--rose 46 percent. The Duluth Complex also contains world-class reserves of critical minerals such as cobalt and nickel.

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 include extraneous material on H.R. 615.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1173, I call up the bill (H.R. 615) to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from prohibiting the use of lead ammunition or tackle on certain Federal land or water under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. The rule this administration put out has absolutely nothing to do with protecting wildlife, wildlife conservation, or protecting human health. As the gentleman alluded to, I believe this bill probably is more aimed at restricting the sale of ammunition and any kind of attack Democrats can take on our Second Amendment rights. This bill will hurt conservation. It is senseless. It is based on no facts. The Fish and Wildlife Service can't produce a document to show why they should ban lead ammunition or lead fishing tackle. It is simply another move by an administration that wants to write the law instead of letting Congress write the laws and them enforce the laws. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman), the sponsor of the legislation.

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I serve as the co-chair of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, and I would like to point out that not only does the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation endorse this legislation, but so do organizations such as the Mule Deer Foundation, the American Sportfishing Association, Ducks Unlimited, and Delta Waterfowl. The who's who of sportsmen and -women organizations support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this list of endorsements. October 27, 2022. Cosponsor Request: Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act Dear Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus Member: The undersigned organizations, representing millions of hunters, anglers, wildlife professionals, and outdoor enthusiasts are writing to express our support for the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act (S. 4940/H.R. 9088). Introduced by Senator Steve Daines with a companion bill from Representatives Rob Wittman and Bruce Westerman, this legislation would prohibit the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior from prohibiting the use of lead ammunition or tackle on certain Federal lands and waters absent field data delineating a science-based nexus to a wildlife species population decline. Overly broad and arbitrary ammunition and tackle bans have severe and unnecessary detrimental impacts on the economy while also serving as a hinderance to fish and wildlife conservation programs and projects. To that end, we are united in respectfully requesting that you join as a cosponsor of this important legislation. At the outset, it is important to note that with few exceptions, fish and wildlife are successfully managed at the population level. Additionally, with the exception of Federal Trust Species and certain other species, fish and wildlife management decisions are primarily driven by state fish and wildlife agencies. With those considerations in mind, in the very rare occurrences that science-based field-data clearly delineates a causational nexus between traditional ammunition or tackle and changes in fish or wildlife population health, state fish and wildlife agencies already have the ability to regulate the use of those to both achieve conservation objectives and minimize impacts to anglers and hunters. That said, we do not believe wildlife management decisions should be driven or decided by political motivations, litigation, at the ballot box or by anyone other than the applicable fish and wildlife department of the State in which the specific Federal land or water is located. Furthermore, we maintain that any restrictions on the use of lead ammunition and tackle on federal lands and waters by a federal agency must have the support of the respective state fish and wildlife agency, which is required by the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act. Simply put, this legislation reaffirms state fish and wildlife management authority. In many cases, alternatives to lead ammunition and tackle that deliver similar performance at a comparable cost simply do not exist. Therefore, overly broad and arbitrary bans on traditional ammunition and tackle serve as a disincentive to the recruitment, retention and reactivation of hunters and anglers and, as a result, have significant negative economic consequences for sportsmen and women and local and regional economies. In addition, these bans result in decreases to the excise taxes that hunters and anglers voluntarily imposed on ammunition and fishing tackle as part of the Pittman- Robertson and Dingell-Johnson Acts, both of which provide the lion's share of funding for state fish and wildlife conservation, research, public access to natural resources and other important programs that promote hunting and fishing and sustainable populations of fish and wildlife species. Recently, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a final rule that, while expanding access to hunting and fishing opportunities at certain wildlife refuges, also seeks to phase out the use of traditional lead ammunition and fishing tackle. We are disappointed to see the lack of a science-based justification for the arbitrary limitation on the use of lead ammunition and tackle. This rule does not recognize state fish and wildlife as the primary managers of our nation's fish and wildlife. Concurrently, litigation initiated by animal rights interests is pending against a similar, previous rule to expand hunting and fishing access on national wildlife refuges alleging that the additional use of lead ammunition and tackle will harm wildlife species at those refuges. However, those allegations are not substantiated by science. The litigation not only lacks scientific justification, but it is entirely without legal merit. In light of the timing of this litigation, we are concerned the USFWS has engaged in settlement negotiations with the litigants. Despite strong opposition from many of the undersigned, we believe the USFWS continues conversations with the plaintiff. Furthermore, we are concerned that an overly broad, onerous and unnecessary ban on the use of traditional ammunition and tackle in the National Wildlife Refuge System could be forthcoming. For these reasons, we strongly support the Protecting Access for Hunters and Anglers Act (S. 4940/H.R. 9088) and encourage you to serve as a cosponsor of this vital legislation. Thank you for your leadership and continued service on behalf of America's outdoor heritage. Sincerely, American Catnshing Association, American Sportfishing Association, Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S), BoatU.S., Boone and Crockett Club, California Waterfowl Association, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Council to Advance Hunting and the Shooting Sports, Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, International Game Fish Association, Major League Fishing, Marine Retailers Association of the Americas, Mule Deer Foundation, National Professional Anglers Association, National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, Pope & Young Club, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club International, The Bass Federation, Inc., The Walleye Federation, LLC, Whitetails Unlimited, Wildlife Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford).

Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the gentleman pointing out some important facts about how this rule came to be from this administration that is anything but transparent. It is an administration that rejects any kind of oversight. I couldn't even start to tell you how much information they are behind on sending to the committee that we have requested just so we can do oversight, but I can imagine how this meeting probably went down. The radical environmental groups go over to the administration to have a meeting and the administration says, well, there are no facts, no science, nothing that supports what you are wanting to do. However, wink, wink, if you were to sue us and we went to court, then we could settle that and maybe we will give you a half dozen to a dozen refuges that we will ban lead on and that will make their friends happy. I think that is exactly what happened, and that is why we are here today with a bill in Congress to say you can't do that. Enough is enough. Manage these lands for the public, not for your special interest radical environmental groups. I think Congress has to take the lead on this. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.