seeing, there was a caller in the first segment that said in the 1960's we weren't waving vietnamese flags, we were waiting piece flags. -- peace flags. she didn't understand why they were flying palestinian flags. compared to the past, what are you finding? guest: we really do miss remember a lot about the 1960's. it is a cultural memory we have of what was going on in the 1960's is in many cases different from what happened. during the vietnam war protests, there were people waving north vietnamese flags. there were students chanting viet cong is going to win. and hey, hey, lbj, how many kids did you kill today?

>> we'll leave this program for live coverage of the u.s. house. today members are considering legislation to combat anti-semitism on college campuses. live coverage of the u.s. house here on c-span.

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me. holy and eternal god, on the occasion of the 235th

anniversary of the appointment of the first chaplain to congress, i offer this prayer in thanksgiving to you and to our country's forbearers who to under it both fit -- who found it both fit and necessary to open each legislative day since 1789 with prayer. repeating the sentiments of george washington in his first address shared with the house of representatives on that same day, we offer our fervent supplications to that almighty being who rules over the universe, who presides in the counsels of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect the. that his ben diction macons crate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the united states, a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes. while these words may not be our own, like the father of our nation, we acknowledge and adoerr the invisible hand which conducts our affairs and we,

like president washington, resort to the benign parent of the human race in humble supplication since you have been pleased to favor the american people. even now, 235 years later, our prayer remains the same. may your divine blessing be equally conspicuous in the enlarged view, the tell operate consultations and the wise measures on which the success of this government may depend. lord, hear our prayer is raised up in the past, still true in this present day, and understood to be the foundation for our future. amen. the speaker: amen. what a great anniversary. tthe chair has examined thejours proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. williams. mr. williams: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to

the republic for which it stands, one nation, under go god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will entertain up to 15 requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. williams: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life and legacy of my dear friend, don nicholas. don was a crucial member of the texas 25th congressional district team for over 10 years and dedicated his life to selflessly serving his country. time and time again he stepped up to help those in need, day or night, he never missed a call from a veteran and opened his home up to soldiers every holiday. don was a 31-year army vet, a man of great faith and a loving husband, father and grandfather and always believed that north dakota state bison were going to win every game. america lost a patriot, texas lost a servant leader and we all

lost a friend. he will be dearly missed by those privileged to know him. i'm honored to celebrate the life and impact that don had on so many. in god we trust, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i've had guns pulled on me multiple times by law enforcement simply for being a black man in america. mr. bowman: and now i see guns being drawn on peaceful protesters at columbia university. when i was 11 years old, i was a victim of police brutality simply for being black in america. and now i see that brutality being inflicted on peaceful protesters at columbia university. and for what? simply exercising their first

amendment rights to peacefully assemble as they protest the collective punishment and murder of civilians in gaza. 100,000 killed and injured. mostly women and children. protesting our taxpayer dollars going to benjamin netanyahu to continue this mass murder. that is their right. they are supposed to push us to stand for what this flag represents. are we in a police state or is this a democracy? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. bowman: we must stand with our young people and demand justice and freedom for palestinians and everyone in this world. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. thompson: mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise today to celebrate our small businesses

across the pennsylvania 15th congressional district, the commonwealth and the country. this week we recognize the importance of our small businesses and the role that they play in our communities as part of national small business week. small businesses are the cornerstone of communities. they're often the first place you go to for local support, from asking for donations for fundraisers, to sponsoring your youth sports teams. it is a local small business -- it is the local small businesses that answer the call. more than half of americans either work for or own a small business and they create nearly two out of every three jobs in the united states every year. our small businesses play a central role in building a strong country and we're so grateful for their contributions to our communities. now small businesses need our support. there are many ways you can show your support, by writing a review, telling friends and family about your favorite shop, or interacting with the business on social media. mr. speaker, this week i

encourage you all to make the effort to shop small and shop local at your favorite small businesses. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts seek recognition? without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, food is medicine and our medical professionals need proper training to screen and treat food insecurity and diet-related diseases. that's why i've joined together with representative buchanan on a bipartisan letter to the accreditation council for graduate medical education, urging them to incorporate nutrition education into the program requirements for graduate medical education. by doing so, graduate medical programs will be required to adequately prepare physicians in nutrition, improving health outcomes and saving our health care system a lot of money. mr. speaker, the idea that our medical professionals should have better training in nutrition isn't a concept we just came up with here in

washington. when i visit medical students, physicians, nurses and other medical professionals back home, i hear over and over again how they don't feel adequately prepared to treat food insecurity and diet-related diseases. i'm proud to further a key recommendation in the national strategy on hunger, nutrition and health and ask all of my colleagues to support efforts to improve nutrition education for physicians. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north dakota seek recognition? mr. armstrong: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. armstrong: a pretty cool thing happened in my hometown last week. pete won his 500th career game as our high school baseball coach. since 2000, the dickinson high school has won five state championships and has been runners up three times. and if that's not enough, coach pete spends his summers coaching

and running the babe ruth baseball team. to be honest, he would have gotten here a little earlier but he refuses to count the 2004 state championship season because he was deployed, honorably serving the state of north dakota and our country in the national guard. i can't think of anybody more worthy of being able to be addressed on the floor of the house today. i've had the privilege of coaching with him. i've had the privilege of running a baseball program where he ran my babe ruth program, and i had the privilege and honor of calling him my friend. he has touched numerous high school students' lives, both in the classroom and on the ballpark, and here's to another 24 years and 500 wins because he's a fixture in the third base dugout. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. frankel: look at this map.

today's a dark day in the state of florida because we joined all these states that are in dark colors, as our d draconian six-week abortion ban goes into effect, gutting access to abortion care in florida and in the south. it's essentially a total ban because most women do not know they're pregnant before six weeks. and, listen, abortion is a deeply personal medical decision that politicians should not interfere with. and doctors should not have to face criminal prosecution for treating the patient before them. we don't walk in other people's shoes. there are many reasons for an abortion. it could be birth control failure, rape, incest, or endangering a person's life. protecting women's access to abortion is a freedom that only she should have.

the good news is that in november, florida voters can defend this fundamental freedom. but until then, a dark cloud hovers over our so-called sunshine state. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: i ask unanimous consent to address the congress for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: thank you, mr. speaker. the violent anti-semitic hatred on american college campuses is revealing of left-wing bigotry. last week the "wall street journal" editorialized, quote, anti-israel, anti-semitic protests at columbia, yale and elsewhere are getting uglier and it isn't clear that progressives in charge of these institutions are up to the job of enforcing order or protecting jewish students, end of quote. yesterday new york was sadly revealing with a corrupt democrat judge gagging the republican candidate for

president as corrupt democratic attorney general preceded to drop charges of violent supporters of terrorism seeking murder of all jews. deranged democrats mirror republicans and appease murders of jews. in conclusion, god bless our troops who successfully protected america for 20 years as the global war on terrorism moves from the safe haven of afghanistan to america. we do not need new border laws, we need to eforce existing laws -- to enforce existing laws. biden shamefully opens the borders to dictators as more 9/11 attacks across america are eminent, as repeatedly warned by the f.b.i. thank you, ambassador of egypt, for briefing congress today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. daps adams thank you, mr. speaker -- ms. adams: thank you, mr. speaker. congressman don payne was one of a kind. from his impeccable fashion

sense to our mutual love of hats. his infectious sense of humaner to his deep commitment to the people of newark, new jersey. when i came to congress, i went to don to tell him that while i was born in north carolina, i spent my formative years in his district in newark and graduated from high school there. he never let me forget it. i always referred to him as my hometown guy and he referred to me as his home girl. and when i traveled to his district for a family member's funeral, he was insistent to help me -- to show me around the city and when i couldn't make it to my high school reunion, don went in my place. when a member of my staff who was born in newark needed a copy of her birth certificate, donald payne made sure she got it. he was the first member to come to north carolina to attend my annual adams mad hadder -- mad hatter event. that's who he was, always lending a hand.

my heartbreaks for his family. and i'm lifting you up in my prayers. and to my colleagues, as we mourn this devastating loss, may donald payne jr.'s memory serve as motivation for us to be better public servants and continue the fight for equality, just as donald payne jr. would have wanted. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize the outstanding performance of hillsborough county public schools in florida's 15th congressional district. ms. lee: u.s. u.s. world news report ranked 25,000 high schools throughout the united states based on college preparedness,

performance, efficiency and graduation rates. some of hillsborough high schools were ranked among the best educational institutions not just in florida but in the nation. this honor is a testament to the students, teachers and administrators in hillsborough county. it is clear our schools are committed to providing high quality education initiatives and ensuring our students are well prepared for the next chapter of life. i am excited to see what the future holds for our students, faculty and community on florida's 14th congressional district. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i have a message for my colleagues today, don't come to congress if

you want to make a profit. mr. khanna: americans are frustrated with congress because too many members are personally trading stock and pac money is drowning out the voices and more lobbyists around legislators. i am calling on speaker johnson to bring a vote on a bipartisan bill to ban members of congress from trading stock. representative spanberger and representative roy have been working on this bill since 2020 listening to voices. they understand that we need a vote. speaker after speaker we'll have a vote but we haven't had a vote. bring that bill for an up or down vote. let's ban pac money and ban members of congress from ever

becoming lobbyists. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. weber: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. weber: mr. speaker, i rise with a heart full of pride as we celebrate the achievement of our very important football team for winning the state championship. the first state football title in 48 years. you have made texas 14 proud. to each of the football players, congratulations. you displayed grit and texas determination throughout the season overcoming challenges with resilience that led to a state champ title and to coach jeb joseph and the entire coaching staff to device palestinian and winning mind-set in every player. to the students, faculty and

fans, thank you for representing our community. this victory is not just for p and g but southeast texas. congratulations indians. god bless texas. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from nevada seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i rise to extend my personal congratulations to all of the local entrepreneurs, the communities they support and the nevada small business administration at their annual awards luncheon celebrating national small business week. from restaurants to wrestling gyms, these small businesses are the life of our local economy. ms. lee: as our community grows beyond the reputation as the

entertainment capital of the world, one thing will always remain true, we are a people-driven economy. investing in our economy to make it more resilient and diverse requires investing in the people who keep it running. thanks again to all the small business owners, employees and hardworking employees who make our community strong and happy small business week. and i yield. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new mexico seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. leger fernandez: mr. speaker happy small business week. today i rise to recognize small business administration support and advocacy for businesses and communities as they sustain and strengthen the backbone of the american economy. i want to thank s.b.u. new

mexico director john garcia through financing information and guidance, our small business community benefits daily from the resources and support that mr. garcia and his team provide. last year, s.b.a. marked its 70th anniversary. nationally, there are 30 million small businesses. in new mexico, 95% of our bringses are small businesses. 162,000 strong. our small businesses employ 340,000 individuals and we are growing at a rapid rate with 7, 250 new businesses opening during the march period. to independent book stores to small manufacturing plants, our small businesses line on main street and bring economic vitality to our communities. this small business week i recognize s.b.a.'s storied past

and even stronger. muchosgracias. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. >> i rise today to honor nelson cruz senior for his work for encouraging cultural expressions over a 60-year. founded by the cruz family, it is more than a puke store but testament of chicago's latin american cultural community. selling records and spue a cherished neighborhood institution offering instruments and lessons, it has been a source of inspiration for so many. on behalf of illinois 3rd congressional distribution district, it is my great honor

to commend nelson cruz senior for its chiropractics to our community and wish him an enriching and joyful retirement. [speaking spanish] thank you, mr. nelson, congratulations. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise to acknowledge and honor a remarkable couple, dr. charles

white junior and barbara white on their goaledden anniversary of their ministry. along with their loved ones, and friends and ring decorated in gold they celebrated 50 years in the ministry throughout their 55-year marriage. despite facing challenges such as prostate cancer and parkinson they continue to serve with unwavering faith and determination reaching out to those in need and delivering hope to countless lives. grain county has been pleased with their ministry and we are so greatful for their positive impact. i thank the lord for blessing us with such compassion nature and caring souls as apostle charles and barbara white. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek

recognition? mr. lamalfa: i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lamalfa: what we are seeing on college campuses es isn't first amendment protected prespeech, vandalism, breaking and entering and antisemitism. they have set up no-go zones for jewish students and faculty physically blocking them where they pay tear dues, the whole works. we have seen pro-hamas send a ucla student to the emergency room beating her unconscious because she is jewish. what is this, 1939. we have seen sympathesizors break windows, spray paint and rename a building as soon on humboldt's campus in northern california and seen pro-hamas

students take a janitor as a hostage. destroying property, blocking traffic, assault and taking a hostage are illegal. elite university students at yale and columbia should know better. history has made it clear if you are creating a no-go zone and actively attacking jewish students. these are not protestors. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 3944 an act to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 120 west church street in mount vernon georgia as second lieutenant patrick palmer calhoun post office. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california mr. mcclintock seek recognition? mr.mcclintock: i have a bill at the desk.

the clerk: -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the gentleman wish to call up the bill pursuant to house resolution 737. the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: resolution denouncing the biden administration's immigration policies. pursuant to house resolution 1137, the resolution is considered read. the resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member on the member of the judiciary committee. the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock and the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock. mr.mcclintock: thank you,

mr. speaker. in january, the border patrol toll house republicans on standing in front of an open fire hydrant with a bucket, i don't need more buckets i need someone to shut off the hydrant. president trump did exactly that. his remanding mexico policy. the border wall was nearing completion with only construction gaps remaining to be closed and i.c.e. was enforcing court ordered did he portions deportations saying migrants would end up back where they started. inauguration day, mr. biden reversed all of these successful policies. he subsequently took to undermine our immigration laws and open our border to the world. the result is the largest illegal mass migration in

history. since that day, over 4.6 million illegal migrants have been released into this country deliberately and while the border patrol has been cheamed, 1.8 million known got-aways got away. 1.64 million illegals. larger than the entire state of missouri, our 18th largest state with eight congressional districts and that's just in three years. the impact has been devastating. schools have been overwhelmed as classrooms are packed with nonenglish speaking students. hospitals have been shifted millions of dollars in care. in yuma they are sent to tucson because local beds are taken by illegals. the social safety net has been shredded by the deliberate admission of millions of impoverished illegals demanding

free food, clothing and the number of terror suspects has ballooned and law enforcement officials are warning that 1.8 million got-aways, mostly single military men is a dangerous column that could launch devastating attacks. fentanyl is killing hundreds of americans every day. democrat sanctuary policies hamstring to deport criminal aliens and the mission of untold thousands of most vicious gang members on the planet are now producing a butcher bill of murderous assault on americans. this resolution speaks for americans who have had enough and condemns these policies. i am afraid that's all we can do until the american people rise up and demand an administration and a congress willing to

restore our borders and put americans first. i reserve the balance of my time. . . . . mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, this country is facing real problems. there's an erosion of trust in our government and institutions. the right to body you aen to me is under attack -- autonomy is under attack across the nation. maryland needs assistance in rebuilding the francis scott key bridge so the port of baltimore can reopen. and our immigration system cannot function because congress has failed to reform it for over 30 years. but instead of responding to theseroblems, house republicans are wasting our time yet again on another meaningless immigration resolution. as donald trump's direction, they refuse to work towards solutions for our broken immigration system, so instead all they have to offer is a bunch of empty rhetoric.

this resolution, like the others we have considered in recent months, will do nothing to solve the situation at the border. not a single dollar will go to help our law enforcement agents ated border, -- at the border, as a result of this resolution. not a single person will be denied unlawful entry to this country as a result of this resolution. not a single community will be made safer as a result of this resolution. this resolution is nothing more than a highlight reel of the dubious talking points on immigration that we have heard over and over from republicans since president biden was sworn into office. it is the sam legislating by press release that we have historically unproductivehis congress. the resolution itself isimply a rehash of the resolution we passed a few weeks ago. republicans are so out of ideas that even as the same -- that it even has the same exactitle and content as the last resolution. that resolution listed all the ways that president biden

supposedly could secure the border and essentially asked the administration to reverse every policy it has implemented on immigration, even though we know that doing s would not be effective. today's resolution simply lists most of those policies again and this time it just condemns the administration. what a waste of time. it's important to remember how we got here. earlier this year, earlier this congress, house republicans passed their partisan, cruel and unworkable border bill, h.r. 2. republicans spent the year saying that h.r. 2 is the only way to secure the border. even though they know that it cannot become law, having twice passed -- having twice -- having failed twice to pass the senate, receiving just 32 votes earlier this year. then they insisted that the price of helping to protect ukraine against russian aggression was enacting harsh border enforcement legislation. senate republicans even managed

to convince some democrats to agree on a very harsh border bill in the senate. a bill that minority leader mcconnell called the toughest border bill in 30 years. but republicans could not take yes for an answer. donald trump said that he didn't want to do anything that might actually help with the border in an election year, because he wants immigration as a campaign issue. other republicans quickly agreed. so folding to the consult of donald trump, speaker johnson declared the bill dead on arrival in the house, with the rest of the republican conference quickly falling in line. republicans showed clearly what democrats have been saying over and over again. that they don't want to do anything that would really help address our broken immigration system. they clearly have given up. instead of solving the problem, republicans merely want to continue to weaponize the border as a political issue for the election year, with pointless votes on meaningless resolutions that accomplish nothing and are full of misleading information. so let's review the facts once

again. the resolution complains that the biden administration is not removing enough people. however, the administration is removing people at a very significant pace. and in ways that i am concerned may present some due process violations. since the end of title 42 last may, the biden administration has removed or returned over 630,000 individuals and members of family units, just since last may. this is more than the number of people removed or returned in all of fiscal year 2019 under the trump administration. the resolution also alleges that the biden administration is violating the mandatory detention statutes by not detaining enough people. however, no administration, including the trump administration, has ever been able to comply with those statutes because no congress has ever appropriated the extraordinary levels of funding such compliance would require. to detain everyone that the law

requires to be held in mandatory detention would require congress to appropriate over $35 billion a year. a number 10 times higher than what congress appropriated this year or than president trump ever requested for detention. and when democrats proposed giving d.h.s. the resources it needs to do its job, the republicans have consistently said no. we need to work together to address our broken immigration system. enforcement alone cannot fix it. we know this because an enforcement-only approach has largely failed for three decades. we need to update our immigration system so it meets the needs of our country. we need a balanced bipartisan approach that expands lawful pathways. this will help relieve pressure on the border and allow people to come to this country in an orderly and efficient way. but republicans don't want to engage in real legislation that might actually solve problems and deliver meaningful reform. they want to continue to demagogue and fearmonger with

meaningless resolutions containing nothing but empty rhetoric designed to score cheap political points. i urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i'd remind the gentleman who says that enforcement won't fix it, that enforcement did fix it under the trump administration. his policies produced the most secure borders we've had in our lifetimes. it was this president who reversed those policies and initiated this mass illegal migration that we are now suffering. i am very pleased to yield five minutes to the author of this resolution, the gentleman from texas, mr. gonzalez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. gonzalez: thank you to my colleague from california. thank you to chairman jim jordan and the judiciary committee for bringing this to the floor. i want to thank speaker johnson and leader scalise for bringing this to everybody's attention.

i live it every day. people talk about it, my district is half of the southern border. the facts are this. the border is as bad as it's ever been. and it wasn't always this way. under president trump, the border was secure. under president trump remain in mexico worked. under president trump the pacer program worked. under president trump other countries respected the united states. and under president trump americans were put first, not last. now, what does that mean? i've quickly realized that it is only president trump that can solve this problem. this body has no interest in solving this border crisis. % problem and not actually solve the problem. meanwhile, the issue is, i live the problem. right? high speed chases come through my town every single day. our schools go into lockdown every single day. yesterday there were 7,000 people that came over into this country illegally. last month there were 219,000

people that came into this country illegally. we are on pace for 2.5 million people to enter this country illegally and the biden administration does nothing. the senate and the congress has done nothing. it's been all words. it's been all talk. this resolution does one simple thing. put your vote where your words are. if you truly believe in securing the border, you'll vote yes on this resolution. if you don't care about the people who live along the border, if you don't care about the people that are dying from fentanyl, very simple, vote against the lyings. the american people -- the resolution. the american people deserve to know who is going to be with them and who is not going to be with them and right now more than ever this crisis is spreading, it's growing. december 20, there were 10,000 people under the bridge in eagle pass. who was there? i was the only member of congress to show up. three weeks later, we had over 60 members of congress show up in eagle pass and guess what, that bridge was completely

cleared out. what does that mean? that means showing up matters. not just in washington, but throughout our country. two years ago there were thousands of haitians under a bridge in del rio. all of a sudden that went away. why did that go away? because the biden administration started doing one simple thing that the trump administration had done for so long. this is the secret sauce. you deport people that are here illegally. period. you do that and the problem goes away. but what you have is an administration that wants this. this crisis is absolutely created by the administration, it is fueled by the administration, and the administration has become addicted to the funding that it is doing to drive these places. but oh, by the way, this doesn't just impact my community. which is half of the southern border. americans all over the country are dying from fentanyl. americans all over the country are feeling this influx of

people that are here illegally. and all of a sudden you have people from denver and new york and chicago going, wait a second, what about me? what about our roads? i'm a u.s. citizen. what about my children? what about my future? for some reason the biden administration has put america last in this equation and it needs to stop. and that stops by us -- let's vote on it today. where are you at? are you with america? or are you with people that enter this country illegally? i've met many of these folks. i was in del rio three weeks ago. there was a family that walked up to the bridge. beautiful young lady with two beautiful children. she walks up to the bring and in spanish she says, i was told to come here for a better life. guess what. i've been blessed to be born in the united states of america. that family was not. guess what. as sad as that situation is, she does not qualify for asylum. there needs to be a different

route. the asylum route that is happening is a dead end. these people do not qualify for asylum, nor will they ever qualify for asylum. so they need to be stopped entering our country he will legal -- illegally and the american families that live here need to be put first above everything else. with that, i yield back. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. mr. mcclintock: reserves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i would remind the gentleman of three things that he seemses of to have forget -- seems to have forgotten. one, since the end of title 42 last may, the biden administration has removed or returned over 630,000 individuals and members of family units. this is more than the number of people removed or returned in all of fiscal year 2019, under the trump administration. i would also remind the gentleman that this legislation does nothing. it simply denounces the biden administration. it does nothing.

it has no operable clause. it's pure propaganda for political reasons. it does nothing to solve the immigration problem. and third, i remind the gentleman that the senate negotiated a very strong immigration bill. approved by senator lankford, the second most conservative member of the senate. mitch mcconnell said it was the strongest immigration bill he'd ever seen. the senate was willing to pass it. until president trump, former president trump, said, don't pass it. because i'd rather have an election issue than solve the problem. so the fault for the immigration problem now is president trump for preventing the senate from passing that and the republicans' fault for going along with him politically. i now yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlelady from washington, ms. jayapal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jayapal: thank you, mr.

speaker. i rise in opposition to this absurd and pointless resolution. and i will say that i actually agree with the previous speaker across the aisle, my friend across the aisle, when he said that this body wants to do absolutely nothing, that actually solves the situation at the border. i agree with my friend across the aisle that this body, controlled by the republican majority, has no interest in doing a single thing. that is why, mr. speaker, we keep voting on resolutions that do nothing. they are pointless. they are absurd. and they are a tired recycling of the same talking points that we hear every day from the majority. and frankly the majority's not trying to hide it. whole sections of today's resolution, including its title and 12 of the 32 whereas clauses are copy and pasted from the over grievance-airing resolution

that we considered in march. so these aren't even new, these are the same things that we're voting on over and over again. because there aren't actual solutions that republicans are willing to move forward that would fix the immigration system. likewise, two weeks ago we voted on a pointless rehashing of h.r. 2, the republicans' extreme, cruel and unworkable immigration bill, that is going nowhere fast. so what are we doing here, mr. speaker? why does the majority insist on wasting our time with these bills filled with nothing but empty rhetoric, designed to try and weaponize the issue of immigration instead of solving it? what what we should be doing is talking about how to create a bipartisan, workable immigration system that allows americans to reunite with families and allows businesses and universities to attract the best and the brightest, create a workable

process so people wouldn't be forced to go to the border as the only way here. we should be talking about the fact that immigrants are good for our country and good for our economy. that's what the majority of americans believe despite all of the rhetoric from the other side. one in four american doctors were born abroad and 45% of for the stun 500 companies were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants. 70% of agricultural workers are immigrants. they feed us, heal us and ensure that the country is an economic powerhouse. we could be here on the floor embracing the positive impacts of immigrants rather than demonizing them finding ways for people to work quickly to fill the shortages we have. the congressional budget office announced that new immigrants will add $1 trillion in beliefsly unexpected revenue to

our country's g.d.p. between 2023 and 20344. the department ofhealth and human services found that over a 15-year period, refugees alone contributed 124 billion more in revenue than they received in services from the government. documented and undocumented immigrants pay tens of billions of dollars in taxes every single year. but instead, what are we doing here on the floor? same tired rhetoric we hear every single week. the majority demonizees imdprants and the border. it's true that we need to fix a broken immigration system that hasn't been updated in over 30 years. but we cannot do that. we cannot solve that problem through harsh enforcement measures. we have tried and every time it

fails. the immigration system is all connected. people are coming to the border because the legal immigration system hasn't been updated in three decades and cannot find another pathway to come under. the wait time for some legal permanent residents to bring families into this country is over a century long, a century to bring your own family to this country. employers are begging us to modernize the employment-based immigration system because the limits on high tech visas when floppy dirvetion were the height of technology and they cannot hire. small number of immigration judges we have absolutely crushed under a massive backlog of asylum cases so extensive that it is now taking people over eight years to get a hearing. under these circumstances, it

should not surprise anyone that some desperate people come to the border as tear only option and fleeing for their lives from countries that won't protect them. if they are willing to face the dangers of the journey and deal with cartels to get to safety here, even the most draconian of policies will not deter them. that is why despite what you hear from the other side, even when former president trump implemented the policies that this resolution holds up as the cure to all of our problems, encounters at the border went up, not down. they didn't work. instead of talking about these failed policies, we could be discussing the countless real bipartisan solutions that passed when democrats held the house majority, solutions like the dream and promise act, the farm work force modernization act,

bills that would fix real daps and provide lawful status to people who have been contributing to our communities across the decades and actually make improvements that would relieve bresh on the border and should be passing investments that would increase the number of immigration judges and asylum officers that would help speed up the process and patriotic it work effectively. but will any of those things make it to the floor in this congress under a republican majority whose only goal is to keep this issue out there as an election issue just as former president trump told them to do? no. we are going to spend our time debating pointless resolution that do not do a single thing, not a single thing to fix the real situation of a broken immigration system. so we are going to keep debating nonbinding resolution filled to

the brim with mistruths and disinformation. i hope we can one day get back to actually governing in this house, but i fear today is not that day. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr.mcclintock: the gentlelady seems to confuse legal immigrants who obey all of our laws and do everything our country asks of them with illegal immigrants whose first act is to disobey our laws. legal immigrants are a boon to our nation but that's not what we are addressing here and there is no point to legal immigration if we are going to allow every immigrant who wants to do so. the people that i find who are the angriest are the legal immigrants who came to this country, obeying our laws and respecting our sovereignty and doing everything our country asked of them while this

administration allows 6.5 million illegal imgrnts to cut in line in front of them. ranking member would claim that there were more removals under biden than under trump. under trump, i.c.e. removed 935,000 illegal illegals, under biden 275,000. this past year, mr. biden removed 60% fewer criminal aliens than trump did in 2019 despite massive increases in i illegal migration we have he seen a decrease in criminal removals and we are seeing murders and assaults on american streets and empty chairs at america's dinner tables. i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. van drew. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes.

senator van hollen: -- mr. van drew: thank you, mr. speaker, you know since day one in office, president biden has chosen illegals over american citizens. we are now approaching 10 million illegal entries from individuals from all over the world, many parts of the world where they are our enemies, china, russia, iran and others. we don't know who they are or what they are about, we don't know why they are here but a lot of it is not good. because of the president'sfort f the most dangerous points in american history. make no doubt about it. his f.b.i. director says he has never seen so many elevated threats to our national security in his entire career, and that was his christopher wray.

like laken riley senselessly murdered by illegal immigrant and law enforcement officers like christopher gowdy were killed. i will go through the list, one after another after another, good law-abiding americans who are dead and not with us. their families grieve. most americans grieve. students have been kicked out of their schools to house illegal immigrants and have to learn remotely. cities and towns across america have cut public safety and education budget as well to cover the welfare of illegal immigrants because in many cities and towns, we are paying for their housing, their quloaghting, their travel. we are giving them debit cards. we are paying for so many things, health care.

some good americans don't even have as we speak here and debate this right now. that's the biden border agenda. it's what he is about. when you allow unvetted people into our country, you have a reason. and you don't know what they are doing, what they are about. you have a reason. when you hinder, actually hinder law enforcement's ability to apprehend and detain and deport, which is the answer, you have a reason. you are making america less safe. and he can fix this crisis today, today, as we speak, he can fix it. it took him one day, one day to undo and resinned every effective trump border policy that we have and it could take him less than one day to reinstate them. because, you know, america needs

to have borders. america needs to be safe. every day that goes by without doing so will only result in more lives lost and ladies and gentlemen, that is what we are debating today. do we want more individuals to die because of this policy? human trafficking at the hands of cartels, more threats to our national security, every day this president allows this crisis to continue and it becomes apparent to me and this is harsh, the chaos is intentional and seeking to change the very fabric, the very structure, the america that we know forever to hold on to his own political power. and that must be condemned in the strongest possible terms and no, this isn't a waste of time

no matter how many times it takes, we will not succumb and not give up and will not stop it, because we are fighting for the united states of america and it is worth it. i support this resolution and i urge its passage and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, all the members on the other side forget several things. they forget that we have the strongest border bill that might have gone a long way to solving this problem that the senate was willing to pass but president trump said don't pass. and he said it in so many words. i don't want a solution, i want a campaign issue. they forget that the president has asked for a lot more money

so that instead of someone coming in and claiming asylum and pape he deserves, maybe he doesn't, and getting a day in court, five years later and then disappearing, doesn't have enough judges to give him a date in a couple of weeks and grant him asylum or deport him swiftly. but the republicans won't vote the money. and they won't vote the bill that would solve or go a long way towards solving the problem. they also forget that this resolution doesn't do anything. all it does is denounce biden and that's all they have for this congress, resolution after resolution denouncing biden. and h.r. 2, which is so impossible that it garnered 32

votes in the senate, a senate where they have 49 republican senators. so they don't want to solve the problem. they just want to talk about it and that's all they are doing about it now. total nonsense and not worthy of the time of this body. ry he i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr.mcclintock: i remind the gentleman who says that the president has asked for more money, when i was at the border last year in yuma, i spoke with a group of border patrol agents and only time in my life said don't send us any more money and they said because they thought the administration would use that money to process more illegals into the faster country even faster. and as for the senate bill, the gentleman has referenced multiple times.

let him remind him that the bill would not have ended biden's open border policies but institutionalized it. trump proved that he could close the borders. they require asylum seekers to be detained. this bill would leave them powerless until illegal immigration is 4,000 a day, 1.5 million a year and that's the democrats' idea of immigration reform, a guaranteed 4,000 illegal immigrants being released into our country every day. that's what they call a tough border bill. h.r. 2, which was the again inbill got 46 votes in the senate last year and democrats' support in the house just a couple of weeks ago. with that, i am pleased to yield

three minutes to the gentleman from new york. . . . mr. molinaro: my colleagues across the aisle are spend ago great deal of time arguing against a piece of legislation they claim has no purpose and is meaningless. it only denounces the policies of the biden administration. well, the policies of the biden administration are due denouncing. there is little question if this was a fire, the executive would send the fire department. if it was a hurricane, the executive would send fema. because this is a crisis of this president's making, he has chosen not to offer any response but to allow the crisis to continue. i remind my colleagues across the aisle that, yeah, sure, the immigration system is broken. i wasn't here to break it. a couple of my colleagues have been here long enough to fix t but the law relates to securing

our border is clear. we are the legislature, we adopted the law. the president, executive, has the responsibility to execute the law and instead he has surrendered the southern border to drug cartels who are not only trafficking deadly drugs, synthetic opioids, and fentanyl, but trafficking human lives. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are like some sort of delusional wizard of oz. pay no attention to the crisis at the border. they know -- pay no attention to the chaos in our cities. pay no atext to the -- attention to the students taken out of school so cities like new york can shelter immigrants, migrants they welcome. pay no attention to all of it. look over there, donald trump. don't look behind the curtain you'll find this president with a stroke of a pen to re-establish the executive orders and take the emergency action necessary to secure our border, protect our citizens, and save lives. instead, this president has

allowed a crisis and it is worth denouncing over and over and over again because it has caused chaos. it has led to crime in the loss of lives, and it has fueled instability in our communities. we know this is new york -- as new yorkers -- the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. molinaro: we know this as new yorkers because despite the protestation otherwise the state of new york has opened its arms. when thousands upon thousands of migrants find their way to the city of new york, then relocated other parts like upstate new york, where i represent, when the state starts to complain enough is enough. the president needs to wake up and take this crisis seriously. it is not progressive. it is cruel. and he must take action. yes, current policies are worth denouncing. with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i would

remind the gentleman and women on the other side of the aisle they talk about various victims of migrant crime, that the f.b.i. statistics show that the percentage of crime committed by migrants is lower than the percentage of crime committed by native-born americans. migrants, legal and illegal, seem to be more law-abiding on average than native-born americans. use a specific example say this is the fault of the immigration policy is nonsense. i now yield two minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the ranking member of the judiciary committee. and i'd like to pose a rhetorical question to the gentleman. where's the wall? where's the wall that has been talked about now for a decade

plus, because others have had the same message. here they come. where's the wall? our friends on the other side of the aisle seem to fillheir legislative agenda with plat twod -- platitudes, promises, broken promises, and i'm going to get it done. the american people don't need it to, i'm going to get it done. what the arican people need is to ensure that we have added more border patrol officers, which we have done under the biden administration's plans, we'll be doing that. customs and border patrol, we'll be doing that under the biden effort. in addition, more training, more recruitment which we'll be doing that. we know that a wall, no matter how mh you do, is always going to be overcome. not like the song, we shall overcome when we do want to overcome,n bipartisan life, in a bette world.

we shall overcome. this is jt a lot of talk. mr. speaker, i came to say that here's another resolution. there's no action in this resolution. it's a lot of talk. and as you can remember how we got here was a bill that was so crushing that republicans in the senate could not vote for it. that was h.r. 2. the resolution condem many of immigration, and they asked to be reversed in the last resolution. that's how bad it is. they want to reverse their own work. republicans now claim no legislation is needed. isn't that ridiculous? they now have a bill that says, well, the other bills were not needed. don't listen to us. i ask my colleagues to vote against this senseless do-nothing legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. jackson lee: let's come together and support president

biden's leadership. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. speaker. we just heard that immigrants are less likely to break the law than native-born americans. tell that to the angel families, whose family tables have an empty chair because of the very policy that this bill condemns. put aside the fact that illegal aliens shouldn't be in this country to commit crimes in the first place when the federation for american immigration reform looked at reimbursement requests from the states for the cost of locking up illegal aliens, they found illegals are 231% more likely to be jailed for crimes in california. 440% more likely in new jersey. and 60% more likely in texas. with that i yield three minutes to the gentleman from indiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. yakym: i thank the

gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: three minutes. mr. yakym: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise in strong support of this resolution which denounces the biden administration's failed border policies. i do so because of this chart next to me. i sat here and listened to the debate of who is responsible and why. let's look at the facts and the data. this chart shows southwest border crossing encounters over the first 38 months of the last six presidential terms. it doesn't say who is line -- whose line it is f you guess the biden administration is the red one at the top, with nearly six times the number of illegal border crossings, you would be correct. the seeds of this crisis were planted on day one. with 64 executive orders signed by president biden that undermined border security and encouraged illegal immigration.

what followed has been an unprecedented surge of illegal immigration. instead of acknowledging this failure, we get denial. the biden administration officials wrote off the crisis as, quote, cyclical and seasonal, right about here. 11 months into his term. biden administration officials continued to insist that the border crisis was just part of the normal, quote, ebbs and flows at 35 months into his presidency. president biden only finally admitted that the border is, quote, not secure all the way up there at the top right at the 36th month mark. what changed, mr. speaker? from ebbs and flows to just two weeks later that the border is, quote, not secure. mr. speaker, there were no laws that changed during that time.

just the will to enforce them. the biden administration created this crisis at the border with the stroke of a pen and the 64 executive orders. mr. speaker, he can end it with the mr. speaker of a pen -- stroke of a pen. but there is no leadership. instead biden administration officials treat the border policy like a, quote, hot potato. because it's politically thankless. and it shows. i want to thank my colleague, mr. gonzalez, for introducing this resolution that methodically and thoroughly documents the biden administration's border failures. i urge my colleagues to vote yes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i'm ready to close if the gentleman is ready. mr. nadler: i'm ready to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized mr. nadler: mr. speaker, whatever complaints house republicans may have with the biden administration's

immigration policies, this resolution will do absolutely nothing to address them. they have had plenty of opportunities to work with democrats on bipartisan solutions to reform our broken immigration system and they have walked away time and again. most recently they rejected a bipartisan border deal negotiated by one of the most conservative republicans in the senate because donald trump told them to. he and they would rather preserve the issue for the upcoming election than work to solve problems. here we are again for the third time already this year with a meaningless nonbinding resolution that talks tough and accomplishes nothing. what better way to sum up this republican congress. i urge all members to oppose this meaningless resolution. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i'd ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include

extraneous material on h.res. 1112. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, the american people need to understand that this policy is deliberate. if you voted for this administration, this is exactly what you voted for. and if you are surprised by that, you weren't paying any attention because this is exactly what the democrats promised to do. this is exactly what they have done. and this is exactly what they have defended for the last three years in this house. the laws didn't change three years ago. the presidency changed. and an administration that enforced the most secure boarders in our lifetime was replaced by one that deliberately opened them to the world. last year house republicans passed legislation that will make it easier for future presidents like donald trump to enforce our immigration laws and it will make it harder for presidents like joe biden to undermine those laws, but that will require a new senate and a

new president. the cold hard truth is that this growing crisis cannot be fixed by bills that senate democrats won't pass and that biden won't sign and won't enforce if they are signed. this crisis can only be fixed by replacing this entire administration and its enablers and abettors in congress with those devoted to securing our borders, restoring our sovereignty, defending our people, and enforcing the rule of law. and that can only be done by the american people at the ballot box. until then at every opportunity we will decry and condemn these policies that are bringing such suffering and such harm upon our great nation. let us pray there is still time. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 1137, the previous question is ordered on the resolution andle preamble. the question is on adoption of

the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have t the resolution is agreed to. does the gentleman request the yeas and nays? mr. mcclintock: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1173, i call up the bill h.r. 6090, and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 609 o, a bill to provide for the consideration of a definition of anti-semitism set forth by the international holocaust remembrance alliance for the enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1173, the bill is considered as read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary or their respective designees. the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintock, the gentleman from new york mr. nadler will each control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. ..

i ask that members may insert extraneous material on h.r. 6090 and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized mr.mcclintock: h.r. 60 # 0 is to combat the disturbing trend of antisemitic trends in schools and campuses across the country. antisemitic harassment on these university campuses is not a completely new phenomenon. as early as 2005 the commission on human rights said antisemitism is a serious problem. a pew research that experience with antisemitism is more prevalent. a brandeis center found that antisemitism was pervasive on college campuses with 54% on 55

campuses saying they experienced antisemitism during the 2013-2014 year. in 2021, brandeis center for law conducted a survey of jewish students finding that they felt unsafe while on campus. these fears are justified. the catalog of antisemitic harassment in america's institutions of higher learning is there for everybody to see. the incidents have increased following october 7, 2023 attacks perpetrated by hamas and allied groups. in late october, 2023, jewish students were forced to shoulder inside a library as pro-palestinian protestors were banging on doors and windows with the punch of terrifying

them. on october 26, 2023, antiisrael assaulted multiple jewish students at tulane university in new orleans. november 3, 2023, harvard law student and other protestors physically and verbally attacked a first-year jewish student at the harvard business cool. from october 7 until january of 2024, the department of education has launched 51 investigations into complaints of antidiscrimination in k-12 schools and colleges and universities. january 16, 2024 until today the department has launched 45 investigations into schools and collegees these investigations overwhelming concern antisemitic conduct in these schools. on april 23, 2024, the education department launched an investigation into columbia university and we all know what

is happening there right now. hundreds of antiisrael protestors have occupied columbia's university's west lawn and disrupted campus life and creating a hostile life for jewish students. hundreds were arrested fortress passing after repeated warnings to vacate the area only to be returning to columbia. a rabbi at columbia university advised students to leave campus because the university cannot keep them safe. they revoked a jewish because the imrufort said they couldn't ensure his safety. speaker johnson and chairwoman foxx went to columbia university and were greeted by antiisrael from the river to the sea,

palestine will be free. what that calls for is the eradication of the jewish people. we know that expression is and who are ent in our society and it is going on hourly on our college campuses. nevada is enough. the surge antisemitism and especially since october 7 must not continue. long past time that congress act to protect jewish americans from the scourge of antisemitism around our country. this expresses the sense of congress that discrimination against jews may violate title 6 of the civil rights act of 1964 based on on race, color or national origin or preponderanceof the evidence ancestry or ethnic characters. the bill requires the department of education to take into account the national holocaust

definition of antisemitism and whether this has occurred. the ihra concerns a framework for schools, colleges and universities to apply to police anticement imdiscrimination. the definition is widely accepted and vital tool for identifying and addressing discriminatory conduct. it has been adepositted by 31 states. this bill is the type of legislation needed to protect jewish americans from harassment and attacks for simply being who they are. i urge all members to support this important bill. and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i devoted much of my life to combatting antisemitism and i'm in tune to bigotry and threats aimed at jewish people.

there are needs to fight antisemitism and i am a deeply committed zionist. but someone who is a long time champion of protecting freedom of speech, i must oppose this misguided bill. while there is much i agree with, it's core provision would put a thumb in the scale of one pick definition of antisemitism to the exclusion of all others to be used when department of education assesses claims of antisemitism on campus. this definition adopted ihra, includes examples of antisemitism. the problem is that these examples may include protected speech in some context particularly with respect to criticism of the state of israel. to be clear, i disagree with the

sentiments expressed in those examples and criticism does take the form of antisemitism. many jewish students feel no longer safe on campus and some colleges haven't done nearly enough to protect them. while this may have useful context, by codifying them into title 6 this chills constitutional speech. speech alone does not constitute unlawful discrimination and speech into title 6, the bill sweeps too broadly. as the a krmp lu notes, if this legislation were to become law, colleges and universities who want to avoid title with the potential loss of federal funding could suppress protecting speech criticizing israel and supporting palestinians. it could be sense soaring political speech.

ihra's definition lead author opposes codifying the definition that he wrote, ihra definition for this reason. vigorous enforcement of the federal civil rights law does not depend on defining antisemitism or racism. codifying one definition to the exclusion of all other deficient anythings could undermine civil rights law because antisemitism evolves over time and future conduct that is widely understood may no longer be the statutory definition. we cannot ignore the context this is being rushed to the floor and deep divisions on college campuses across the country. much of this activity whether you agree with the tenthments constitutes legally protected speech and expression.

some participants shamefully have exhibited antisemitic conduct and the department of education will likely investigate them, consulting the eye ray definition and other definitions in the process. they do not need this legislation to help them with inquiries. some spheundz have crossed the line into vandalism and willful disruption of campus life and will face legal consequences. there is no excuse for bigotry, threats or violence directed at anyone, anywhere and it is imperative that we confront the scourge of antisemitism and congress can help, but this legislation is not the answerment instead of engaging of political theatrics that do not do anything concrete, we need to put our money where the mouth is. last year, the biden administration outlined a comprehensive national strategy

to count erranty semitism which is increasing enforcement actions in the department of education. president biden's budget called for 27% increase in funding for that office. if my republican colleagues were serious, they would have fully funded that request. instead, they bragged about proposing to slash funding by 25%, funding to enforce anti-- the laws against antisemitism and they bragged about slashing funding by 25% and funding be kept flat despite the increase in antisemitism complaints. if my republicans were serious, we would codify the national strategy instead of talking about definitions. if my republicans were serious, they would have spoken after

neo-nazis in charlotteville said and president trump declared they were quote very fine people on both sides at that rally. and just last week, former trump called it a peanut compared to recent protests and we heard crickets from the republicans. we hear nothing from our republican colleagues when some conservative repeat antisemitic tropes. i say to my republican friends for too long your selective silence has been deafening. if you mean what you say here today and believe that the threats that jewish students face on campuses is unjust and combatting semitism is more than an talking point, i be sech you. move beyond posturing and

actually help us protect jewish students. fully funding this antisemitism and nation students dise serve no less. by contrast, this legislation threatens freedom of speech, one of our most cherished values and does nothing to combatanty semitism. i urge members to oppose the bill and i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. remembers are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. the gentleman from california is recognizedded. mr.mcclintock: i suggest the gentleman turn on his television and watch what is going on right now. i yield five minutes to the author of this bill, mr. loller of -- lawler of new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized law law -- mr. lawler: i would like to respond to my colleague from new york and his misguided remarks, in 2018, the gentleman was a co-sponsor of the antisemitism

awareness act, which adopted the very definition that he just objected to. a co-sponsor of h.r. 5924, the definition that would be adopt i antisemitism is a certain perception of jews which may be expressed as hatred toward jews, physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards jewish and nonjewish and their property towards institutions and religious facilities. he was a co-sponsor of that bill. h.r. 6090 which i introduced which has 59 co-responsors adopts the eye ray working definition and its contemporary examples. the definition is antisemitism is a certain perception of jews which may be expressed as hatred towards jews.

rhetorical are directed towards jewish individuals or their property and jewish institutions and religious facilities. it is the same definition and yet somehow he is opposed to it. femmely -- fundamentally, some of my colleagues on the left are electing politics to get in the way of doing what is right. the gentleman from new york is a graduate of columbia university. and yet, couldn't muster the courage to take the subway north to stop by and call out the antisemitism that is run ingram pant at columbia university. it is exactly why this bill is necessary today. . ., . .

so i rise in support of my bill, the anti-semitism awareness act. i want to thank my colleague, congressman josh gottheimer from new jersey, for his courage in leading on this issue. in every generation the jewish people have been scapegoated, harassed, evict interested their homeland, and murdered. many of us remember the holocaust as the most recent large-scale instance of this, but it was hardly the first in the jewish people's long history of persecution. prior to october 7 it may have seemed like we were making progress in fighting anti-semitism, especially in the united states, a prime example, jewish students weren't afraid to attend classes on their college campuses. yet today we hear calls for intifada ring out on school grounds. we see jewish students being physically prevent interested going to class. rioters chanting death to israel and death to america and so much more.

in the u.s. jews account for only 2.4% of the population. and globally they make up .2% of the world's population. the jewish people need our support now. they need action now. they need to know they have a place in our country now. they cannot fight answer semitism alone. and they -- anti-semitism alone. they shouldn't have to. this bill requires the department of education to use the ihra working definition of anti-semitism and contemporary examples when enforcing title 6 violations of the civil rights act of 1964. codifying a single definition of anti-semitism will help the department of education and school add emptiers -- administrators who have been feckless, clearly identify instances of anti-semitism, including safety of all students including jewish students. some opponents may try to make the argument this imposes a --

restrictions on constitutional right to free speech. it's not true. first of all, a constitutional protection is in the bill. it clearly states nothing in this act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the first amendment to the constitution of the united states. additionally speeches already protected under the civil rights act. when the speech turns into harassment or other prohibited action anti-action is motivated by anti-semitism, that is when it becomes illegal conduct. right now without a clear definition of anti-semitism, the department of ed and college administrators are having trouble discerning whether conduct is anti-semitic or not, whether the activity we are seeing crosses the line to anti-semitic harassment. other opponents to the bill say they would rather see a different bill tackling this. that no -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute.

mr. lawler: that no reason, no political cover to vote against another measure is helpful. i ask my colleagues who would prefer other solutions, consider the good it will do for the jewish students. yes, keep pushing for more change in the future. we need to hold these institutions accountable. my bill has bipartisan support, 59 co-sponsors. dozens of jewish advocacy groups, including the adl, a.j.c., and good of israel. it is absurd to oppose this on the grounds that it somehow limits free speech. calling for death to jews is not protected speech. it is anti-semitic. and the fact that we have some of the highest ranking jewish officials in america refusing to defend the jewish community because of politics is a disgrace. it is shameful. and it is pathetic.

and anyone who votes against this bill because they would rather put political expediency and electoral politics ahead of anything else -- the speaker pro tempore: additional 30 seconds. mr. lawler: has no business being a member of congress. never again is now. and we must act. that is our responsibility. i would remind everyone when you co-sponsor a bill that accomplishes the same thing, nothing has changed. yet now we need to backtrack. all because of politics. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, the gentleman's remarks are land russ. are slap kerrous. the bill i co-sponsored two years ago is a different bill t

did not exclude -- let me read from this bill. the use of alternative definitions of anti-semitism impairs enforcement efforts by adding multiple standards and may file phil to identify many of the modern man anyfess case of anti-semitism. unquote that. was not, that is nonsense. it was not in the bill whenever that was. i think it was about seven or eight years ago. so the two bills are different. second, i oppose this bill because it infringes on freedom of speech. and there are jewish groups such as reconstruction judaism, and j. street that oppose this bill for the same reason. they are not anti-semitic. they are jewish groups that support the bill. there are jewish groups that oppose the bill. i have been a supporter of israel and zionism and opponent of anti-semitism all my life. i've been active in zionist

organizations ever since i was if high school. to say that anyone who votes against this bill is supporting anti-semitism is a disgrace. there are differences of opinion that occur on this floor from time to time. honest differences. someone who opposes this bill may think that it infringes on freedom of speech. not. someone who opposes this bill may note that the author of the ira definition this -- ihra defines in law says don't codify it. the author, kenneth stern, said this is a good working definition that may indication anti-semitism. so are the other two. but it should not be codified into law. because that could make, depending on the circumstances, free speech illegal.

the author of the ihra definition said that. so there may be legitimate differences of opinion between those who support this bill and those who oppose this bill. but to say anyone who opposes this bill supports anti-semitism is a disgraceful slander. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. kustoff. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. kustoff: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman. i do rise in support of the anti-semitism awareness act. we all know that since hamas' brutal and barbaric attack on israel on october 7, 2023, we have seen an absolute explosion of anti-semitic attacks and violence. now, especially in our college and university campuses. there is no doubt that the free exchange of ideas is a crucial

pillar of our freedom. but there is also no doubt that the conversations must be grounded in truth and respect for one another. leadership at institutions of higher learning across our nation have allowed these anti-israel protests, anti-semitic protests to descend into absolute chaos. ultimately they have failed to support jewish students. such hatred has no place in our society. mr. speaker, by clearly defining anti-semitism, the anti-semitism awareness act will help the department of education better enforce federal anti-discrimination laws. this bill will for the first time codify protection for jewish students who are and have been subject to anti-semitic harassment, intimidation, and violence. it's imperative that all students feel safe on their campuses.

as such i urge this body to pass this critical legislation and do what university leaders will not do. that's condemn these acts of hatred and support jewish students across the country. i'm proud to support my colleague, mr. lawler, and supporting this legislation. i look forward to voting for it today. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields bk. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i now yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey, mr. gottheimer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. . gottheimer: mr. speaker, i rise to address the house and ask unanimous consent to revi and extend my remarks. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of my bipartisan bill, the anti-semitism awareness act. to ensure that are standing up to theew hatred that's spreading like wildfire o campuses across our country. i'm proud to lead this legislation with my friend and

fellow problem solver caucus member congressman mike lawler from new york. as we are voting today in real time, our country's universities are experiencing a tidal wave of anti-semitism. protestors have targeted jewish students, haranguing them with awful jew hating insults and hearing on hamas. a barbaric foreign terrorist organization that murdered americans on october 7 and still hold five living americans hostage, including my constituent. i met with hostage families just this morning. i saw these protests up close like many americans did. at columbia earlier this month. i have heard the sickening jew hating anti-semitic comments comparing zionists to nazis, promises a reduction of october 7 -- redux of october 71,000 times over. and quoting resisting by any means necessary and intifada revolution. intifada is called for a violent

uprising against the hugh jewish people. these protests embolden hamas. they have put out a statement lauding protestors as, quote, the leaders of the future. that's what our enemies said about the pro-hamas protestors at these universities. let me clear up any confusion since i'm a huge champion myself of free speech. this bill protects the first amendment. it allows criticism of israel. i ensured that. it was critical to me. it doesn't allow calls for the destruction or elimination of the jewish state. but it certainly allows criticism of israel. even more, it reminds us that our universities have a title 6 osama bin laden taste to stamp out harassment -- obligation to stamm up out harassment on the basis of race or national origin. we cannot stand by if protestors call for the death of jews on

college campuses and across the department. this will require the department of education to use the ihra definition of sent semitism when carrying out title 6 definitions. it's the most widely recognized in the world used by 36 states. it condemns -- countries. it condemns traditional hatred and the ugly modern anti-semitism that we are seeing on college campuses. have shouldn't be anything controversial about this bill. as mentioned when it was first introduced in 2018, 50 democrats and republicans co-sponsored this legislation, including members still in this body. right now the department of education has 137 active title 6 investigations. some of which have been opened for years. the bill would give investigators a clear framework to evaluate anti-semitism and finally -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. nadler: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute.

mr. gottheimer: thank you, ranking member. the bill will give investigators a clear framework to evaluate anti-semitism and finally hold harassers accountable. don't take my word for it, 30 of our nation's leading jewish groups back this bill. under the last three administrations the statement has used the ihra definition to monitor anti-semitism worldwide t takes a commonsense step to formalize it for our education stems. three administrations accepted this definition of anti-semitism. when i was at colombia university last week i told the administrators we need deeds not words to protect jewish students. colleagues, i'm making the same ask of you. this bill is a critical step we can take to stand against hate. i hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join us in supporting this legislation and standing strong up against anti-semitism no. excuses n. claims of commas that they don't like, standing strong today against hate and anti-semitism. it's what our country should stand for. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized.

mr. mcclintock: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. molinaro. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. molinaro: i would never question those who oppose this legislation's beliefs, their ideology, religious faith. i do question the motive. we are in a moment of choosing. there are not two legitimate sides to this issue. the election of encampments on college campuses isn't an expression of speech, it is a direct threat to jewish students on college campuses. those who spew hate and ignorance and anti-semitism in multiple, horrid forms isn't simply an expression of one's constitutional right, it is an infringement on the rights of jewish students. they are there are those who conduct themselves in this way are wrong. innocent students are trying to on study. i have seen it firsthand as i

visited students at cornell in upstate new york. they think they are extending their freedom of speech without understanding the hate, ignorance, the violence that is emboldened by it and wrong that they can occupy buildings and damage public property. they are wrong. congress should not only establish a firm commitment to the basic definition of antisemitism but it ought to speak with clarity that this is wrong. and perhaps if we had said that decades ago, we wouldn't see the escalation we are seeing today. perhaps if college presidents accepted responsibility for the safety of their jewish students, we wouldn't see the violence we see today or law enforcement to protect students. we don't and should never need that kind of enforcement to protect the rights of innocent

students, no in tents or occupying buildings or threatening hate, violence or ignorance. we shouldn't need that to ensure that jewish students can simply be jewish students. i not only support the bill, the resolution, i encourage my colleagues to do the same. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, messages from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker, i have been directed by the senate to inform the house the snas has passed h.r. 1042 prohibit importation of low enriched uranium that is produced in the russian federation and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, every bit of conduct that mr. molinaro

described is loathe some, but that does not mean we ought to pass a bill that threatens freedom of speech. this bill will do knowing to help stamp out antisemitism on campuses or anywhere else, but it will threaten free speech for the reasons i stated before. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. coco i -- mr. cohen: i find the remarks to be republic hence i believe and i know your commitment to fair play and the first amendment but i have questions and i am here to listen to the debate and i don't know if mr. lawler wants to respond, there is another bill, bipartisan bill, 15 members on each party and i have been trying to do it but doing a

crazy balancing act. would you support h.r. 7921 and work with mr. smith to the floor? law law sure, any legislation that we can bring forward to combatanty semitism is critical. and i think ms. manning and mr. smith have done a great job working to bring a piece of legislation forward. i have introduced a number, this is but one of them. the objective is to clearly define antisemitism and force accountability on these administrators and make sure that the department of education has the teeth to enforce the 1964 civil rights act. mr. cohen: i appreciate your support for that. i think it's important and more inclusive bill and prodder bill and takes in the problems not just at the universities but takes in problems in the community at large. there has been antisemitism for over 2,000 years.

the jews have a homeland and before they had a homeland, they didn't have that sense of security any place where they were. it has been threatened so many times and so many places over the years and should not be taken from them. i was concerned and mr. nadler made the point that in 2017, charlottesville, there were national socialist movements, traditional workers' party members, klan members, all kind of right-wing, racist skinheads. saying jews will not replace us and president trump said there are good people on poaght sides. well, there are good people on both sides in columbia, but there were not good people on both sides in charlottesville. and that antisemitism hasn't

addressed on it. but there have been so many instances in history that have come not from these palestinian supporters, but from skinheads, neo-nazis and klans man. i hope that bill comes to the floor and can attack antisemitism and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: scwabt. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california. mr.mcclintock: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey for two minutes. mr.smith: i thank mr. lawler for his passionate defense of jewish brethren. it was very, very moving and i want to thank him for that. 42 years ago my first human rights trip as a congressman was to the soviet union to defend jews against ant semitism. i never thought the haiti saw in

moscow could ever happen here. but it has. and it is happening and it's escalating. the bigotry, intolerance and hatred for jews and the nation of israel exploding on college campuses today is absolutely disgraceful. it is moralely impermissible that jewish students are the tart of hate and violence. hamas is a terrorist organization that commits mass murder of jews and evisceration of israel. don't believe it? remember the violence on october 7 and ongoing ordeal of the hostages or the blue print of genocide against jews, modern-day nazi-like time solution. as co-chair of the bipartisan task force for combatting antisemitism, i thank mike lawler and josh gottheimer for

offering the antisemitism awareness act. this important legislation will codify the eye ray definition into title 6 of the civil rights act of 1964. the landmark antidiscrimination law. schools that receive federal funds must comply with title 6 and this bill will clarify that the hamas hatred infecting our campuses must be dealt with. special thanks, mr. speaker, to the police, who at great risk to their own personal safety are trying to mitigate the threats to jewish students of the i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, again, antisemitism is a terrible thing. hamas is a genocidal organization, which wants to kill all jews, not just the

state of israel. no question about that. no question we have to fight antisemitism and manning bill is a good move in that direction. and give the funding that the president requested. there is no question. but that doesn't mean we should pass this bill. this bill enshrines the eye ray definition and the ihra author said don't codify it in law, because if codified into law it will be destructive of free speech. the author of the definition said that. the bill specifically excludes jerusalem. there is no good reason for that. all three definitions give examples of things that may be seen as antisemitism. and none of them should be codified into law as this bill

would do for one of them. this bill would enshrine one of them into law against the will of its own author who said this is my best definition, but don't enshrine it into law, don't codify it into law, because if it's made law it could infringe free expression and not only why the aclu, j street, and construction of jewish movement and a dozen other jewish movements oppose this law. they don't support antisemitism but because they oppose antisemitism and support freedom of speech. and those who oppose antisemitism and support freedom of speech ought to vote no. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr.mcclintock: i yield to two minutes to the chair man of the

education and labor committee, ms. foxx. ms. foxx: america's colleges and universities are experiencing an explosion in antisemitism including explicit support for terrorism. these taxpayer funded institutions have become forums for promoting terrorism is unacceptable. campus life is a daily trial of intimidation and harassment for america's jewish students. two months ago, nine brief jewish students described tore the education committee how their schools have become hostile environments that include death threats. unlawful encampments endanger learning. in columbia, a rabbi warned jewish students to leave. this would provide a needed tool

to help better determine antisemitic intent, which would help ensure the safety of jewish students. i commend representative lawler for this bipartisan, bicameral bill and urge its passage. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. nadler: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr.mcclintock: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, two minutes. mr. jordan: calls for the destruction of israel, our dearest and closest ally are wrong and attacks on jewish students on college campuses are wrong as well. i want to thank representative lawler and representative gottheimer for this fine piece of legislation and i want to thank the chairman of the immigration subcommittee of the judiciary committee. the only way to stop this is to take action.

and the judiciary committee sent a letter to secretary blinken and secretary mayorkas asking three simple questions, are the people engaged in this wrong activity, this radical activity on campuses on jewish students, are they here on a visa? and if they are, is the state department taking actions to revoke that visa and if the state department taking those actions, is department ofhomeland security looking to remove these individuals? pretty basic questions and important questions the congress has the right to know about and the american people have to know about if we stop the egregious activity. in order to stop it. we are a legislative body and let's pass this legislation and let's do the oversight and get the answers to those questions so the bad guys doing this bad stuff on college campuses can't do it on a visa. at columbia, 55% of the student body is here on a visa.

maybe the american people need the right to know the answers and we possessed -- posed those questions to the department of state and department ofhomeland security and we need to stop this action going on. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr.mcclintock: i am pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. carter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 6090 antisemitism awareness act. the pro-hamas protests that we are seeing now play out on tv that are taking place on college campuses are living proof of what happens when we tolerate hate and ignorance.

i recently spoke with the aunt of a 4-year-old girl, who saw her parents and siblings murdered on october 7 by hamas. and she was held hostage for 51 days, a 4-year-old held hostage after seeing her parents killed in front of her. that's the behavior that antisemitic college students are tolerating? it's disgusting, and it's criminal. and they are learning it from those at the very top. we had a hearing not too long ago where college presidents refused the to say that the calling of the killing of jew is was against their code of conduct. jewish students need to be treated with dignity and respect. all students do. the department of education needs to use every tool to

provide jewish students with a safe environment to learn. our laws should clearly reflect the discrimination includes the indisputable antisemitic rhetoric calling for violence against jews. there are far too many inexcusable examples from this year alone and this must stop. it cannot go on. . . . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. speaker. pleased to yield two minutes to the the gentleman from kansas, mr. mann. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. mann: i want to thank the gentleman for yielding. the events unfolding on our country's colleges and universities is devastating. for years we have taught americans and committed ourselves to never again. we are watching the rot of anti-semitism stain our american colleges and universities.

we must reject the spoil of anti-semitism and adopt a clear definition of what anti-semitism is to better position college administrators and officials to respond to the terror, the so-called protestors are bringing to jewish students. many of these are pro-palestinian protests, they are ilinformed mobs, who believes hamas is somehow good for the people of gaza. it couldn't be further from the truth. hamas sin tins to use innocent lives as human shields and intentionally position civilians in the middle of combat zones while using their tunnels to protect their own military leaders and fighters. is this what our nation students want to support? to my colleagues across the aisle who have chosen to praise these anti-see at the timic profits, is this what you stand for? school administrators cannot straddle both sides of the fence. we would not tolerate this behavior toward any other group of students, and must not start with the target is on america's jewish students. all students deserve a safe learning environment and by adopting this definition of

anti-semitism our college campuses are more empowdered to uphold and protect safe environments for jewish students. congress must be clear, americans stand with israel and jewish students across every college campus in america. i urge all of my colleagues to stand with jewish students and vote in favor of this legislation. thank you, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: i'm ready to close when the gentleman from new york is ready. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. nadler: i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i strongly support meaningful action to combat antisemitism. unfortunately that is not the legislation before us. we risk threatening freedom of speech while providing no new tools at the department of education does -- that the department of education does not already have to investigate claims of anti-semitism. the white house has developed a

strong blueprint for capturing anti-semitism, and there is already legislation to implement these policies. we should be working together to pass that legislation and to provide our civil rights enforcement agencies with the resources they need to address anti-semitism wherever it occurs. this legislation is a distraction from the important work ahead of us to protect our students and all those who face discrimination. not only is it a distraction, it threatens freedom of speech. i urge members to oppose it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. mcclintock: mr. speaker, you cannot fight anti-semitism if you cannot define t the international holocaust remembrance alliance offers us a clear and widely accepted definition rooted in this tragedy of the ages. after that horrific crime against humanity, the civilized nations of the world took a sacred oath, never again.

to support that oath these united nations restored the jewish state to the historic homelands. that state is now under attack at home and abroad. and with this act america stands with our jewish brethren at home and abroad. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 1173, the previous question is ordered on the bill. pursuant to clause is-c of rule 19, further consideration of h.r. 6090 is postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman, seek recognition? mr. westerman: mr. speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1173, i call up h.r. 2925, and ask for immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 342, h.r. 2925, a bill to amend the omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1993 to provide for security of tenure for use of mining claims for ancillary activities, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1173, the amendment in the

nature of a substitute recommendation by the committee on natural resources, printed in the bill, shall be considered as adopted and the bill as amended is considered as read. the bill as amended shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources or their respective designees. the gentleman from arkansas, mre gentlewoman from new mexico, miss stand bury, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman. mr. westerman: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 2925. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. westerman: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of h.r. 2925, the mining regulatory clarity act of 2024. in may of 2022, the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit affirmed a lower court decision revoking an approved mine plan for the rose

month copper mine project in arizona. commonly called the rose month decision, this determination upended decades of regulatory precedent and specific u.s. forest service regulation that is allow approvals of operations on or off a mining claim so long as these operations meet environmental and regulatory standards. if allowed to stand, the rosemont decision would require discovery and determination of a mineral deposit. meaning the operators must prove the existence of a claim before operations can be approved. however, operators' plans of operations must include the intended uses of the surface of the mining claim, including those for waste placements, mills, offices, and roads. the mining plan of operations is key in determining the particular feasibility of a mining site which factors into the basis of determining which mineral deposits are

commercially developable and therefore valid. in short, the court's ruling puts the cart before the horse and fails to reflect the actual process of how one develops a mine. this bill would restore status quo as it existed before the misguide rosemont decision and clarify mine operators can continue to operate on federal lands as they have for decades. according to the federal land policy and management act of 1976, quote, it is the policy of the united states that the public lands be managed in a american which recognizes the nation's need for domestic sources of minerals, end quote. the rosemont decision blatantly disregards this statement. with mineral demand expected to grow in the coming decades, congress must safeguard and defend the country's ability to access our own resources. i urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from new mexico is recognized.

ms. stansbury: thank you. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. stansbury: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in strong but respectful opposition to h.r. 2925, the mining regulatory clarity act, as has been named here. the fifth bill this week brought to you by our friends across the aisle, the g.o.p., who unfortunately, this week, seem to stand for guns, oil, and pollution. my home state of new mexico has a wealth of minerals, many of which are critical to the clean energy transition. we have also a very long history of mining. mining, of course, has created thousands of jobs, supported economies across the southwest and the country, and of course, is an important part of our economies and communities.

it has also left a toxic legacy of pollution in its wake. as we move to the clean energy future, we cannot repeat the shortsightedness and injustices of the past. the mining law of 1872, say that again, 1872, that's right, this is a 150-year-old law that was signed into law by president ulysses s. grant after the civil war. is still the law that governs mining on public lands to this day. it gives mining companies' rights over our public lands that all other industries could only dream of. it makes mining the top priority use of our public lands, and gives companies the right to develop any valid mining claim no matter if that land is a sacred site, a beloved local recreation spot, the headwaters of a critical water shed, or priority area for other kinds of

development. not even if it would pollute a nearby community's water supply. the mining law, again, let's repeat that, from 1872, not the bill before us, the one that's currently in effect. contains no environmental or community protections, and does not require tribal consultation. and does not charge companies a cent, not one, in royalties for the minerals that they extract on our public lands. oil, gas, and coal don't even have that good of a deal. you heard that right, these mining companies, many of them are foreign owned at this point, do pay a cent back to the american people for the royalties of those publicly owned minerals. not even big oil has a deal that good. we cannot build a sustainable mining future for the united states on such a flawed

foundation. this is a law from when the government was helping out prospectors, when it was chasing manifest destiny, and we didn't care if we destroyed everything in our wake. wake-up, folks, it's the year 2024. we don't have to manage our public lands using laws from the 1870's. and many of us agree that the mining law is badly need -- in need of reform. republicans, democrats, tribal leaders, local leaders, environmental advocates, even members of the mining industry themselves think it's insufficient. so what is astounding about the bill on the floor today, the so-called mining regulatory clarity act, is that it doesn't clarify the situation at all. in fact, it chooses to take us in the opposite direction, before the 1870's. this bill removes the one frail

safeguard that we have in that mining law of 1872. because under the current law a mining cim is valid only if it contains valuable minerals. miners get the rights to the land only if there is something they can show to be mined there. but under this bill, any american or frankly any american subsidiary of a foreign company, including tse that are located in adversarial countries, can put four stakes in the ground and --n open public land pay less than $10 an acre per year to have exclusive rights to that forever.ever. .. this bill would create a free foreall and allow our lands to be given away for the highest bidder or the first person who got there. any mining company with any

motive could lock upny public land to lock up whatever mining-relates activities, end quote, they want, from destroying sacred sites to building a power plant to encroaching on recreational areas. what if the public wanted to use the land for recreation? what if i was an important site for cultural reasons? what if we wanted to put renewable energy on that land? too bad. because under this bill, the mining industry can use it for whatever it wants, including to dump toxic waste. now, some of my colleagues say this is just codifying the existing practice, but let me tell you guys, that is not true. as bad as the mining law is already, we're talking about the one from the 1870's, it at least allows for the invalidating of claims when the claimant can't show or prove that the lands actually contain a valuable

mineral. but this bill doesn't do that. we've seen in ranking member grijalva's back yard where the proposed rosemont mine wanted to dump waste on public land, it wasn't allowed because the land's mine claim was invalid. here's the thing, when the company lost its case in court, it immediately -- and when i say "immediately," i mean the same day, that company announced it found an alternative waste site on private lands. wow. so clearly there was not an imminent need. the company would have simply have preferred to put its dump site on land that was basically for free for the american people. let's be honest about what this bill is. it is essentially stripping away the only safeguards we have in a deeply flawed, very old mining law to give away more giveaways

to corporate polluters. and on behalf of ranking member grijalva, whom our prayers and thoughts are with today, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a letter from the pima county board of supervisors in response to proper mining and in opposition to this bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. stansbury: it's not just the mining industry that gets to have free reign on these lands for other uses. one thing that's important to understand in the language of this bill, any actor with a few dollars to spare could lock up these public lands and just sit on them until somebody buys them out. that means anyone who wants to use the land that could be for recreation, renewable energy, transmission, or even for another mining claim would be blocked out so long as somebody was sitting on that claim.

because again, this bill takes away the only requirement to show an interest in actually mining the land and just rewards the first person to make a claim. this bill is not only a giveaway to the mining industry, it is literally a giveaway of our public lands. but it's completely mystifying because this isn't even what the american people want. our friends across the aisle continue to push for an agenda that the american people haven't even asked for. they voted for us -- they voted to cut veterans benefits to raise health care costs to enrich and provide these corporate giveaways just like in this bill. but where is this coming from? i ask my friends, where is this coming from? and i urge my colleagues to vote against this toxic polluter giveaway, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: years.

the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from arkansas. mr. westerman: i greatly appreciate my friend from new mexico, i appreciate her efforts to protect and ad administration having an attack on american mining and energy that's causing process to increase, for inflation to go up, and causing us to be more dependent on our adversaries like china for minerals and elements, like russia, opec, venezuela, all the above, iran for our energy. i understand she's passionate about that and i respect her passion. when we talk about an old archaic mining law ulysses s. grant signed in 1872, i am reminded of something our founders did long before that. in 1787 they established our constitution that says there's

separation of powers, that the legislative branch legislates and the executive branch enforces, and now almost 250 years later, we've got a legislative branch -- or and ad mine straightive branch, and thanks to the administrative ace state and the administrative powers act, we've got bureaucrats who think their job is to legislate. we're not changing the law, the mining law, we're pushing back on rules that are being pushed out by and ad administration that thinks it's their job to legislate. i will remind my friends across the aisle, two years ago they controlled the white house, the senate and the house and they had a chance to change the mining law and didn't do it. we're pushing back on mining laws from the administration. with that, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, the chair of the

subcommittee on energy and mineral resources -- four minutes to mr. stauber. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. stauber: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise to support h.r. 2925, the bipartisan bicameral mining regulatory clarity act, offered by my good friend from nevada, representative am amodei. i want to thank him. the bill before us is simple, it codifies what is known as the rosemont fix. it restores long-standing interpretation of the mining law of 1872, along with agency regulations governing hardrock mining policy on our federal lands. in may of 2022, the u.s. court of appeals for the ninth circuit

upended decades of law when it approved a mine plan for the rosemont copper mine project. the decision limited the ability of the forest service to approve necessary mining support facilities and activity, which is necessary for mining operations. this decision from the ninth circuit put virtually every new domestic mining project in jeopardy. during our legislative hearing earlier this year, an official from the biden administration argued that it won't be necessary to codify the rosemont fix into law simply because of an existing solicitor's opinion from last year that he argued and addressed the issue at hand. however, this same witness also admitted the obvious. this solicitor's opinion can't be rescinded or changed with a stroke of a pen p. the solicitor's opinion is and ad mine straightive action that can be undone or changed at the

women of this or any future administration. we all know the durability of administrative actions, it's law of the land for four, maybe eight years in some cases. mr. speaker, considering domestic mining projects are multidecade investments, why would a mining company ever decide to invest billions in a project when they're only guaranteed four or perhaps eight years of legislate clarity? that's why the bicameral bipartisan mining regulatory clarity act is necessary. the only way to fix the rosemont decision is to codify the fix in law. this legislation, contrary to what some of my colleagues will argue won't create or change new domestic mining policy but builds regulatory certainty and reinstates the long-standing interpretation of the mining law of 1872 and long-standing agency regulations that were law of the land before 2022.

we are all well aware of the biden administration's ambitious goals to transition to renewable energy and other technologies that rely on critical and rare earth minerals. mr. speaker, if we can't mine these minerals domestically thanks to the rosemont decision blocking new domestic mines, where does the administration expect these minerals to come from? the only answer i can think of is adversarial nations like china. continued lack of clarity on the rosemont decision is not a benefit to the american people but a benefit to the chinese communist party. the answer is pretty clear, you can either support domestic mining with the strictest environmental and labor standards here in the united states and across the world, or you can support chinese communist party controlled mineral supplies that have zero environmental standards, zero labor standards, and they use

child-forced slave labor, and that is a fact. i urge my colleagues to support this bill, mr. chair, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. mr. westerman: i reserve. ms. stansbury: i appreciate their clarification of intent but we can't go based on intent but have to go based on the bill they introduced and are asking us to vote on. so i'm going to do a little reading from your bill to help clarify for the american people what this bill actually says. so, first of all, it addresses security of tenure for folks that aren't familiar with this kind of jargon, that means ownership, who gets to hold the rights to this land. then it defines the kind of operations that would be tied to this tenure. let me read them to you. this is what it says in the bill, prospecting, exploration, discovery, assessment, development, extraction, processing. it also goes on to clarify that

you can do any activity that is found to be reasonably incident to an activity described in another clause of this bill. it goes on to say right here in the bill, it says words on the page, this is what we were asked to vote on, that the right to use, occupation, and operations, which we've already laid out is basically anything you want to do on the land, a claimant shall have the right to use and occupy, to conduct operations on public land with or without the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. yo, this is a giveaway of our public lands. you can say whatever you want on the floor but the bill that we're voting on literally says whatever you want to do on that land as long as you pay the fee, $10, you show up, and you make

the claim it's yours, folks. this is a giveaway of public lands. it guts the only safeguard from our 1872 mining law. so i want to just make that clarification. and in a moment we'll get more into rosemont. but i do want to take the opportunity to yield to my dear friend, mr. speaker. i'd like to yield six minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. huffman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. huffman: i thank the gentlelady from new mexico and thank her for actually reading the bill. sometimes the truth matters in these debates. and we have to take many things with a grain of salt. we've been lectured about national security from folks who just last week voted to deny aid to ukraine. the pro-putin caucus is actually lecturing us about national security. so you have to take it all with a grain of salt or maybe with a glass of vodka in this

particular case. to this bill, the mining industry says they need this bill to provide regulatory clarity. well, if it's clarity our colleagues across the aisle are seeking, this bill certainly delivers it. in the name of legislate clarity, they would let any mining company do essentially whatever they want in any open area of public lands. we've got our long outdated mining law of 1872 that already gives more rights to miners than any other public land users by far under current law as long as they have four stakes in the ground and keep up with their nominal fee, any public lands are there for their taking. but of course for our colleague across the aisle, it's not enough for the mining industry. it's never enough. under this bill, now the land they're after wouldn't even need to have valuable minerals for

miners to hold a valid mining claim, under this bill they actually don't even need to have a mining claim at all. this bill would allow any activity, even slightly related to prospecting, exploration, discovery, assessment, development, distraction, or processing of minerals regardless whether that activity is carried out on a mining claim. and it also waives any payment of fair market value for the use of public lands and resources for mining-related activities. so my colleagues say they're interested in clarity, let's be very clear what all of this means. if a mining corporation decided to build a large-scale power plant directly outside of a national park to support their claim, they could do it under this bill. that same mining corporation could build a polluting processing plant right next to the power plant and suck the

aquifers dry to support their mine under this bill. . . they could bill anything the mining company key sides necessary infrastructure. anything else they want. they could also permanently bury sacred sites near their mining claim. they could bury it in toxic waste under this bill. none of these tangential activities would have to go through the usual evaluation of public lands use. they would be given the same priority rights the mining industry already enjoys on public lands. if all of that wasn't bad enough under this bill the mining industry, or frankly any bad actor with a handful of dollars, could effectively block any other use of our public lands. like recreation, like natural carbon storage. access to traditional and cultural resource, renewable energy projects, or any number of other important uses.

this bill says that anyone, i do mean anyone, could do any so-called mining related activities on or off a mining claim for a mere $10 per acre per year. this entire bill is one of the most egregious giveaways of our public lands and resources. most of us have ever seen. that's saying something because we have seen a lot of proposed giveaways from our friends across the aisle. our public lands would become the mining industry's playground or dumping grounds. as they see fit. but there are other important uses for our public lands. our public lands and waters should also be considered for solar, wind, geothermal resources. this bill threatens to hand absolute control to mining companies. would jeopardize the crucial role public lands can play in responsible, renewable energy production, among other important uses. our public lands serve as

substantial carbon sinks aiding both communities and ecosystems in adapting to the challenges brought on by the climate crisis our friends ignore and deny. these lands should not belong to the mining industry and other exploitive actor. they should belong to all americans. our public lands deserve our protection. we need real reform of this antiquated mining law from 1872 to put other uses of our public lands on equal footing with the mining industry. we need to prioritize tribal sovereignty, community input, and environmental protection to give americans a fair return for their public minerals. the good news is that bill already exists. and i'm a proud co-sponsor of ranking member grijalva's clean energy minerals reform act t would do all of those important things. that's the bill we should be considering today. instead, we have the bill before us that woo double down -- that would double down on the mining law of 1872's worst ideas.

this is the wrong move for a modern sustainable mining industry. it's the wrong move for america. and i urge my colleagues to vote no. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. ms. stansbury: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: thank you, mr. speaker. talked earlier about the constitution and how the legislature makes the laws. it's not through administrative rule. it's also not by court decision. not the third branch of government that gets to make the laws. it's congress that gets to make the laws. when the court has stepped in and made a ruling that creates uncertainty, it's causing mines not to be developed in the united states. mining companies don't know if they can get a permit, if they cannot get a permit they have to prove that there's material there before they get a clans to develop the permit. we need this legislative fix that only congress can provide. to provide clarity and certainty

so that we can develop these mineral resources here in the united states which simply isn't happening today. i'll remind my friends across the aisle that under the law that this bill would codify, operators must still, as they have for decades, submit a mine plan of operations to the b.l.m. forest service for approval before build agnew mine under the authorities we would be giving them in this legislation -- building a new mine under the authorities we would be giving them in this legislation. they both have strict time boundary requirements about what they can do with a claim on federal land to conduct mining f a claim holder does not meet the requirements, b.l.m. or the forest service have the power to enforce compliance or immediately suspend the claimant from the area. while my friends across the aisle are doubling down on this administration's attack on

american mining and energy development while they are cheering on the ninth circuit, republicans are taking action and mining is not happening in the united states because of the impediments that my friends across the aisle are causing. where's mining taking place? it's happening in china. if you go back just to 1995 and take one mineral that is critical to the lower carbon energy sector my friends talk about so much, you can't do that without copper. 1995 the united states produced over three times more copper than china. three times more copper. you look at 2020, china's producing about 10 times more copper than we are. this is one metal. we could repeat this chart for critical elements. if you look at it for steel, when we produce more steel than

china in 1995, they produced 12 times more steel than we do today. when these renewable energy projects take place, when mandates are put out there to build electric vehicles, where are these materials coming from? we don't have the processing capacity anymore, either. we've got two copper shelters, china's got over 50 -- smelters. china has over 350. china controls 60% of global production. 90% of processing. over 75% of manufacturing of critical minerals in terms of individual minerals china refines 72% of global refined cobalt. 98% of global galium, and 85% of global refined rare earth elements. it produces about 90% of the raw materials and 77% of global e.v. battery manufacturing capacity.

but this a-- disallowing domestic mining will drive both our allies and sales into further reliance on china. disallowing mining at the same time while putting mandates out there for people that drive electric vehicles. by breaking even the first link in the chinese global supply chain, we'll be able to send strong market signals to american companies looking to invest in domestic mining and processing ventures. that's what h.r. 2925 would do. the republican ideas are pro-america. they are pro-american supply chains. they are using the resource that is got us -- god blessed us with. if we don't pass this bill we are going to be more reliant on china and see less development in the u.s. i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. stansbury: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to just take on some of these arguments to make sure that folks understand the

broader context in which american mining and manufacturing occurs. first of all we just heard some claims that these mining companies can't figure out how to get their mines permitted. well, i hate to inform my colleagues across the aisle but most of our mining companies these days are multibillion dollar, multinational companies that spend literally millions of dollars a year to lobby federal, state, and local entities and to employ folks to navigate these processes. these are not entities that are struggling to figure out processes. secondly, the united states has not disallowed mining. there are many mines in operations. my friends across the aisle would like to visit new mexico i can take you to one of the largest copper mines in north america. there's lots of mining happening in the united states. it is true that up until the 1990's we were a net exporter of

critical minerals here in the united states. but what caused american production to tank was not laws and regulations, it was global commodity prices. just like oil and gas. and what happens when there is international competition is that local entities cannot compete because of competitiveness on the global commodities market. we are all for american competition. we are all for made in america. that is why our president, of course, has led and the democratic congress passed three major bills, four renaissance for american manufacturing and our economy. the bipartisan infrastructure law, the american chips and science act, and the inflation reduction act which are making the largest single investment in reshoring american jobs in modern history. that's the reality of what's happening on the ground. i want to take the opportunity to yield to my dear friend and my sister from new mexico, mr.

speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from new mexico. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. leger fernandez: thank you, mr. speaker. america was blessed by our creator with natural beauty and an an abundance of natural resources from grazing to farmlands to minerals, fossil fuels, solar, and wind. so we could feed our families and fuel our progress. but we owe the american people and most importantly our children and grandchildren a duty to protect those resources so they are available for future generations and americans are not left with public lands that have been degraded. mines that have been depleted. and profits sent off to foreign corporations. yes, profits sent to china because they own some of those mines. h.r. 2925 would make it harder to protect the lands that make this country beautiful.

worst of all, it favors the biggest mining corporations and even allows foreign corporations to take american resources for free. there is a long history of bad actors exploiting, misusing, and abusing their mining claims, especially those corporations with ties to foreign adversarial nations. h.r. 2925 would giveaway our federal lands to these bad actors. why? why? why would republicans work on a bipartisan basis to ban china from mining american data with tiktok? but then be ok with china mining american natural resources for free. why? under the republicans' proposal, chinese corporations with the money could put four sticks in the ground, pay a fee, and claim

land that land for mining without improving the existence of these important minerals. i would point out in response to my esteemed colleague that there is mining going on as noted earlier we have the chino mind in new mexico. it produces copper. it has been producing copper for generations. in fact, for hundreds of years. guess what? it's an american company. the freeport mcmahonon is an american company. so we want to do that. we want to make sure that american companies are the ones mining american resources. these are public resources. for that reason -- this reason, at the appropriate time, i will offer a motion to recommit this bill back to committee. if house rules permitted i would have offered the motion with an important amendment to this bill. my amendment would bar companies from adversarial nations, including china, from conducting

mining activities on our public lands. this shouldn't be allowed to exploit american resources and pollute our public lands and take those resources back to china for free. let's make sure the profits stay, the resources stay here, the innovation stays here. why wouldn't my republican colleagues support that kind of amendment? i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the text of this amendment. i hope my colleagues will join me in pushing back against china owning our resources and voting for this and making sure american companies are the ones onlying our resources. i hope -- owning our resources. i hope they will vote for the motion to recommit. i yield back. ms. stansbury: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman's request is granted. the gentlewoman from new mexico reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized.

mr. westerman: thank you, mr. speaker. i find this very rich that my friends across the aisle are bringing china into the equation now. and the simple fact is that under this administration, under this court ruling, nobody's going to be mining in the united states. they know china's not going to mine anything here under their policies, but also no american companies are going to be able to develop mines under their policies. at the same time they are pushing this electrification of everything. electric vehicles. they approve billions and billions of dollars in the so-called -- hard to say the inflation reduction act because we all know it drove inflation higher, but in that bill the i.r.a., they approved billions of dollars to invest in things that require metals and critical minerals. and the question was asked in the opening statement, who wants this? who wants mining in the united

states? .. everybody wants what comes from mining but my friends across the aisle don't want it in their back yard. they want their cake and eat it, too. they want all these metals and critical elements that can be used to manufacture the things they think is going to save the planet but just don't want it to happen here in the u.s. where we have the strictest mining laws, the strictest labor laws, the strictest safety laws, and we do things right here. we recover mines correctly. what they want to do is have all their electric cars, have their solar farms, windmills, transmission lines, and magically get this material from somewhere else. there are still mines all across this country, but the fact is they're not even coming close to meeting the demands that we have, even though we have everything we need in the u.s.,

it's just in the ground. reaching net zero emissions by 2050 would require more copper that's been produced over the entire course of human history. that's the challenge we face under democrat policy. a demand for more copper than we've mined in human history between now and 2050 if we're getting to net zero emissions. how will we do that if we don't use the elements and minerals god has blessed us with in this country? the simple answer is we're going to have to rely on somebody else to supply that. guess who the number one supplier of nearly every one of those metals and elements are in the world today? china. that's the simple fact. we can make a decision to support h.r. 2925, support american minerals and resources, or we can leave the status quo you said the rosemont court

ruling or rely more on china and even others, even russia. we talked about nuclear power which can be a great contributor to zero emission energy, well, most of our uranium comes from russia. who do we want to rely on? where do we want that wealth to go when americans spend their money on energy and minerals? i would rather it stay here in america, supporting american mining, supporting american jobs, and supporting american processing and manufacturing. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. stansbury: we do have mining in our backwards as i noted and the other gentlelady noted. we have multiple mines in mexico. we don't want mines tearing up sites and polluting our water. but we know in the bill we're

debating today, that would be the outcome of what's trying to be passed. i want to clarify for the record we actually had secretary holland in front of our committee and she stated this morning that the biden administration has approved 40, 4-0, new mines or mining modification permits just since president biden took office, including five critical minerals mines. so the assertion that we heard this afternoon that there has been no new mining is just false. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. westerman: there's another side to this story as well. can you try to frame it that we're ok with it in our back yard because we've got some of it here. but for the future, we don't want any more of it in our back yard. i'm from arkansas. we have about 10% of our landmass that's federal lands. but when you go out west,

federal lands can account as much as 86% of the land area in certain states and account for 75% of our nation's metals production. now, when you look at it, more than half of federally owned public lands are already either restricted or banned to mining operations due to withdrawals under the feder land management a policy act, antiquities act, and specific congressional actions. if land has been withdrawn under the mining law like the land outside the grand canyon, n new mining claims can be staked. so i'm asking, how much is enough? how much of ourand you have to lock up and say you can't have access, you can manage it, you can't produce energy off of it, you can't mine on it? it seems like as time goes on, the answer is all of it. we want to lock all of it up. we want to be reliant on somebody else that's doi a lot more damage to the environment somewhere on the planet than we

do here in the u.s. when we mine very environmentally friendly and sustainable with the highest levels of standards. you can try to frame it any way you want to, but when we're having to import so much of our critical minerals when they're right here in the ground in the united states, that is a not in my back yard policy. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. stansbury: i do feel compelled to address the specific example just brought forward about a mining exclusion in the grand canyon. because i believe the exclusion we're talking about was to mine uranium in the grand canyon. now, i ask the american people, is that what you'd like to see? in new mexico we know the legacy of uranium mining. our communities are dying from it. miners and communities whose water has been poisoned for generations and those who have been impacted by the materials

that were built from that uranium. and that is why congresswoman leger fernandez has been leading an effort that is bicameral with our colleagues from new mexico to get a eureka amendment passed in this chamber so we can help address those communities and that is why we should not be mining uranium in the grand canyon. and with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman is recognized. mr. westerman: i want to assert my firm belief we should not mine uranium in the grand canyon and no one was proposing to mine uranium in the grand canyon but that's a famous talking point of my friends across the aisle to say these evil companies will be mining uranium in the grand canyon. it's like there will be a big excavator digging out and making the grand canyon more grand. the uranium deposits are well outside the boundaries of grand canyon national park.

they're in land north of the grand canyon between the boundary of the grand canyon national park and the state state of utah. but it's an easy talking point to say we're going to ban mining in the grand canyon. well, guess what? i don't know anybody that wants to mine in the grand canyon. but i do want to reiterate and push back on the assertion that the mining regulatory clarity act is unnecessary and that mining companies should have to prove the existence of a valid claim before beginning any operations. a 2020 department of the interior solicitor's opinion stated, as a practical matter requiring the discovery of a valuable mineral deposit before allowing any reasonable incident mining uses, including the removal of any minerals puts the cart before the horse. since such uses and removal are necessary to make a discovery. if entering upon lands to explore for and develop mineral is considered unauthorized and unless and until miners have proven a discovery of a valuable

mineral deposit, they could not, as a practical matter, ever discover a valuable mineral deposit and all mining would effectively be prohibited. such an outcome was clearly not the intent of congress in no small part because such an interpretation would also leave many, if not most, miners legally in trespass. that all came from that solicitor's opinion. and it's clear that h.r. 2925, the legislative fix that only congress can provide that is needed to provide clarity and certainty in the united states ability to responsibly mine materials essential to our national security and to make us economically competitive. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. stansbury: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. westerman: i'm ready to close and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady is recognized.

ms. stansbury: all right. well, thank you, mr. speaker. proponents of h.r. 2925 would like to argue that this bill is a surgical fix to a problem created by the ninth circuit court of appeals decision on the rosemont copper mine. but if this is surgery, like the mining law of 1872, it's surgery with an axe, not a scalpel. and if that invokes an image for you of our post civil war surgical maneuvers, that's what this bill does because it takes away guardrails to protect our communities. let's clarify. in 2022, a panel of the ninth circuit court ruled the proposed rosemont mine in southern arizona could not use invalid mining claims to permanently bury thousands of acres of the colorado national forest in mining waste, including sites that were sacred to multiple tribes. so the court ruled that it was not a valid mining claim to do

this. the requirement that mining claims must contain valuable minerals for the claim to be valid is a core tenet of the mining law and the one, as we've said, fragile guardrail that we have in this antiquated law. so for over 150 years, the mining law of 1872 has given mining precedents over all uses and values over public lands. this imbalance of power has left a toxic trail of pollution, destruction, desecration of sacred sites and continues to impact our communities today. we urgently need to reform the mining law, but instead the bill that is being put forward here today would make things worse and take us back. it is such a breathtaking giveaway of our public lands that former department of interior solicitor john lesche

said it should be called the mining charity act because of the giveaways for these mining companies rather than the chairity act. this bill allows anyone to put a stake in the ground on any open land and pay less than $10 a year to make a claim to those rights forever. our public land managers have long said that once there is a mining claim in place, they cannot do anything mining-related on that land. if this bill becomes law, the mining industry would be free to pick and choose which of our public lands to lock away and then permanently bury to destroy watersheds, to pollute our communities, and to do whatever it wants on those lands that it's tied up. the unintended consequences of this bill go far beyond mining and could hurt our communities irrevocably. i want to reiterate, this bill empowers anyone with a few

dollars, including foreign companies, including inadversarial nations to take over mining claims and block uses of this land. this will & grace create chaos and not clarity on our public lands and i urge opposition to this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. mr. westerman: in contrary to the misconceptions i've heard from the bill, this legislation does not grant mining companies free license to do whatever they want on federal lands. it does not exempt mining activity from nepa or any other environmental review. it does not allow companies to subvert governmental authority or oversight. it simply restates a century of mining law and decades of regulatory practice. in passing this bill, we will

reaffirm american mineers' rights to operate under the law just as they have done for decades to provide the essential materials we depend on every day. i thank congressman amokei for his work to bring 2025 to the floor and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuan t to house resolution 1173, the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: 1993 to provide for security of tenure for mining claims for ancillary activities and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new mexico seek recognition? ms. leger fernandez: i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. leger fernandez moves to recommit the bill h.r. 2925 to the committee on

natural resources. the speaker pro tempore: pursuan t to clause 2-b of rule 19, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. ms. leger fernandez: mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new mexico seek recognition? ms. leger fernandez: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed. . pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on this question are postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman, seek recognition? mr. westerman: pursuant to house resolution 1173, i call up harr 6285 and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 384. h.r. 6285, a bill to ratify and

approve all authorizations, permit, verifications, extensions, biological opinions, incidental take statements an any other approvals or orders issued pursuant to federal law necessary for the establishment and administration of the coastal plain oil and gas leasing program and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1173, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on natural resource, printed in the bill. modified by the amendment printed in part a of house report 118-477, shall be adopted and is considered read. the bill shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member by -- of the committee on ranking -- on natural resources or their designee. it shall be in order to consider

if offered by the member listed in the report. which shall be considered read and shall be debatable for the time specified in the report and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. the gentleman from arkansas, mrn from california, mr. huffman, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas, mr. westerman. mr. westerman: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 6285678. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. westerman: i rise today in support of h.r. 6285, alaska's right to produce act. h.r. 6285 introduced by congressman stauber, would block the biden administration's attacks on alaska, its north slope communities, and their elected indigenous leaders. last september, the biden administration announced two

decisions that would disenfranchise alaskan and north slope communities. first, the administration announced it was rescinding energy leases in the 1002 area of the arctic national wildlife refuge or anwar. when it passed the tax cuts -- or anwr. when it passed the tax cuts and jobs act, it approved leasing and production in the area. production would be limited to 2,000 acres out of the 19 million acres refuge. this is just a tony postage stamp when you look at the big picture. specifically, the law required the department to conduct two lease sales in anwr, the first by december, 2021, and the second by december, 2024. the trump administration held the first lease sale but the biden administration immediately halted it and canceled the leases without warning last september. again, this was a law passed by

congress. congress mandated lease sales in the 1002 area with the goal of improving energy security and generating revenue for our country, the state of alaska, and local communities on the north slope. the funds these energy projects generate are necessary to support public projects and basic amenities like roads and modern water and sewer system which is have only recently arrived on the north slope within the last 40 years. these amenities are ubiquitous to the lower 48. the infrastructure is still being developed in the north slope in. a hearing on these issues in september, the president of voice of the arctic testified on the importance of energy production to quality of life for alaskans living on the north slope. to quote from his testimony, we can quantify the powerful impact of these projects by observing the increase of life expectancy on the north slope. in 1969, before people had any

land rights and no economic prospects, as a result life expectancy was just 34 years. by 1980, our average life expectancy was 65 years. roughly equivalent with libya and lower than north korea. today, our people can expect to live to an average of 77 years. this increase, the most dramatic in the united states, can be directly connect dodd the proliferation of a basic economy, modern infrastructure and services supported by resource development projects, end quote. while the administration canceled the anwr leases it also issued a proposed rule making for the management of the national petroleum reserve in alaska or npr-a. this rule making, the final version of which was announced two weeks ago, would lock up 13 million acres out of the 23 million achers that comprise the petroleum reserve and make it more challenging to conduct

exploration and production activities in the rest of the petroleum reserve. to make matters worse, meaningful engagement with local government, alaska native corporation, federally recognized tribes and tribal nonprofits across the north slope of alaska was severely lacking throughout the rule making process. it was utterly nonexistent before the rule was proposed. additionally, an affront to the communities in the north slope, the rule was proposed during the whaling season and overlapped with the anwr comment period. when pressed to provide more time to comment in a virtual meet, department officials explained that they couldn't extend the comment period further because of the congressional review act. these actions and the utter lack of meaningful engagement and input were panned by the entire alaska delegation along with every elected official, local government, alaska native corporations, federally recognized tribes and tribal nonprofits across the north slope of alaska.

again, i thank congressman stauber for his work on this bill to repeal these it's a rouse actions by the biden administration and for listening to the voices of alaskans. i urge all my colleagues to join me in support of h.r. 6285 and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. once again instead of dealing with the real problems facing americans every day we are back on the house floor talking about the g.o.p. agenda. mr. huffman: gun, oil and polluters. it is a relentless mission to wreak havoc on our planet and communities but before we go into the merits of this bill, here's a dose of reality. last year, as our republican friends turned a blind eye, the global climate surpassed two degrees celsius, a threshold that ought to be taken quite seriously. for the first time in recorded history we passed this threshold and that made it the hottest

year on record. experts have determined that a two-degree rise in global temperatures will inarguably cause dangerous and cascadingesques on humans and our planet. that hasn't stopped by colleagues across the aisle. it's as if they are playing a dangerous game of chicken with our environment, betting against mother nature. in the disaster department, 2023 was a showcase of calamity. we tallied up a staggering $63 billion in weather-related catastrophes. this includes 19 severe storm, two tropical cyclones, four floods, a winter weather event, a drought, a wildfire event, and it's as if republicans were sitting on the front row with the popcorn in their hands, leaning over to ask their oil and gas buddy what they needed noition all the other giveaways they've received from the republican majority. so there's actually even more. in a display of unparalleled

negligence, 2023 also came with 10 oil tanker spills. because apparently, the g.o.p. agenda is also, spill, baby, spill. and let the taxpayer foot the bill. we're not even talking yet about pipeline leaks. every day in america, some aspect of this spider web of fossil fuel infrastructure is exploding. bursting. leaking. spilling. last fall there were almost 1.1 million gallons of crude oil released into the gulf of mexico and yet my friends across the aisle don't ever legislate about that. they don't do oversight about that. they don't talk about it. they don't acknowledge it. one has to wonder if they even care about it. and here we are again, with an effort to expand our nation's carbon footprint and expose our coastal communities to future

disasters and oil spills, not only does this bill grant access to one of our most ecologically sensitive and, yes, difficult regions to productively drill, but it reverses significant strides by the biden administration to protect lands that tribal nations have occupied and held sacred since time immemorial. the arctic refuge is one of the last truly wild places left in america. and the urgency to preserve the arctic refuge transcends environmental concerns. it's a rallying cry against irreversible devastation and destruction. things that would fundamentally change and ruin this unique, fragile, wild place. the coastal plain which is the heart of the porcupine caribou herd's grounds, hosts two million mi migratory bird specis annually. equally strong, a nation whose

existence depends on the caribou herd, exists on the migratory route. that means development in this area would disrupt not only biodiversity but would be an assault on their indigenous livelihoods and traditions. we have seen how that plays out in the alaska native village nearest the oil and gas project. with the new willow development, hunters are being forced to travel further and further to find resources and avoid hunting grounds that are now dominated by the fossil fuel industry. rolling back npra protections would make matters even worse. the bexaring sea -- the bering sea, home to many species and provides for indigenous cultures, provides access to subsistence hunting and fishing grounds. any increase traffic would further stress and create risk

for an already vulnerable ecosystem. exploiting these sensitive areas is equivalent to sacrificing those on the front lines of the climate crisis as martyrs in order to temporarily quench the insatiable thirst of big oil for money. let's get one more thing clear. the drilling in this bill that would be green lighted by this bill would not make us energy independent. the united states is already the number one producer of oil and gas in the world. we're exporting record amounts of fossil fuel. but consumers still get hit with price shocks any time opec decides to raise prices or russia starts a war in europe, because oil and gas are global commodities. fossil fuel dependence is not true energy independence because you're always on the roller coaster. you're always subject to the whims of some cartel, somebody

gaming the global commodity market, some explosion, some international event. if we want energy independence we need a transition to clean energy which is cheaper, safer. yen rated entirely here at home. instead of being at the mercy of global price shocks like oil and gas. the republican agenda is predictable, repetitive and dangerous. they need to stop putting polluters over people. enough is enough. we can no longer exploit our frontline communities and delicate ecosystems to pad the pockets of the fossil fuel industries and -- fossil fuel industry and its g.o.p. to renies. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. . mr. stauber: i rise in support

of h.r. 6285, alaska's right to produce act. from minnesota to alaska, president biden has repeatedly prevented the responsible production of america's abundant natural resources. in minnesota's eighth district, which i'm proud to represent, the biden administration banned mining, locking up the world's largest, untapped, copper nickel find in the world. and now he's turned his focus to the great state of alaska where he has made multiple moves to block energy development on alaska's north slope. last fall the biden administration first announced their plans to cancel the remaining oil and gas lease sales in the arctic national wildlife refuge and limit energy development within the national tremendously yum reserve in alaska. i'll repeat that, natural petroleum reserve in alaska. within the last two weeks, the biden administration finalized

this devastating blow to the alaskan communities. to quote from the president of the corporation in response to these actions, we are a small community that suffers as the federal winds blow and feel the biden administration is working to effectively erase us from the land that we have inhabited for a hundred years. this affirms my view that biden's mining policy can be summed up anywhere but america, any worker but american. in fact, mr. chair -- mr. speaker, the biden administration has levied more sanctions against the great state of alaska than they have iran. the biden administration has put sanctions -- 63 sanctions against energy production in

alaska. more than iran. in fact, they're taking off sanctions from iran. this administration has taken off sanctions from iran. they're punishing the great state of alaska. uncalled for. not only does this decision run counter to alaskan tribes and others who stood to benefit from the jobs, opportunities, and revenue that the responsible production of these resources would create, but further cement our reliance on iran, russia, china, and venezuela for the energy and natural resources on which we all rely. mr. speaker, how does that make any sense? as our adversaries become more and more hostile, shouldn't the president be doing everything in his power to make america's energy independent once again? energy security is national

security. and at a time when american families are struggling under the weight of record high inflation and energy prices due to the biden policies, shouldn't the president be doing everything he can to support domestic energy projects that would create jobs and lower costs? as chairman of the energy resources subcommittee, i'm proud to introduce the alaska's right to produce act to allow alaskans to develop their god given natural resources. i introduced this commonsense legislation with alaska's representative mary pell tolla, a democrat -- mary peltola, a democrat. and i thank her for this issue. alaskans on the north slope support this legislation, mr. speaker. they support it because the oil and gas revenues allow them to build schools and hospitals, pay for their police, pay for their fire service, have libraries, have the fundamental parts of our communities that we all have

and all deserve. the only way they can sustain that, mr. speaker, is allowing things like this to go forward. natural resources of alaska should be -- they should be proud to ethically and responsibly resource this. again, 63 sanctions against the great state. you have to be kidding me. as my co-chair of the tennis caucus would agree, john mcenroe, you have to be kidding me? it's unbelievable. alaskans deserve better than what this administration is forcing on the great people of alaska. mr. chair, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: i do appreciate my colleague's love of tennis, our mutual love of tennis and his sense of humor. i have less appreciation when he draws tortured analogies to

international sanctions and national security issues. it's just hard to take that kind of sanctimony seriously from somebody last week who voted along with the majority of the house republican conference to hand ukraine over to vladimir putin. as as i often say in this debate, you have to take a lot of this political theater with a grain of salt or with a glass of vodka. i'll yield six minutes to the gentlelady from alaska. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. >> i want to thank my colleague, the honorable mr. stauber, for his work on this measure. i rise to speak about the alaska's right to produce act and how i'll be voting. this pits two of alaska's most important industries, energy and fisheries together. alaska faces a energy crisis which is slight ironic since our states that vast resources and

alaska pays some of the highest prices in the country for petroleum. ms. peltola: the fuel we need to transport ourselves and goods and to heat ourselves in the winter. everyone knows alaska is great in gas but we have wind energy. geothermal and expanding hydropower in the southeast. however, many alaskans live in extremely rural areas that rely on diesel and biomass to heat our homes through harsh winters. those fuels are more expensive and contribute to regions like fairbanks that have some of the worst air quality in the nation. some would like to jump from diesel to wind but that's unrealistic in alaska. what we can do is use natural gas as a bridge fuel to move more people to cleaner burning energy and reduced air pollution and why i believe alaskans should be able to develop and transport the natural gas we have available on our north slope for our use throughout the state.

i genuinely support an all of the above approach on energy. alaskans can't afford to be picky about where energy comes from. my personal energy bills are over $1,000 a month, a reality that many lower 48 colleagues do not fully under. i was the only democrat to support this legislation at markup and still support the bill's intent. alaska needs to develop energy for our use and economic well-being. however, this bill would nullify the northern bearing sea climate resilience area. this area was created at the request of alaskan native tribes in the region and empowers the people who lived there for thousands of years to exercise their self-determination and be equal voices on policy decisions facing the northern bearing sea. let me be clear, this bill never intended to target the northern bearing alaska climate resilience area and why i produced an amendment that would

have removed this resilience area from the final bill text and why today i introduced a clean version of the alaska right to produce act that doesn't impact the northern bearing sea climate resilience area. alaska's right to produce aims to ensure my state can continue to develop it's onshore area like the natural petroleum reserve alaska. like the member a couple before me said this stands for natural petroleum reserve in alaska. it's a reserve, not a refuge. it was set aside for even companies were encouraged to develop in the petroleum reserve as opposed to other parts of alaska. on the other hand, the northern bering sea resilience area is important to manage our arctic

environments and vessel traffic, moving fish stocks, marine debris and increased military activity. we saw recentl why the more than bering sea is area to remain in place. the noass had a affects of trawling survey and the effects of bottom trawling in an area of bering sea where it's currently banned. in their opposition the said noaa's plan illustrated two reasons whyhe area was established in the first place, the history of the bering sea tribes not being involved in policy discussions and decisions d the threat of bottom trawling moving into the northern bering sea ecosystem by nullifying this area, we are breaking our promise to tribes and directly harming fishing communities. alaskans face many challenges and threats to our unique way of life and on the brink of

exporting natural gas from a foreign country and our fishermen are in the dst of a economic freall depleted with fish stocks. unfounately the way this bill was written puts energy development against fisheries and for that reason i will be voting present today. i yield back. mr. huffman: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: i yield two minutes to mr. pfluger of texas. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. pfluger: i thank my good friend mr. stauber for this bill. let's just call it what it is. it's not a big secret that the biden administration hates american energy, and really from day one, they've waged a complete all out war on domestic production. if you take yourself back to 2019, candidate biden then said he would kill fossil fuels. they've made good on that promise and this is another example of that. in september of 2023, the administration canceled existing oil and gas leases in the coastal point of alaska,

violating statutorily mandated lease steals sand suspending actions to the economy. these actions were taken despite bipartisan opposition as we heard from our colleague across the aisle. h.r. 6285, a house energy team initiative would reverse biden's harmful policies by reinstating am war oil and gas leases and prohibit a leasing moratorium in the coastal plain and nullifying executive orders by the president. just last week the administration denied permission of the ambler road, superseding ongoing conversations at the state level. alaskans should be able to decide what they want to develop, not the administration but alaskans who know alaska. i'd like to thank the r.s.c. heat staff for their work on this legislation. again, representative stauber, let me just respond to something we've heard about ukraine, about russia, about the

administration. let me remind all americans, mrs president in 2021 who refused to continue and to enhance the sanctions on on the nord stream pipeline that would have helped all of europe and the ukrainians more than anything. so if you want to talk about being strong and standing up to russia, let's take ourselves back to that point where this administration failed to do that and instead handed putin a huge gift and decided to declare an all out war on american energy and this is just yet another example of that. with that i urge my colleagues to vote yes and i yield back. mr. westerman: i want to thank the gentleman for his litership on the heat team and also want to point out to the american people that the biden administration is the gift that keeps on giving to putin, not only will they not put sanctions

on the nordstream 2 pipeline but now sanctions on u.s. pop lines and put a pause on l.n.g. gas export. our friends in russia and poland would love to have u.s. l.n.g. we have a lot of it but we can't send it there because this president won't restrict russia but restricts american producers and allows putin to continue to fund his war machine by selling gas to europe. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: i thank you, mr. speaker. this is certainly a master class in deflection. i think perhaps the fact that a majority of the republican conference voted to hand ukraine to russia last week, and has

touched a nerve as people consider the reality of that. so going back and trying to deflect to a pipeline from many years ago that no longer even functions because it was blown up certainly doesn't change the fact that last week when we had a chance to vote for critical lifeline military support for ukraine as it fights for its survival against russia, a majority, a significant majority of my colleagues across the aisle voted no. they voted with vladimir putin, and so congratulations on the deflection. moscow march couldn't have done it better and might even make the highlight reel on our team tonight. i don't watch that network but just have to wonder if maybe there wouldn't be coverage if some of these things we're hearing from across the aisle. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: i love the way my colleague across the aisle

operates. he talks about deflecting when what he's doing is deflecting. he's trying to deflect from the issue in alaska where once again the biden administration has failed misserably by talking about ukraine. and i don't know if the gentleman has checked the voting record but i voted to support ukraine and it's regrettable we have to send more foreign aid, more military equipment to support countries fighting against evil regimes like putin, like iran because of bad foreign policy, and a lot of it has to do with energy policy. .. . i would prefer not to have to vote to send more aid to our allies who are fighting for freedom and democracy. but this president and his administration has put us in a weakened place on the world stage. unfortunately we have to take votes like that. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr. hern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hern: thank you, mr. speaker.

i rise in support of the alaska right to produce act. i want to thank my colleagues, pete stauber and august slougher for this. it's been noted here that we talk certain ways but vote others. i think nothing is more evident than what we just saw a few minutes ago where the gentlelady from alaska supported the bill, was going to vote present. you're either with alaska or you're not. the republicans are with alaska. i just want to make that for the record that we're going to vote to support alaska. this legislation is only necessary because of the disastrous policymaking coming out of the biden administration. it's hard to believe today that the national average for a gallon of gas in 2020 was just over $2. under president trump the united states was well on our way not only being energy independent but energy dominant. where do we and our allies get our oil from when we're not producing it ourselves? russia, venezuela and other bad actors around the globe.

let's be clear. halting nest i think production of oil and gas does absolutely nothing to lower our dependence on oil and gas. as the climate lobby wants you to believe. it just increases our dependence on people like vladimir putin. i don't want the united states to rely on anything from vladimir putin. the solution is so simple. use the resources under our own feet. the alaska right to produce act reverses the damaging policies from joe biden to unleash our domestic energy potential. alaska has been blessed with tremendous oil and natural gas deposits and the people of alaska are incredibly supportive of utilizing those resources. this bill empowers the native alaskans to -- communities and residents of the state to profit from resources under their own soil. in a future where america is energy dominant, the only loser is vladimir putin and others like him. it happens that our allies, when we con provide them with oil and

gas so they're not reliant on putin either. it help ours own people by lowering costs and providing cleaner, more affordable energy sources. and it helps alaska -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mr. westerman: i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. mr. hern: this is common sense. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this legislation and i yield back. mr. westerman: i also appreciate mr. hern's leadership on the r.s.c. and the establishment of the heat team and the efforts that they've been putting on making sure we're energy independent here in america. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. this is getting almost comical. i have now heard yet another speech pretending to oppose vladimir putin and russia, less than a week after the gentleman who just spoke voted to hand ukraine over to putin.

voted no on essential military aid to our ukrainian allies who are fighting for their very existence against this terrible war of aggression by vladimir putin, made possible and financed of course by the fossil fuel industry in russia which american oil and gas companies truly help to -- helped to develop. you have to wonder if there's not a lot of damage control under way right now across the aisle. maybe folks realize just how wreckless and dangerous that vote against ukraine was last week. that vote that a majority, a solid majority, of my republican friends took right along with moscow marge and the rest of the pro-putin caucus. i'm going to keep bringing this up each time i hear one of these anti-ukraine voters pretend to care about ukraine or pretend to oppose vladimir putin and russia. because last week they had a chance to actually show their colors and we saw their colors. there's another way.

in which they are really doing a great favor to vladimir putin and russia. it is by opposing the clean energy transition at every turn and never possible way. vladimir putin's worst nightmare is to break the fossil fuel paradigm that made him rich and powerful that enabled him to have all of this influence and leverage over europe because a clean energy economy would make him irrelevant. it would make him a lot less powerful. so go ahead and keep helping vladimir putin with your votes, with your energy policy, but we're going to stand for a clean energy transition. we're going to support ukraine. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from washington, chair of the western caucus, mr. newhouse. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. newhouse: i want to thank the chairman of the natural resources committee for allow nothing the join this conversation in support of the

alaska's right to produce act. alaska truely is blessed with abundant natural resources that could empower american energy and mineral dominance. alaskan oil and gas production cannot be taken lightly. it is home to our nation's fourth largest oil reserve. and third largest gas reserve. it'ssown fortunate that the president has made the political choice to lock up millions of acres where these resources could be utilized. the list of attacks on alaskan energy production from this administration is long. and just two weeks ago, he added perhaps the most egregious example yet when the department of the interior announced new restrictions on oil and gas development in the national petroleum reserve alaska. these actions are not only detrimental to american energy production, but also limit the future opportunities for prosperity in rural communities

in alaska that depend on energy projects. when you look at what alaska wants, the result is clear. the majority of tribal communities and alaskan residents support resource development. why? because these projects bring in unprecedented income and development to communities that desperately want and need it. as chairman of the western caucus, i have been advocating for energy production across the united states of america. high domestic production keeps global prices down and ensures america is competitive with our global adversaries. that's why i'm a staunch supporter of this bill to overturn the administration's restrictions on oil and gas development in the last frontier. i encourage all my colleagues to support this legislation to ensure robust reliable production in alaska and i'm proud to join my friend from minnesota in support of the legislation to unleash the full

potential of alaskan energy. mr. speaker, i yield back. mr. westerman: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentleman from washington for his refreshingly rare vote for ukraine aid and for the chair, mr. westerman, for joining democrats in that very important vote in the interests of our national security. i think as we continue with this debate it's worth talking about just what a fiscal and financial boondoggle drilling in the arctic refuge is. it is first of all a proposition that's so deeply unpopular that the only way it became law was to sneak it in to the 2017 tax cuts and jobs act, the trump tax scam. two lease sales were included in the legislation to partly offset tax cuts for the wealthy and initially republicans in congress and the trump administration claimed that

these lease sales would bring in $1.8 billion in revenues for the federal government and the state of alaska through bonus bids. and they proceeded to give a whole bunch of tax cuts away to billionaires and corporations on the basis of this illusory offset. later, the congressional budget office lowered the estimate to $900 million, specifically $725 million for the first lease sale. so, fast forward to the first lease sale that finally took place in 2021. the final days of the trump administration. guess what happened? it generated less than $15 million, not billion, but $15 million in bonus bids. around 2% of what even c.b.o.'s reduced estimate had projected. in 2022, two of those lease, two of those lessees asked b.l.m. to cancel and refund their leases. they wanted out.

separately in 2021. two development companies, chevron and hill corp. paid to get out of their leases in the arkt incompetent wildlife refuge. several banks have said they won't finance drilling in the in the refuge. if my republican colleagues are interested in federal revenues if they're interested in fiscal conservatism, i'm sorry to say that the pristine alaska wilderness is not their piggy bank and in any event it turns out that it is empty. with that, i reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: mr. speaker, i have to take issue with this issue about lackluster sales or lackluster lease sales. i want to note that the first anwr lease sale was held in early 2021 in the throes of the

covid pandemic when oil prices were historically low. the argument is that the administration projected -- the trump administration projected $1.8 billion from anwr lease sales over 10 years and my friends are arguing that it only made less than 1% of those initial projections. but they're not telling as paul harvey would say, the rest of the store rhythm this one sale was held after the election of president bide whon said on the campaign trail he would end oil and gas production on federal lands. i have to point out to my friends that revenue comes from oil and gas royalties based on production, not leasing. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. westerman: i want to yield five minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. graves. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. graves: thank you, mr. chairman.

i want to thank the chairman of the natural resources committee for leading on this legislation. mr. chairman, i often wonder where in the world we are sometimes. we're under an administration that has set energy policies that are causing energy prices to go up, to increase for americans. my friend from california's home state, i believe the average gasoline price in l.a. county right now is $5.40 a gallon. $5.40 a gallon. in my home state of louisiana, when the -- when president biden took office, lowest gasoline prices were $1.74. $1.74 a gallon. i struggle to understand why my friend from california would want to force their ideas and policies on the rest of the country. this is a state that's the most dependent state upon the amazon

rain forest oil to power their state's economy. this is a state that has the least reliable energy grid in america. the state that has had the eighth worst emissions growth in the country. and according to the american lung association, just last week, the state that has the dirtiest air over and over and over again in all of these cities including where my friend represents. please, please, i -- mr. speaker, i ask my friend, please keep your ideas to yourself. ruin california. don't ruin the rest of the country. don't ruin the other 49 states. this is absolutely remarkable. we've watched as this administration comes in and does a ban on exporting american energy. on new exports of american energy. does a ban. that very tool would have been one of the most powerful tools available to actually reduce

global emissions. but what my friend's policies are advocating, what they're supporting, is supporting more iranian energy because iran is increasing their exports and filling the void. the biden administration's own figures show that there's going to be a 50% growth in global energy demand. 57% increase in natural gas. and we have dethe cleanest sources of gas in the world. i don't understand why my friend thinks that it's better to see this, to give this to iran. this is the biden administration's figures. i don't understand why my friend thinks we should cede this to russia. why should we -- why we should cede this to venezuela. president biden facilitated, he lifts sanctions, that allowed for the nord stream 2 pipeline to be built, the pipeline that took russian industry and sent it into the european union.

but then, in the same breath, blocked pipelines in the united states. so let's review. we support russian energy and russian pipelines. we support we support iranian energy that goes to the houthi and other terrorist groups that killed american soldiers. and invaded our ally israel. we've watched as these very strategies have resulted in emissions actually going up. the united states led the world for reducing emissions and for every ton we reduce china more times have multiple increases. how many times do we have to learn that these failed policies enrich iran and russia and harm the united states. there is evidence all over the

place. we can have these emotional arguments all day long. math and science proves these policies are flawed. the bill addresses it and the fact we're even here when the law already says you're supposed to open up leases including in areas called the national petroleum reserve. the national petroleum reserve. that's right. it's reserved for wildlife. what? this is outrageous. the fact we even have to be here doing this the gentlelady who represents the entire state of alaska voted for in committee and the gentlelady that represents the entire state of alaska clearly said she is will not oppose this bill, yet my friends from california are coming in and saying don't worry, we've got the solution. we're going to impose our harmful strategies, our harmful energy policies on you as well. that way maybe people stop leaving california. mr. speaker, i can't even begin

to emphasize how important it is we move forward in this legislation and treat american energy fairly. i urge adoption of this legislation and yield back. mr. westerman: reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. the secretary: mr. speaker? the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i'm directed by the president of the united states to deliver to the house of representatives a message in writing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. huffman: thank you, mr. speaker. i sometimes feel like serving in this congress i need a good cukor because you get -- chiropractor because you get whiplash. my friend from louisiana in service of the fossil fuel agenda made a sanction moanous speech opposing russia and vladimir putin as if the whole

country, the whole world didn't watch his vote last week with the rest of the majority of the republican conference to hand ukraine over to russia to vote no on critical military aid to ukraine. so it's like that. it's remarkable whiplash, my friend has the ability to actually criticize the air quality in california caused by catastrophic wildfires driven by the climate crisis caused by our fossil fuel addiction and suggests that's because of california's climate agenda, which is absurd, while ignores the fact the one place of air pollution and respiratory illness and other problems with air quality in california is in the oil patch, bakersfield, former speaker mccarthy's district where it's frankly a lot like louisiana and texas. so it's pretty rich and yet we also have a record, if anybody is interested in cutting through

the political theater and seeing where people really stand including last week's vote against ukraine. with that, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. castor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. castor: i want to thank my good friend mr. huffman for yielding time. i rise in opposition of h.r. 628 5. while americans are working to protect our communities, house republicans proceed to make their lives much more expensive and seem to pillage places that make america helpful, the special places we value. in doing so, here's the dirty secret. they're simply carrying the water for powerful special interest and polluters that have way too much power and influence here on capitol hill.

fortunately, h.r. 6285 has no chance of becoming law but it does provide a glimpse of the g.o.p.'s alliance with polluters over the best interests of the american people. whether we're talking about the arctic refuge or my beautiful part of the country along the gulf of mexico, republicans simply are aiming to sell out america's public lands and waters to their friends in big oil and the n.r.a. one of the six bills that were considered today would roll back the biden administration's rules supporting conservation on public lands. another would prohibit the government from regulating the use of toxic lead in ammunition. that's the single largest source of unregulated lead discharged into our environment. and the so-called trust in science act would make it easier

to hunt and kill the endangered gray wolf. the bill currently before us would threaten millions of acres of wild lands by mandating unfettered oil and gas development in the arctic national wildlife refuge regardless of the impacts on wildlife, nearby communities, or what it would do to increase the costs of the overheating planet. you have to ask yourself, is this really what americans, what the american people are asking the congress to do right now? does the average american really want to see congress make it easier to pollute and needlessly develop our special places, our wildlife refuges? i don't think so. and you know, there's an incredible contrast right now in our country between when it comes to who is on the side of the people, who's standing up up

to the polluters. we celebrated the 54th earth day. look at all the actions of president biden compared to the republican pro polluter messeninging bills. first, last week, the department of interior finalized a new rule that would protect more than 13 million acres of irreplaceable wildlife habitat in the western arctic. then president biden announced the creation of the american climate corps, modeled after the corps from years ago and would put more than 20,000 americans to work protecting our communities, building environmental infrastructure and help us lower costs and be more resilient to the rising costs of the overheating climate. last but not least, e.p.a. rolled out awards under a new solar for all initiative, $7 billion grant to help deliver

cleaner, cheaper energy across this great country, especially to working class communities that really need help on their electric bills. this will be a godsend to my state, the so-called sunshine state. we're going to help families put rooftop solar on their roofs and lower their electric bills. i couldn't help but -- would the gentleman yield another minute? mr. huffman: i will yield another minute. ms. castor: i couldn't help when our good friend from louisiana was talking about how unfettered oil and gas will really help lower bills. on my front page of the newspaper today were "the tampa bay times." why are your electric bills so high? because in the so-called sunshine state, we're 75% electricity generation because of gas and our utilities are keeping us hooked on gas and why solar for all, helping to unleash the abundant free energy from the sun to help lower

electric bills is vital. it's time for the house to get serious with cleaner, cheaper energy. enough with these messeninging bills and move to bipartisan bills that help us sustain a future, banning offshore drilling off the beautiful florida coast is where we should start. so i hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to recommit. i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this amendment into the record and i yield back to my good friend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. huffman: i thank the gentlelady. and i would point out if our friends across the aisle are so concerned about american energy bills, you would think they would at some point say no to the l.n.g. export extravaganza that all serious economic analysis shows is driving up u.s. energy prices and yet they continue to come to this floor and introduce legislation to advocate against the commonsense

pause that the biden administration has taken to we can look at the impacts of more l.n.g. infrastructure on u.s. energy prices as well as our climate crisis. with that i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from arkansas is recognized. mr. westerman: a lot of things to contest here and issues to cover, but i want to start with this idea of environmental treasurers and this idea that anwr was this environmental treasure that never was intended for any kind of development. let's look at some history when anwr was created in 1980, the law included a section, section 1002 setting aside 1.5 million acre of the coastal plane to be assessed for the developmental potential. after years of study the department of interior recommended this section 1002 area be open to responsible development projects. the alaska native village which has public interest in the lands

in anwr and multiple entities as members of voice is a sole community located in 1002 area of anwr and the only community located in all of the over 19 million acres of anwr. to quote the testimony of the president of the city and corporation, we are a small community that suffers as the federal winds blow and feel the biden administration is working to erase us from the land we inhabited for a number of years. since 1980 we fought to open the 1002 area also known as the coastal plane to oil drilling and pursue economic freedom. on to another issue my friend from california mentioned about the poor air quality there due to forest fires. if you would work with us on that we could fix that issue as well. what california has is very, very poor forest management. they have a hands off approach

to forest management and as a result of that, we're even losing giant sequoias, as much as 20% of the ones on the planet we lost in two years due to catastrophic wildfire, not because of climate change but because fire had been suppressed in those groves for over a hundred years and finally had to pay the piper. you had white fur trees that grew up in the lower canopy of the sequoias. i hope the gentleman from california knows i'm a forester and would love to fix some of the problems with forests in california. now to this issue about energy costs and reliability. and as my friends are pushing for more solar and wind, which i'm an all of the above energy kind of guy, i'd love to have more solar and more wind but we have to have base flow power. we have to have either coal or

natural gatt or a lot more hydro, or a lot move nuclear power. going back to a discussion, that nuclear power is generated from uranium we're dependent on russia now. we have to buy our uranium, most of it, from russia or kazakhstan to generate our nuclear power. when we talk about low cost solar energy, i have a real problem with that. maybe it's low cost in the united states because we pay solar farm developers 30% of their costs with our tax dollars. if you build a solar farm, you get a 30% tax credit back. so spend $1 million, you get $300,000 back from your fellow taxpayers. if you build a windmill, you get 2.7 cents per kilowatt hour. maybe that's the way it's lower cost but if it's truly lower cost, why doesn't the number one manufacturer of solar farms in the world, why arehe