Markup of: • H.R. 1501 (Rep. Shreve)

The committee will come to order. The chair notes the presence of a quorum pursuant to committee rules. Members of the committee may submit written opening statements for the record. I ask that members may revise and extend the remarks on the bills to be considered at this mark-up, and have those remarks included in the record without objection. So ordered. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recess of the committee at any Pursuant to Committee Rule three I, the Chair announces that he may postpone further proceedings today on the question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an amendment on which a recorded vote is ordered. I now recognize myself for an opening statement. Good morning and thank you for joining us for the full committee mark-up. Today we're considering two bills under regular order. Both of them work to secure the future of domestic mining in our country. And it's no secret that the US has become dependent on on imported critical minerals as a result of public policy decisions that undermine investment and development of our own domestic supplies. Critical minerals like copper and cobalt are essential for national security, for energy security, for industrial competitiveness and economic growth across every sector. Our modern world, every new technological advancement from cutting-edge artificial intelligence to the smartphones in our pockets, deepens our increases for our demand for critical minerals. One thing is clear. To reduce our foreign dependence, we must increase the domestic mining of critical minerals. The first step in that process is permitting reform. Right now, it takes nineteen years on average to bring a new mine into operation in the United States. Permitting reform would fix this. Reforms under FAST-forty-one have made some improvements to federal agency coordination and the timeliness of environmental reviews. However, we must continue to remove the red tape and address the the endless litigation surrounding critical infrastructure projects. To see this necessity, one doesn't have to look very far. Last month, after twelve years of lawsuits and delays, the Resolution copper mine cleared the final hurdle. The mine, which will strengthen our domestic copper supply chain and support good-paying jobs, spent over a decade in permitting purgatory because of endless lawsuits and delays. Delays in permitting drive up cost, halt economic growth, stifle American innovation, and our reliance on foreign adversaries for critical minerals. We are at a crucial point in history. The decisions we make today will help determine whether U the US will continue to lead the world in technological advancement and economic prosperity or allow our adversaries to fill that void. Today's regular order bills help us choose the path to unleash domestic mining. The Protecting Domestic Mining Act of twenty twenty-five, introduced by Representative will codify mining as a covered sector under the FAST Act and ensure its coverage for mining projects in the future. But mining is only part of a domestic mineral supply chain. As many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle frequently point out, our country needs domestic processing facilities for minerals that we mine here. My ANS modifies Mister Sri's bill to include mineral processing and expedite permitting for these facilities to more fully develop our mineral supply chains. represented a barge critical mineral supply chain resiliency act would act would add actions taken by the secretary of war under the defense production act of nineteen fifty to the list of covered projects eligible for FAST forty-one expedited permitting passage of these two bills will provide predictability for regulators and producers and encourage development of our own domestic supply chains to my colleagues who believe we must counter China's mineral processing capability and produce Vote for these bills to help sure that our minerals are made in America. Finally, we will consider six unanimous consent bills on which we have reached bipartisan agreement. The bills showcase the range of the committee's jurisdiction from supporting the US fishing industry against illegal unreported and unregulated fishing, and requiring annual competitive geothermal lease sales to supporting critical water infrastructure and strengthening the American battlefield protection program. As we celebrate, our nation's two hundred fiftieth birthday. Again, I want to thank the sponsoring members for their work on these hard bills. I look forward to discussions today and I yield back. And I'll recognize the ranking member for an opening statement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today's mark-up uh is another example of our Republican friends using this committee to push permitting short cuts for multinational mining corporations instead of doing the hard work of advancing responsible balanced mineral policy. uh, the kind of policy at this moment demands. We can all agree that we have been over-reliant on our adversaries for critical minerals for too long. We should be able to agree that environmental destruction and hist the history of human rights abuses tied to the mining industry are also unacceptable practices that have to be considered and corrected. As demand for these minerals increases, we must prioritize American security, sustainability, and human rights throughout the supply chain. we need to be strategic. We can and must meet our country's needs while minimizing harm and actually benefiting communities but the Trump administration and Republican leadership in Congress has been focusing more on creating loopholes and giveaways to multimillion dollar multi-billion dollar corporations that actually um uh are part of the problem rather than solving the problem. The hallmark of these efforts of course is breath-taking, corruption and grift.

Yes.

The administration continues to announce new deals to take equity stakes in companies behind closed doors and to issue massive Defense Production Act grants to sometimes questionable companies and projects. And they just coincidentally, uh, keep enriching Trump family members and MAGA cronies. There are huge questions around the Export-Import Bank's twelve billion dollar project vault, among other, uh, examples. The brazen grift and self-dealing that we are seeing makes teapot dome look like a quaint affair, whether it is President's uh, President Trump's own son, Secretary Letnick's sons, or major campaign donors, Democrats are asking hard questions about these things. Our Republican colleagues here in Congress are just looking away. And the administration is silent in the face of these questions, almost like the Trump administration has something to hide. Now I am extremely reluctant right now about handing this administration any more power to skip uh to tip the scales further. One of the bills that we'll debate today would codify mining as a covered sector under FAST forty-one. Uh and that title forty-one of the FAST Act created an alternative permitting system for covered infrastructure projects covered projects can be part of eighteen specific sectors including energy production uh surface transportation, semiconductors, and more. And mining is currently considered a covered sector by a regulation adopted during the first Trump administration but not by statute. Fast forty-one permitting process includes some positive transparency provisions, uh, such as a centralized public platform that tracks federal permitting timelines and milestones. But it also places some limits on public input and judicial review, including court-ordered protections. And my concern here around the experience, um, of the communities that have dealt with these project firsthand, uh, informs my view of, uh, this legislation. In May uh of twenty twenty-three, the first mining project to be permitted under FAST-forty-one was added to the dashboard. It was the Hermosa project in the Patagonia Mountains southeast of Tucson, Arizona, in Representative Adelita Grijalva's district. And her constituents have continued to express significant concerns about deficiencies in the permitting process about the project's potential significant impacts on the area's scarce water resources and its renowned biodiversity. The community has advocated for significantly more transparency and cooperation through the FAST-forty-one process, but they haven't received that. Uh, the community would tell you, and Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva will tell you, that they feel like guinea pigs, uh, the first to go through this process, and they haven't seen enough benefit to merit the compressed permitting process. Now the Biden administration at attempted to narrow the mining industry's broad eligibility to just critical mineral minerals and to include important downstream processing in their review. Unfortunately, that rule was never finalized and in fact the Trump administration has proceeded to fast-track entirely uncritical uh minerals, gold mines, with unclear benefits to Americans as a whole. I stand ready to work with my colleagues on this issue to secure our mineral supply chain so we can uh be prepared for the clean energy transition and support other critical priorities but we have to listen to these communities and we have to be more thoughtful and strategic as we go forward with that I yield back.

Gentleman yields back pursuant to the mark-up notices now in order to consider H R fifteen O one the protecting domestic mining act of twenty twenty five. Ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on any energy and mineral resources be discharged from further consideration of the bill. Without objection, so ordered. Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open to amendment at any point. Does any member wish to be recognized for purpose of debate on the bill? Mister Stalbert, you're recognized.

Mister Speaker, uh, confirming Representative Shree's fifteen O one, correct?

Great.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chairman. I wanna rise in strong support of HR fifteen O one, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act of twenty twenty five, which will ensure domestic mining projects are to enjoy the benefits of title forty-one of the bipartisan and wildly successful FAST Act. The FAST Act has been used to permit and build countless projects that are necessary for our country's national and economic security. And under the Trump administration, mining projects have been eligible. By codifying mining and mineral processing projects, we will ensure that these important projects are able to enjoy this benefit. No matter if we have a pro-mining like President Trump in office, or an anti-mining president like President Biden in office. My district in northern Minnesota is home to proposed projects like the New Range Copper Nickel Project which is enjoying the benefits of FAST forty-one as a transparency-less project and I'm excited that New Range will soon have the full benefits of FAST forty-one when it reapplies for its Clean Water Act permit, in the coming weeks. And now that the United States Senate has acted on my CRA resolution that overtook the Biden Administration's Northern Minnesota mining ban, I look forward to additional projects which will finally have the opportunity to move forward in the permitting process, will be able to benefit from FAST-forty-one. This is a great benefit, not only for these projects or for Northern Minnesota, but a benefit for our entire nation and our strategic national mineral security. By passing Representative Shreve's legislation, we will we will provide greater certainty during the permitting process and ensure

Gentlemen yields back. Is there further discussion? Mister Hoffman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I uh oppose this legislation. Now, uh the original FAST Act, title forty-one of the FAST Act, uh created a fast-track permitting process for infrastructure projects and mining, was uh, in that program's original statute. It was added in later by regulation in the waning days of the first Trump administration, and I opposed that move at the time, because mining projects are often the most environmentally damaging industry projects, especially when they're poorly planned. They are simply not a good fit for fast-track permitting procedures. If you're gonna do mining right, it takes time. It takes a lot of care and thoughtful attention to impacted communities and it takes thorough tribal consultation among other things. Working with those communities is meaningless if there's not flexibility and a genuine responsiveness to their concerns and unfortunately, in the case of mining, we have an undermine, underlying uh permitting law, the mining law of eighteen seventy-two that simply does not set up for success in a streamlined permitting uh context. The mining law of eighteen seventy-two was It's built on principle that uh a miner can claim any open federal land they want, that it is their right to mine it, no matter what, no matter who they may harm along the way. And it has left a trail of destruction in its wake all over the West, with tribal communities bearing the brunt of the impacts. Now, I understand mining is important. We do need some new mining. I acknowledge that. We also need guardrails. I also acknowledge that FAST forty-one can come with some benefits, the increased transparency is one of the most important ones, and some additional resources uh for local governments as well. The transparency is especially important compared to the administration's so-called emergency permitting process that it's trying to rush uh some projects through in as little as fourteen days. But uh there are also some tangible downsides of the FAST-forty-one process. And to build an industry that

Gentlemen yields back, is there further discussion? I recognize myself. I do support H R fifteen O one, sponsored

Mm.

by Representative Shrieve, which extends FAST forty-one eligibility to mining and mineral processing. Last week, the Senate passed Mister Stauber's HJ res one forty, which reverses a Biden-era land withdrawal that had locked up the world-class mineral resources of Minnesota's Duluth complex. This action represents a historic milestone in the effort to secure domestic mineral supply chains, and it should be celebrated by Americans across the country. However, mur- much work remains to be done. Companies interested in mining domestic mineral resources still face uncertain permitting timelines and seemingly endless bureaucracy. The Trump administration has been working to expedite mining projects through the FAST Act authorities, which authorized the FAST forty-one permitting dashboard to maximize transparency and efficiency in the permitting process. In just over a year, fifteen mining operations have been permitted through the FAST forty-one dashboard. This impressive record stands in stark contrast to that of the Biden administration, which across four years permitted exactly zero new mines through the FAST-forty-one program. Given their immense importance to our economic and national security interests, all mining projects should be eligible for streamlined permitting under the FAST Act. Mister Shree's bill, the Protecting Domestic Mining Act, makes that common sense vision a reality. But mining mining is only one part of a mineral supply. As we've all noted, uh, our country also needs domestic processing facilities for minerals uh that we mine here. The bill has amended uh the bill which was amended by my A and S will give them an opportunity to put their votes where the rhetoric is. Uh, my A and S will modify Mister Sri's bill to extend FAST-forty-one coverage to mineral processing to expedite permitting for those facilities and to more fully Right. Mm-hmm. and i yield back is there further discussion

madam i'm sorry mister chair

you're recognized

i'm just so used to being in the rules committee with a junior um uh thank you so very much mister chair and i just wanted to respond to something that was raised by you as well as representative stauber and that is the fact that uh the senate did move forward on allowing mining mining uh near the boundary And we had fought that really forcefully because in the rules committee, I asked Mister Staber, where will this material go? After mining in the boundary waters where any mistake because of the kind that is gonna be done, could have devastating impacts because of the way the elements are diffused in water.

with the general general of the year

what i i will when i am done and i asked him where will this material go he didn't wanna answer the question but in the end he had to it's going to china that's where it'll be processed and it doesn't matter that you say oh we want it to be different today that is what is happening and we are doing nothing every chance we have to do something to prevent china from getting access to our precious minerals that they are able to do under the law now for free. So we keep making it easier every time we have a chance to rein in China or North Korea, Russia or Iran. This committee says now is not the time. And I wanna bring that up, it broke my heart to see that this happened and that those

thank you representative Fernandez uh Fernandez and i appreciate your comments, i do wanna correct the record, uh you made the statement there's mining in the boundary waters. uh then i must have misheard you,

yeah

you know there's gonna be no mine,

Well, I think the waters are all connected, so the uh the the definition I said near the boundary waters, and I think that

And there's gonna be no and there's gonna be no mining in the buffer zone as well.

OK, is are the waters do the waters connect each other upstream? Upstream and upstream.

So, what my my my

So are the waters connected?

My my question is, you know there's gonna be no mining in the boundary waters. There's gonna be no mining in the buffer zone. And for those listening, um, the superior national forest is a working industrial forest, where mining and timber harvesting are desired activities. Um, I would ask you just one question. What, what mine are you talking about that has the permits?

Well, you have now removed the ability to prevent permits, and you have yourself said you want, you answered the question is, if there is going to be a mine here, where is the material going? And that's what we will, that's the question i was asking is what protections are we putting in place to protect the waters that lead because as far as i know water flows and that's what happens is when water flows downstream and if it is contaminated it contaminates the water's downstream and that is the kind of protection that we were seeking uh by opposing uh your uh yeah your

there's if you would just indulge me

overturning the cra

uh first of all i appreciate the time i appreciate our conversation um i asked what mining company is gonna mine there

well the the question i'll ask you you answered the question when i asked you on rules committee where will this material go and you said do you remember what you said

yeah

what did you say

uh

Uh, the mine plan of operation, I think you're you're you're referring to twin metals. I don't know how you can be so sure because the mine plan of operation hasn't come forward yet. And it still has to any mine or helium project must go through the rigorous permitting standards both on the federal and the state level. It still has to go through there. So I hope you support, I hope you support the permit permitting process and have trust in the permitting process.

So, uh, under this administration I don't trust the permitting process, honestly. And I think that that's the, that's the concern is we have seen this administration not be very supportive of environmental regulations. And my time has expired, so I can no longer, uh, yield you time cuz mine is expired. Thank you very much, Mister Chair.

General ladies, Tom's expired. Is there further discussion?

Mister Chairman.

Mister Fulcher, you're breaking out.

Thank you. I'd like to yield some time to Mister Stauber.

thank you very much i think that um my good friend and colleague uh we are on a different spectrum on this particular issue uh we have talked about uh the anti-mining groups mister chair have talked about mining in the boundary waters i want the people to know there's never mining in the boundary waters or the buffer zone this cra uh which passed uh you still need the permitting at both the federal and the state level. No project is is is green-lighted whatsoever. What this did is reverse the dangerous and illegal mining ban that the Biden administration put forward in the biggest copper nickel find in the world. It still has to go through the permitting process. It still has to at both at the federal and the state level. And and by the way, my good friend, uh, Miss Legere Fernandez, you're gonna have an opportunity to support the processing uh in this country, cuz that's where we're moving towards. You have to be able to mine first, and then the processing comes after. You can't build a processing center or centers in the United States, or refining centers without mining happening first. Well, I can't. You have to have the mining first. You have to get the time. Mining comes first, processing comes second. And I yield.

Uh, Representative Straubel, before you yield, since I yielded you time,

Yes, fair enough.

uh, I think it's, I think it's, and you have just, oh my God, can we stay arguing for another three hour, thirty three minutes and thirty two seconds. I I do appreciate the debate and uh this just uh closed on me, but I think that it is within the boundaries of the watershed of the boundary waters, and I think that that's key, it's within the watershed, and I need to tell you, I come from New Mexico, water is so precious there, we call it water is life, but there is nowhere I think in the world where you don't call water life, 'cause you realize how important it is, how precious it is, and how fragile it is. So, I know water, I worked on water before I came to the, to, to the United States. Water does not respect a boundary line. It doesn't say, " Oh, now I'm in the wilderness area, now I'm not." Anything that is water-borne will move from one area to the other, and that is what the concern is. So to start making these sort of rigid

No, I I I I appreciate this. I got a two minutes left. You su you you support the permitting process. I I'm I'm assuming you support the permitting process.

I'd I I mentioned earlier uh i believe that right at this present moment i do not trust the trump administration with the permitting process because they've made it very clear that they're gonna do everything they can uh to favor uh mining corporations to favor oil and gas corporations they were willing to pay a billion dollars

we

to a french corporation just so they would not build a wind farm

we can't

like that's that's the kind of that's the kind of kind of actions that you leave down. They have they have worked to eliminate you asked me a question.

Rec reclaim reclaim reclaiming my time. We have to not allow the Chinese Communist Party to dictate uh critical minerals and their processing any longer. This administration is the most pro-mining administration in the history of this country. We have to secure our critical minerals. Minnesota, the iron range is a powerhouse, and we're gonna continue to do that. We've been mining on the iron range for a hundred and forty-six years, uh, um, mining the iron ore, uh that makes over eighty percent of this nation's steel, uh in in uh northern Minnesota. And the cleanest water in northern Minnesota is bual water, it comes right out of the ground, we drink it right out of the ground, in the heart of mining co- country. We know how to do it, we're gonna do it right, and we're gonna help this country strategically take care of our critical minerals and not allow China to dominate in a yield.

Mister Stauber, Mister Stauber, will you yield for Question.

Yes, I will.

So you talked about the the uh open pit mining for iron ore in the clean water. What kind of mining, if a mine were approved, what kind of mining would uh the copper mines be in Minnesota?

Well, I think that uh I think that represented L. Ledger Fernandez has uh it's gonna be an underground mine between uh four hundred and to four thousand feet um uh what I'm hearing is it gonna be dry stacked tailings, which is twenty first century

uh a mining and we have the technology to do that

thank you

thank you

gentlemen thomas expires for further discussion mr. soto you're recognized

and I yield

thank you

and I yield

thank you so much and i yield to our esteemed ranking member

um i thank the gentleman we are having some adventures in gaslighting right now um and so i i wanna ask um ranking member legion fernandez a question i mean we're having a debate in the context of legislation that is essentially saying that the mining industry despite its horrific record throughout history of uh, leaving all sorts of destruction and waste and pollution in its wake. Uh, despite all of the corruption and grift that we've come to associate uh, with this industry, that we should trust them. Uh, with a, the gift of streamlined permitting, that we should place them in this position of trust, um, as if everything's gonna be just fine. And you know, if, for an industry that's asking for to have their champion continue to say stuff like, well there won't be mining inside the boundary waters. Um, it it speaks to a little problem I think that we have in this moment. So so ranking member Ledger Fernandez, tell me if I got this wrong, but the proposed twin metal mine is just upstream from the boundary waters,

Mm-hmm.

right?

Right, and that's the issue of to say it's not in the boundary waters, those water, it's in the water. that make up the cause remember the boundary waters is the designation of the

the wilderness yeah

right and so i don't know that anybody has ever gone to a lake anybody gone to a lake and looked at that lake and said oh but there is a jurisdictional line right there no problem i can pollute on this side of the jurisdictional line cause it's not gonna affect the other side anybody who knows water anybody who knows water you are filled up your tub with water. And sometimes, you know

And and that is is sort of the point I think that we need to sharpen uh amazingly, uh in the context of this uh debate. We were just told that there's been decades and decades of mining in the Iron Range of Minnesota it's all been done safely and cleanly.

Yes.

You know what, there hasn't been copper nickel mining.

Yeah.

Copper nickel mining is what Twin Metals is all about, this huge mine that's gonna be proposed just upstream from America's most visited wilderness, the Boundary Waters. Copper nickel mines have a one hundred percent leakage record. Every single copper nickel mine in our in our known history has polluted. It's leaked. Things always go wrong. And so my question uh to you, Miss Ledger-Fernandez, is when, not if, but when the twin metals copper nickel mine leaks and pollutes, as we know it will, where's that gonna go?

I think that would be a

OK, I will. I I mean,

It's clear where it's gonna go.

mister s-

I mean, anybody who knows how water works, especially if it's heading downstream,

Mister Stauber,

it's gonna go.

when when this mine pollutes, as a hundred percent of the copper nickel mines throughout history have done, um, is there anything to magically stop it at the boundaries of America's most visited wilderness? Have you developed a s- a a jurisdictional stop on that pollution, as a p-

Uh, mister ranking member, you talk about gaslighting, uh, you are uh, you are,

What did I get wrong?

you are the champion,

You give me one fact that I got wrong.

you're the, you're the champion of gaslighting,

One fact that I got wrong.

you're, you're,

Give me one fact.

you're, you're gaslighting and you know it.

Okay, well you can throw terms, but give me a fact.

You

I told you the facts and you got wrong.

You're gas, you're gaslighting again. Uh, so, there, there's a permitting process they're gonna go through.

All right, I'm gonna reclaim my time. I'm reclaiming my time. We, we've heard enough industry public speak on this,

You, if you ask, if you ask me a question I have to have the ability to answer it.

and so I reclaim my time.

So you're gaslighting,

no vote this is not a moment to trust an industry that can't tell the truth

um it has to go through the it has to go through the permitting process both the federal permitting and the state permitting process meeting will come to an end

ok i will say there is uh the question

the meeting will come to an end it's got to go through the permitting process both the federal and the state

i'm gonna reclaim i think i'm the one who said you asked me a question i had the time

no but

but let's make it really clear cause he had asked me a question so you yielded to me so i had the time and i have think staff is saying yes so we have fifty minutes fifty seconds left the science is showing that when you have Friend, you have a leak that it will then flow down into river discharge and aquifer discharge, cuz it's both. And yes, the mine is gonna be underground. But the problem is leakage and discharges of this acid and these heavy metals, doesn't stay underground, it goes into the watershed. And I come from a watershed that had these kinds of problems. Copper copper should be mined in places that aren't connected to water. It's not like you can't mine them, but be careful. And for that, I think what goes to the actual science of your question, and with that I yield back, Mister Chair.

Ladies and Ladies, Thomas Expire, Mister Herger, recognized.

Mister Chairman, I would like to yield my time to the gentleman from Minnesota, Mister Stauber.

Woman's recognized. Thank you very much. Uh, spirited discussion. Um, the uh, Ontario,

built a mine in the Rainier River watershed, same watershed, it's a Rainier River gold mine, and they built it in three years. And um, the uh, the opportunities uh that arise not only in Minnesota but across this nation, my good friend said uh, we we can't mine copper there. The good Lord blessed us in Minnesota, in many states in this nation, with these critical uh minerals, that we're gonna mine responsibly, we're we demand uh permitting both at the state and the federal level. Uh, and in one of these uh cases that Twin Metal's referred to, um, there's a project labor agreement in it, and it uh, that that means there's gonna be union labor. Approximately three million person hours of union labor are gonna help build this mine. Uh, we've got s- currently we have six hundred miners out of a job, and this is gonna give them uh, uh, uh, an opportunity uh, to uh, as American workers, to mine these critical minerals to build this plant. And I'm looking forward to the process to start. Um, as uh, as I've said before, uh, there's some that believe uh, uh, uh, mining should happen, uh, anywhere but America, any worker but the American worker. Uh, the opportunities we have are before us. We cannot allow the communist country of China to dominate within critical minerals. Minnesota is going to answer the We are gonna lead in this uh mining uh uh uh of critical minerals, just like we are continuing to lead in the mining of iron ore that makes over eighty percent of the steel uh in this great nation. We have the opportunity to do it, um and we're gonna do it right. Uh, we have uh, we have the twenty first century technology um and the mining, the technology within the mining arena gets better and better and better every year. I was in uh uh Greens Creek uh mine in Alaska. I saw a twenty some year old miner uh with that drilling uh equipment uh following the silver in that mine uh perfectly, and uh doing it the right way. Um uh we can have both. It can be a win-win uh for our strategic national security uh and the workers and of course uh the environment. We know how to do it in Minnesota. We demand it. This is my backyard. My CRA passed uh this uh the house in a bipartisan fashion. Uh and it passed the Senate uh last week despite my two uh federal US senators opposing it actively whipping against it. Uh I'm proud of the Senate for passing it, and I'm looking forward to uh President Trump signing this important CRA into law, so we can move forward and start mining these critical minerals, not just talking about it, not just saying. how important mining is and then when you have the opportunity to support it, you don't. Uh, Mister Chair, I appreciate your uh leadership, I appreciate my colleagues' leadership uh within the mining space. Um, I know that uh my colleagues on the other uh side of the aisle uh um, you know, have different views on this, but um, the representative from Northern Minnesota uh, I am unwavering uh in my support for mining and the men and women that are gonna do this, and the families

Mister Chair, I have a unanimous consent request.

Hard. Mister Chair and I I yield the remainder of my time back as well.

Mister Chair and I.

You know.

Mister Chair, sorry.

The gentleman has yielded back. Do you have a request?

Yeah, but Mister uh uh Chair, I request unanimous consent to enter into the record uh December thirteen, two thousand thirteen, we titled Technical Memorandum, Twin Metals Mining in the Battery Waters, Canoe Error, Wilderness Risk Assessment for Underground Metals Mining, which focused on the essential facts demonstrating why copper nickel mining from sulfide ores threatens irreparable harm to pricely priceless priceless northern forest ecosystems, uh done by Doctor Tom Myers.

Adjection? So ordered. Further discussion on the bill? Uh, Mister Baggett, you're recognized.

You know, we're we're talking about the track record of mining today, as part of this discussion. You know, civilization itself is the track record of mining. We sit in a chamber that is the track record of mining. We have cell phones in front of us that are the track record of mining. We got here today in vehicles that are the track record of mining. And uh, when we talk about the track record, I think we need to m- make sure that we recognize that the track record of mining is makes civilization, the world that we exist in today, possible. Um, we we hear so much uh from our our our colleagues across the aisle about the energy transition. Well, uh, according to most estimates, that transition and the normal economic growth that we're going to see in the next fifty years is gonna require more copper to be mined than has been mined in the history of human civilization. We can't get to that outcome without mining. And if we're gonna do mining, we should do it where we know that it's done best. We know that it's done best here in the United States. And so, uh, for folks like myself who care about the environment, we need to make sure that the mining is done where the environmental rules are in existence and they're enforced. And that's in the United States. And with that, I yield back.

Gentlemen, yield this back. Is there further discussion? Hearing none, it's now in order to consider amendments to H R fifteen O one. We will now consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R fifteen O one, offered by the chair, designated Westerman sixty-six A and S. Without objection, the amendment is considered read and open to amendment at any point. I now recognize myself. And as I mentioned the in the legislative hearing for this bill, it is common sense that mineral processing in a day in addition to mining itself should be eligible for FAST forty-one. expedited permitting. And as Mister Begich alluded to, every single thing in this room that you can touch was either grown or mined. Even the uh the electrons that are emitting the light out of the light fixtures depend on mining. Uh we cannot move forward as a civilization without mining more, and recycling is important to that. But as Mister Begich mentioned, just in copper alone, it says, estimated we need to mine more copper in the next couple of decades than we've mined in the history of the world if the united states is going to achieve critical mineral dominance then we must mine here and refine here and then after that hopefully we will manufacture here because we've exported all of that or a big part of that overseas and the you know another thing about mining is you're actually releasing the wealth of the earth and if we're depending on other countries mine, refine, and process, and manufacture, uh and then we purchase those goods, not only are we doing harm to the environment, we're also exporting the wealth of this nation to other nations. My uh amendment to the ANS accomplishes the objective of assuring that we don't just extract minerals in the US, that but they can be processed here as well. I urge my colleagues to support the ANS and the underlying bill, and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the ANS?

Mister Chair.

Mister Saubre.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I want to briefly rise in support of the ANS H R fifteen O one, and specifically want to point out how the ANS strengthens the underlying bill, by, among other things, adding mineral processing projects to the list of covered projects under the FAST Act. As my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Representative Thanks, Michael. I think she and I are in full agreement, that in addition to upstream mining capacity, we need to expand our mineral processing capacity here in the United States. By adding mineral processing to the list of covered projects under the FAST Act we will bring additional domestic mineral processing online, which again, my good friend from New Mexico and I both agree is imperative. Accordingly, I urge Representative Leger-Fernandez and all of my colleagues on the committee to join me in supporting this ANS and the underlying bill. And I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion on the ANS? There's no further discussion on the amendment. It's now in order to consider amendments

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a common sense and straightforward amendment. Uh, it would limit what is codified as a covered section uh, a covered sector under fast forty-one to just critical minerals. And it would strike section three of the bill. Section three prevents anyone from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the Biden administration's proposed rule relating to the scope of mining under FAST-forty-one, under the FAST Act. And just as a reminder, the Biden administration proposed a rule that would limit the sector's eligibility to critical minerals and expand it to include downstream critical mineral supply chain activities like processing and recycling. Now first, by expanding the scope of the sector beyond just critical minerals, uh the Trump administration is giving a massive benefit to mining projects that don't benefit our country as a whole. Without my amendment, a gold mine, which is not and has never been critical, could otherwise take resources away from a recycling and processing project that produces lithium, cobalt, cobalt, uh and rare earth minerals that we actually need. Fast forty-one was designed to support priority projects, not everything. if some disagree with parts of the process, I think we should all be able to agree that if everything is a priority, then nothing is a priority. If we all have the same goal, which should be to shore up our critical mineral supply chains and reduce our reliance on our adversaries for these minerals that are essential to our economy, uh, we should have some discipline here. And they should, uh, be able to support my amendment. Finally, I just want to ask, uh, this bill is called the Protecting Domestic Mining Act, uh, what is the sponsor really trying to protect, uh, the domestic mining sector from? A common sense Biden regulation to add processing and recycling and to make sure that any permitted benef- permitting benefits are focused on the minerals we actually need uh and not just everything. I don't think we need protection from that. I think that was good policy direction. I don't interpret section three as preventing a future administration from working on a new regulation, but it is worth clarifying that it is not the intent of Congress that that happens. So at the end of the day, this bill, um, as we've said, is just a dig at a Biden administration policy. Uh, I would think we had better things to do, but, uh, I would also hope that we would support this amendment to make this bill a little bit better. And with that, I yield back.

Gentlemen yields back. Is there further discussion? I recognize myself. I do oppose. because limiting FAST forty-one eligibility exclusively to uh minerals on the critical minerals list could create future uncertainty for developers. For instance, what if uh permitting starts under one USGS critical minerals list and that list is changed in the middle of the permitting process? Um then you're back to a a loophole to allow outside groups to stop mining from happening we need to create more certainty in the permitting process and um basing a statute on something that could change with a different administration uh only creates uncertainty so i'll oppose the amendment urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and i yield back is there further discussion on the amendment if there's no further discussion on the amendment the questions on the amendment offered by

aye

those opposed no opinion of the chair the no's have it

request recorded

a recorded vote is requested uh further proceedings on this amendment will be postponed we will now consider the amendment designated ledger fernandez number one offered by the gentlewoman from new mexico miss ledger fernandez without objection the amendment is considered read miss ledger fernandez you are now recognized

thank you very much uh mister chairman uh and uh my amendment basically prohibits a mining project from qualifying for fast-forwarding permitting if it is owned by a foreign entity of concern or subsidiary of a foreign entity of concern it's pretty simple this bill basically offers a benefit to mining companies and we should not offer that benefit to our enemies we should not offer that benefit to china to north korea uh to russia or to run i mean those are our enemies right we kinda know who they are and i have offered this amendment seven times every time you bring a bill dealing with mining i suggest that we follow representative molinar's proposal to limit foreign influence of our adversaries In every single bill. And every single time I bring it, this committee says, oh no, it won't work, sorry, we can't do it now, maybe later. So I am gonna keep bringing these kinds of amendments until this committee decides that we should not be putting China first. We should be putting them second, third or fourth. But you keep doing that. You keep refusing to take the steps to say in this instance, no. And you come up with these ideas of saying, oh, but if we did that, then China could control. It's like the convoluted pretzels you put yourselves in to try to say that if we said, if we say China can't do this, then we won't have those mines. Well, guess what? Talk about copper mine, guess where they have some of the largest copper mines in production? New Mexico. Guess who owns that company? An American company. So maybe if we said, China you can't come in here and take advantage of these things, we'd have American companies coming in and taking advantage. How about that? That would make so much sense. And, you know, in this room last year, I asked secretary Burgum if he would support legislation to stop foreign adversaries from getting our critical memorables for free. And he said, and I quote, "I don't think we should be allowing foreign adversaries to mine critical minerals in our country, close quote. Well, I agree with Secretary Brigham. We should not allow foreign adversaries to mine our critical minerals, and this is a step that we could take to prevent that. Why do you wanna give them every little advantage possible? We should every time there is an advantage say no. But this administration is constantly giving our foreign adversaries, benefits. Trump's tariffs have been great for China. Right? Everybody has to acknowledge that. China is in a much stronger position on a range of issues because of Trump. Trump just lifted the sanctions against Russia. So, Russia is able to deliver its oil outside of the sanctions, billions of dollars are gonna flow to russia and they might say oh because of the war well he shouldn't have started that war in the first place and i think that it is about time that we say we're not gonna continue to give benefits to our foreign adversaries and we're gonna finally say no and i'm gonna say it again this wasn't my idea this wasn't my idea this was chairman chairman muliner from the select committee It was your colleague. It was a committee that was set up to look at how do we limit China's influence. And you were saying no to their resolution. I think that it's about time that we say no to the country whose satellites are boosting Iran's war effort. If there ever was a time to say, no to china it would be now their satellites are helping iran target our assets regardless of whether you think that war should have been started now i don't think it should i think it's hurting americans we should at least not help the country that's helping our enemy and with that mister chair i urge a yes vote this seventh time on my amendment to limit china's influence in our mining And I yield back, exactly on time.

The General Lady yields back, I recognize myself. Uh, I oppose the amendment, but maybe to the General Lady's surprise, I don't oppose what Secretary Burgum said, I don't oppose what Mister Mulliner has reported, and I don't oppose your position either, Miss Leader Fernandez. Um, but this amendment would insert a definition for foreign entity of concern and restrict such entities from undertaking priority mining projects under the bill. The reason we don't need this amendment is because this has already been taken care of through an act of Congress. Congress has addressed the issue through previous legislation and has passed well-considered restrictions on Chinese ownership. Uh, additionally, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, or CFIUS, already reviews foreign investments in American businesses to assess any national security risk. this section uh area of legislation is actually not even in the committee jurisdiction of natural resources and what this amendment would do would create an ambiguous and untested standard that could inadvertently uh prevent non-Chinese publicly traded companies from mining domestically and it could be easily manipulated by the Chinese Communist Party by um if if we set some limit of ten percent ownership

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mm.

Well, to use a Trump term, that was quite a weave. Uh, we heard about committee jurisdiction and it's sort of been addressed elsewhere. and a few other things and a little bit of hand waving, all to oppose a common sense straightforward amendment, which if it's already been addressed, what's the problem of just making it really clear? In this bill, I mean, uh, our colleagues are telling us that they don't wanna keep giving away our critical minerals to, uh, our adversaries who may have an equity stake in these mining companies. Why not just shut that down right here, uh, in a clear and specific way. We we can do that. That is within our jurisdiction, cuz this bill is before our committee right now. So, I don't understand this whole weaving, hand-waving reluctance. Uh, and and I think it speaks to the bigger problem that Ranking Member Leger Fernandez has been trying to address. Uh, without an amendment like this, these giveaways that we keep offering up to the mining industry are not being tough on China, that's just sloganeering. We just hear slogan after slogan about confronting China, but in in reality, if you look what's actually gonna happen uh with these giveaways to the mining industry, it's a gift to China. I mean the People's Republic of China should be c cosponsoring this legislation without the amendment that the ranking member from New Mexico is proposing. So I wanna commend the gentlelady for continuing to bring this up, for continuing

Well, I think you could and I do appreciate it.

Thank you.

So thank you. Uh, so I wanna

right

we saw them try to explain why they can't do this now we are congress we write the laws if you're unwilling to write a law that says china doesn't get to take advantage of our mineral resources and every time we pass a law that fast tracks or gives another benefit to a mining company we not make it applicable if China has a major role. And to say it's been taken care of, let's look at Rio Tinto. The Republicans set it up so Rio Tinto could operate a copper mine in Arizona. We fought it on lots of different issues. It happened before I got here, so I wasn't able to offer this amendment. But Rio Tinto, uh, is the largest shareholder. This isn't just a small stake. The largest shareholder in Rio Tinto is China, a Chinese corporation. So, this is not being taken care of, and until we say it will apply here, it will apply every single time we get there, and yes, we can draft it in a manner that makes sense, and, What a company can do is say, " We're not by we're not allowing interest. You are not allowed to buy a stake in our company. If you're from one of our adversaries, we do that all the time. We do that all the time on other areas where we say it is a national security interest, China doesn't get to get an interest. So it's not like we don't have jurisdiction. We are Congress, and we can say we're gonna make this happen. We can go and have a conversation with any

gentlelady yields back, the gentleman yields back, is there further discussion on the amendment?

miss chairman

Th- thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh, I need to just respectfully disagree with the, with the ranking member and my friend from New Mexico, and I'll, I'll share what I can. I, there's been uh, numerous hearings, bipartisan hearings, both uh, in uh, another committee, in a classified setting as well. And I, I just, I believe your premise is wrong. But part of what you had said, and the premise for this is the Chinese economy is doing well as a function It is not doing well. They are bleeding economically, including the seeing the um uh migration of a lot of their businesses going into Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia. And it's a it is a function of the trade situation with the US, it's causing that. As as a function of that, because of that compression, they're starting to lever um say things that they hold over our head economically. And I I I can't go into detail here. You can, you can see the same things that that that we were able to see, but I can say in general sense what is commonly known is uh uh they do hold the monopoly on some of these critical minerals, and they're holding that over our head. We have to do something about that. We just have to we we can't let them control. And by the way, before you say anything, it's not just critical minerals, it's pharmaceuticals, there's other areas as well. We are vulnerable. And to to make the argument that we're not is it's just And and so I I would encourage you to look further, but uh before you pursue that line of reasoning, because it's just just not accurate.

But.

And and I'll I'll yield.

But yeah, thank you. I think I think I agree with you. I mean.

Well, that's not what you said.

No, no, no, but I.

You just got the you just got Sun saying the Chinese

Well.

economy is doing wonderful as a function of the, it is not. They are bleeding economically over there.

No. The the the the point I was making, the point of my amendment is that we should not be giving China more control, that we should be limiting their control, so to to make your point, like we need to we need to pull back and in places that we can control, that we should not be allowing China to get to take the minerals from the United States to have a stake in the companies that mine here. So your point is we should be limiting them, so on and so forth. You're you took something I said on my outline.

My my my point is we need to be enabling the American

Well, no, but

And whether it's permitting or whether that's um uh in encouraging with incentives or whatever but we've got to have control within uh uh the American boundaries of our own destiny and and we don't have that today.

Exactly. That's what I'm saying, is that within our boundaries, within the United States, we should say companies that mind here, that we give uh benefits to, that we fast-track that we say you can come mine, they should not be China. That's what I'm saying. They should be American. Like the company that mines in New Mexico, they should be American, or at the very least, if they're not gonna be American, then their owners should not be China, they should be Europe and Canada and Australia.

We're claim we're claiming our time. We're claiming our and I thank you, but fair, we're claiming our time. As chairman, um, my point remains the same, and and uh I I appreciate the dialogue and and there's, I think there's some some common ground on that front. But the bottom line is, is that we have uh a very significant adversary. And uh we are uh we are being constrained or or threatened is a better way to put it. And uh so to the extent we can empower and incentivize our own domestic production, and processing, as Mister Stauber said a little bit uh earlier, the better off we're gonna be, when I come back.

And Mister Fulcher, the There's trying to be a premise made here that there's no restrictions on Chinese There's the uh the CFIUS out there that regulates and restricts Chinese investment in US companies. It's a problem that already has a solution, and this seems to be a solution in search of a of a problem. And I think everybody on the committee agrees we don't want Chinese companies mining US uh minerals, and there's a way to restrict that currently, and Putting legislation in this bill and other bills only confuses what's already in in the law. Would you agree with that?

I concur, and and for that reason and others I oppose the amendment. Thank you. And uh, by yield.

The gentleman yields back to the further discussion. Ms. Stansbury, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm honestly a little bit surprised by the debate this morning. When I first arrived here in Congress in twenty twenty one we took a series of votes about whether or not foreign owned companies should be able to buy American private property. We're talking farmland, water rights, there was a whole series of votes, and Republicans unanimously voted that foreign entities should not be able to purchase private property in the United States. And so what I can't understand in the year two thousand twenty six, is why we're having a debate about giving our public lands to foreign companies. Like that's outrageous and completely inconsistent with your own policy platform. I mean it's just very, very strange. So I don't I don't understand the argument and the fact that we're sitting in the Natural Resources Committee, where our congressional responsibility is to protect the nation's public lands for the American people, that we are actually having a where you all are arguing that we should not ban foreign owned companies from mining and having a fast track on American public lands. That's outrageous. And I think the American people would clearly see that is not America first. There is nothing about this that is America first. Now I understand the national security arguments, I understand the arguments for needing resources in the United States for our own industrial and national. But selling them off on our public lands to China and to foreign owned companies is not how we do that. That's not America first. And I wanna just take a moment with the ranking member to discuss not just the implications for our economy, but the fact that this is being done on the backs of our people, on our communities, on lands that are sacred to our communities. And I wanna talk about two minds that are particularly sacred to new mexicans one is oak flat which is a mine we've already discussed here today but that is not only sacred land to apache people in arizona it's sacred land to mescalera apache people in my district to hickoria in uh congresswoman leger ferenandez's district and the company that has the largest stake in that copper mine is predominantly associated with the chinese communist party and donald trump Now there was legislation that passed through this congress before we were serving, which we just said, and certainly we would have fought like hell to stop that. But now we see the Trump administration, and I think this goes to the point that was just made, about well the law already protects against this. Just a few days ago announced that they were going to remove protections that were put in place a couple of years ago for the upper Picus watershed. And congress,

Well, what we remember is that when mine

Mm.

corporations mined there before, they left a mess. And when you have a mess, and this was the point uh with Representative Stauber, the Pecos. Everybody has heard about the Pecos, right? Cuz it's in all that folklore. Guess where it flows from? It flows down from the Pecos Mountains, it flows into communities, that farm and ranch, it is key to agriculture, all the way through as it gets into Texas and eventually

And so,

Mm. Mm.

I guess what I would say here is that if

Do you know lady, is time expired or is there further discussion?

Okay.

Mister Magazine, you're right now.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, uh, I'll just say briefly, um, I don't know why our republican colleagues don't just support this. They keep saying they agree that we shouldn't be allowing the Chinese Communist Party, the Chinese government to take ownership of American resources, particularly critical resources. They haven't presented an argument for why that should be allowed, so why not just vote for this? It seems to me that the only reason is that it's a Democrat who introduced the amendment, but it's a good amendment. And I I will say, and it's it's been alluded to before, in the last Congress, when President Biden was in office, we voted on dozens of bills and amendments to limit the influence of the Chinese Communist Party in the United States. I voted for some of those bills, by the way. We voted on dozens of bills restrict ownership of farmland and critical infrastructure ports and all the rest. That's all stopped under this Congress. What's changed? Well, now President Trump is in office. And what is President Trump doing? He just authorized a sale of advanced AI chips to China. At the same time that they are engaging in cyber warfare against the United States. This is a let's make a deal. And unfortunately, the people on the losing end of that deal are the American people, over and over again. We all know this is wrong. My Republican colleagues can't present a coherent argument for why they shouldn't support this amendment, to limit Chinese ownership of our minds. So let's just vote for it. Who cares that it's a democratic amendment? Let's just do it. And with that, I'll yield the balance of my time. to the sponsor

thank you very much representative magasiner yes let's let's just vote for it you say you're for it let's just vote for it but i wanted to ask the chairman um you say this matter is taken care of and uh we do have a mine uh the uh the resolution copper mine uh and i was wondering if you would support so we could determine uh whether this issue is taken care of would you support uh a committee on foreign investment in the us review of the resolution compromise, we could see if this is a problem or not.

And that's out of this committee jurisdiction, I believe the committee on foreign investments in the US is already looking at all these Chinese ownerships if you look at the purpose of that committee, it's to protect um uh investments in America from um from foreign investors. and that's what they're charged with doing and i trust they are they are doing that i think the particular company that you're talking about has been operating in the us for a long long time and this has been mentioned um that that mine was begun long before we um started discussing it in in here since we've been in congress but i think that also shows why we need more rapid permitting process so that um these issues don't get drug out for for decades. But yeah, I'm for CFIUS. I'm for scrutinizing Chinese investments. The amendment that you're proposing would actually incentivize Chinese investments above the whatever limits you set to stop American companies from mining. If CFIUS does their job, uh they will be able to take on all the national security risk in in analyzing those investments. uh and you know that's in the department of treasury that's not in our jurisdiction and not trust that they're doing their their job well

so i think that we serving congress and our jurisdiction is protecting the interests of the united states and as uh members of congress and indeed as chairs of the very powerful committee of the house natural resources uh asking these questions since there is such intense debate on them is something that we all have authority to do i would hope that you would support something like that and uh you know i think that we just we we need to get to the bottom of this you can't keep saying it's not a problem but then refuse to ask for the information that would indicate whether it is and once again if chinese companies don't get the benefit of these laws and these goodies we are sending to them then uh we can say you cannot invest in this company you cannot invest uh and we'll have more american ownership and i think that's what i thought we all agreed on that we wanted more american ownership this is one way of getting there and with that thank you very much for the time representative magasino thank you for your comments i yield back

time's expired is there further discussion on the amendment mister hurd you're recognized

uh thank you mister chairman i um we will respectfully be opposing this amendment for a couple reasons and i've been asked by my colleagues why and a a few things first uh without commenting specifically on what the law is right now i just i read through the amendment represented by jerry fernandez and the ten percent threshold just i have some concerns about the the definitions and how broad that is ten percent ownership it's not just ownership that we are talking about or control it's also financing whether tied directly or indirectly to a covered nation um in global capital markets that is very low and i'm concerned about the depth and breadth of the amendment, it doesn't target just control, it's targeting any connection no matter how how minor, and I'm worried that it might be penalizing projects that are trying to reduce our dependence on China. Uh many US mining and processing companies rely on foreign capital, technical partnerships, and equipment supply chains. And even projects that are explicitly designed to compete with China could be disqualified if they have indirect

Mister. Mister Hurd, would you yield? So, you know, I think I'm I'm very open to having a discussions and we have we have reached out numerous times to committee to say do you wanna work with us on it and I'll be honest,

Yeah.

this uh language

Yeah.

came out of the select committee came out of the select committee came out of republican came up with this and i i very willing if you would uh work with me on some amendments to address your concerns i'd be very very open uh to doing a secondary amendment and looking at how do we address some of those concerns if if we got agreement that this is bad and if if the committee would be willing to say well if we did this or that but every single time we are simply told no not now it doesn't work and i think that addressing some concerns of does this you know do we put some timelines do we look at do we look at the expansion once again this came out of not my head it's the committee that was concerned about the ccp it's their ideas

yeah understood uh whatever the providence is i'm certainly happy to to discuss this, maybe not uh in this in this context but in a way that makes sense. Just I'm just telling you reading the amendment it's extraordinarily capacious and with that that's the reason I'm opposing it.

I'll I'd look forward to d- working on something that we could present perhaps present at the will's committee. I happen to know uh uh I I know I'm gonna be there.

Okay, well good. Well just so that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know that there are reasonable and substantive reasons that we are uh that I at least am gonna be uh opposing the amendment so thank you with that Mister Chairman I yield.

Jill Manuel is back. Mr. Holger, you're recognized.

Yeah. Um, this is a really interesting discussion, because I serve on education and workforce and we had um a presentation keeping the, it literally the discussion was keeping China out of our schools. So I find it interesting that we don't want China involved in different aspects, different committees are working on different legislation, and in this committee we're talking about a gift to China. I i i i i'm trying to figure it out and like make it make sense sort of moment that i'm having but i think that when we talk about the influence of this fast track when we talk about what that looks like i think that we are prioritizing you know the public health and safety of communities before really thinking about what the consequences are big picture i obviously am gonna support this amendment and if um miss ledger for non-disabled any more of my time before you're done alright i'll yield back thanks

young lady yields back is there further discussion on the amendment there's no further discussion the question is on the amendment offered by miss leger fernandez designated ledger fernandez number one all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye aye

those opposed no

no

in the opinion of the chair of the no's have it a recorded vote has been requested further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed we will now consider the amendment designated

thank you mister chairman my amendment to hr fifteen O one would require robust meaningful and enforceable consultation with tribal nations before implementation of any mining projects that may impact their lands rights and resources this amendment ensures that the federal agencies uphold the united states trust in treaty obligations by engaging in intentional and substantive

hmm

consultation with tribal governments, it makes clear that consultation is not a procedural checkbox, but a meaningful government-to-government dialogue. This amendment proposes that no mining project can be considered for expedited permitting unless tribes have been engaged since the earliest possible stages of the project's development. This issue has become increasingly relevant in my district given the Amosa project in the Patagonia Mountains, southeast of Tucson, Arizona. Its designation as the first critical minerals project under FAST forty-one highlights the growing use of expediting permit frameworks while FAST forty-one is intended to improve efficiency, mining is among the most environmentally consequential sectors it covers. As such, expedited timelines must not come at the expense of meaningful public participation or environmental assessment. We have already seen the consequences of insufficient engagement and analysis. The town of Patagonia formally requested a comprehensive groundwater study of the Patagonia mountains from the Coronado National Forest in both twenty twenty and twenty twenty one specifically citing concerns related to the proposed ERMOSA project. Despite these repeated requests and the support of my favorite Congressman, Raul Grijalva, the study was never completed. For that exact reason, I sent a letter to the US Forest Service just last week to follow up on that same request. This gap leaves significant uncertainty about the potential impacts groundwater and undermines the public confidence in the adequacy of a review process. When I met with local leaders and community members in Patagonia just a couple weeks ago they raised the serious concerns about their drinking water, their health and the long-term sustainability of their aquifers. These concerns are not abstract. They reflect lived experience and legitimate questions that deserve answers before not after decisions are made. What these experiences make clear is that communities close to these projects cannot be left to react once decisions are already in motion. They must be engaged from the beginning, with their voices meaningfully incorporated into the decision-making. This amendment does not slow progress, it strengthens it. By ensuring tribal nations and impacted communities have a real seat at the table, we must produce more informed and more mindfully uh mindful policy outcomes. Respecting tribal sovereignty and listening to affected communities is not

gentlelady yields back to their further discussion miss randall you're recognized

thank you mr. chair no i i think most of us support reasonable permitting reform to make sure that critical infrastructure projects back home in our can be reviewed and approved in a timely manner and that our neighbors can actually see the benefits of federal investments. We all want that. The fast forty-one process for reasonable and targeted categories can help achieve that goal, but this bill goes far beyond critical minerals, though we had the chance to limit it under ranking member Huffman's amendment. As he said, it would make all mines, including gold and other non-critical minerals, eligible for compressed FAST forty-one permitting processes. Mining is a process that already doesn't have strong tribal consultation under current law. Permanently fast tracking permitting for all mining, regardless of application or purpose, doesn't serve the needs of our communities, and it certainly doesn't honor our treaty and trust responsibilities with tribal nations. That's why I proudly support representative Gahalva's amendment to require that all projects undergo meaningful tribal consultation before they're eligible to be covered by this fast-track process. Responsible industry experts publicly acknowledge that early and meaningful engagement with tribes is beneficiary beneficial to everyone. It avoids long and complicated litigation, it avoids um project slowdowns, and it is a way that we uphold our treaty and trust responsibilities. I encourage all my colleagues to vote yes on the support and amendment. And I yield back.

Lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mister Hoffman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chair, I I strongly support the gentlelady from Arizona's amendment. Tribes deserve a real say in mining projects that could forever alter or destroy lands that they have stewarded since time immemorial. But unfortunately, back in eighteen seventy-two, we weren't interested. giving tribes that say. Uh, we threw the tribes under the bus, uh, by passing a law that says that anyone can stake a claim on public minerals, and then have a right to mine there. And today, land management agencies say that that law doesn't let them say no to a mine, ever. Uh, it just lets them do some things to try to limit the harm from that mine. Uh, even within that fatally flawed framework, though, agencies can and should consult tribes as soon as they become aware of a mining project. And then they should meaningfully incorporate that tribal feedback into the permitting process. But too often agencies just don't do it. They could do those things, but tribal consultation is often an afterthought or just a box that's checked at the most in the mining permitting process. This amendment would force them to do better. It would force them to

Gentlemen yields back.

Thank you.

Is there further discussion? Recognize myself. Uh, tribal consultation is important, and federal agencies already have consultation requirements place when tribal resources are affected i support travel concert consultation but i oppose the amendment because it would simply use travel consultation uh to hold projects hostage to vague and undefined consultation requirements before fast forty-one could even apply adding additional vague requirements does not improve the consultation process the amendment uses the phrase meaningful consultation without defining what that requires, and it calls for consultation with tribes that have " historically expressed an interest", which is not a clear or workable standard. Ambiguity will lead to confusion, disputes, delay, and potential litigation, which indicates this amendment would only serve to slow projects down, rather than improve the approval process. Again, I support consultation with tribes. We have a process for consultation with tribes, but this amendment

aye no no yeah

the opinion of the chair and the no's have it a recorded vote has been requested further proceedings on this amendment will be

thank you

postponed pursuant to the mark-up notices now in order to consider hr fifty nine twenty nine the critical mineral supply

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I oppose HR fifty nine twenty nine. I oppose HR fifty nine twenty nine. This is a bill that would automatically make any mining or mineral related project that receives funds from the Defense Production Act eligible for fast forty-one fast tracking uh unless a project sponsor themselves would opt out. Uh, we don't need to hand this corrupt administration any more tools right now to rush through their priority projects, which in too many cases we're finding out uh, just coincidentally happen to enrich members of the Trump family and MAGA cronies. We just don't need to do them any more favors. windfalls. The Defense Production Act is intended to fund projects important to national security. This administration seems to be defining national security as whatever benefits their buddies, whether it's to complete construction of Trump's beloved ballroom, so we can have great gaspy parties, or try to shut down offshore wind, or wave endangered species act requirements for big oil in the Gulf of Mexico. to throw billions of dollars at questionable mining projects with close ties to the administration, officials and family, members and friends, while waiving important investment transparency requirements. This isn't a simple question of aligning federal permitting practices with federal investment priorities for national security. This administration has made that clear. So I have asked, along with Ranking Member Garcia of the Oversight Committee and Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for details on how the administration decided to use the Defense Production Act to take these equity stakes in minds whose major qualifications seem to be simply having trump connections. We've gotten no response. At this moment of backroom dealing and fourteen day so-called emergency permitting, uh, I acknowledge FAST forty-one can offer some valuable transparency to the permitting, process, but it also offers some shields from judicial review that could become problematic if they're weaponized to protect questionable Trump administration actions and that is my concern. Even before this administration, tribes from Idaho to Alaska have raised alarms that DPA funded projects, um, DPA funding puts the federal government's thumb even more firmly on the side of mining. Many tribal

This yield back cuz there're further discussion. Yields back? Is there further discussion? Miss Randall, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I strongly agree with the ranking members' concern on the critical minerals supply chain resiliency act. What I hear from neighbors over and over in my community is that they want our government to look out for their interests, not the interests of the wealthy and well-connected. And while President Trump promised that he'd look out for working class families and everyday Americans, while he was on the campaign trail, what we've seen sixteen months into his term is that costs are going up and our neighbors can tell you that life is getting harder. At every opportunity, when it comes to choosing the American people or choosing the one percent, this president chooses his billionaire buddies. The Defense Production Act is an important tool and is intended to protect our national security but under this administration what we've seen is arguably the opposite. In August of twenty twenty five, seventeen eighty nine capital, which Donald Trump junior is a name partner act, took an ownership stake in Vulcan elements. And he went out of his way to tell the media that he is very involved in strategic decisions at the firm. Fast forward, three months, and the Trump administration commits six hundred and twenty million to Vulcan elements through the Pentagon. What folks back home may not know is that this is the single ever largest office of strategic capital loan and it was made without competitive procurement and without the technical disclosures normally required before public funds are committed. I would argue, and I think most Americans would argue, that funneling government contracts through the Defense Production Act to companies that the President's family has a stake in weakens our national security, rather than strengthening it. Every day, the Trump family gets wealthier, while my neighbors lose lose their health care, and lose hope for a better future for their kids. My constituent Edward from Port Townsend told me that Congress should follow the money in conducting oversight of this administration's corrupt activities. Aaron from Port Orchard said he's concerned that naked corruption for personal gain is happening in our federal government. I'm concerned too, Aaron. The Trump administration is already cutting corners by giving out these questionable contracts. And this bill would help them further cut those corners. That's why I'll be voting against the bill and I urge my colleagues to do the same. And I yield back.

And lady yields back, is there further discussion on the legislation, I I recognize myself uh I support Representative Barr's legislation, which is aimed at strengthening our national security while uh or through uh minimizing our dependence on foreign nations for critical and using the Defense Production Act for doing that. I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the National Mining Association supporting H R fifteen O one and H R fifteen twenty nine. The letter states quote, "At a time when energy and mineral demand is soaring, we need reliable supply chains that deliver for our nation's economy now and into the future. To support these supply chains, we need the clarity and regulatory certainty the mining industry depends on to make generational investments." End quote. The letter demonstrates broad support among industry for these common sense reforms which will allow us to unleash American mining, without objection. So ordered. Is there any further discussion on the legislation? If there's no further discussion on the bill, it's now in order to consider amendments to H R fifty nine twenty nine, and we will uh consider the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R fifty nine twenty nine, offered by myself, designated Westerman sixty seven A and S, without objection. and open to amendment at any point. I now recognize myself, urge my colleagues to support this ANS which makes minor technical changes to the bill and to support the underlying legislation. I again want to emphasize the importance of the legislation. Long ago this country recognized that expanding its domestic industrial capabilities is essential to maintaining an effective national defense but overly burdensome permitting processes have accumulated over intervening decades. and are preventing the secretary of war from fully using the authority already granted to him. Accordingly, this bill makes common sense changes to insure that the actions authorized under the Defense Production Act of nineteen fifty are also eligible for the FAST-forty-one expedited permitting process. The simple but effective change will bolster America's economic and national security, urge my colleagues to support the ANS and the underlying bill, and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the ANS? There's no further discussion on the NS. It's now in order to consider amendments to the ANS to HR fifty nine twenty nine. And we will now consider the amendment designated Grahova number one, offered by the gentlewoman from Arizona, Miss Grahova. Without objection, the amendment is considered read, and Miss Grahova, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I offer an amendment to HR five nine two nine that would automatically make renewable energy projects eligible for expedited permitting procedures. As written, H R five nine two nine would automatically fast track permitting for any mine that receives funding from the defense production uh production act. In recent years, particularly under the Trump administration, the defense production act has been used to direct significant federal investments into mining projects under the justification of supporting defense and military supply. Some of these projects have been paired with expedited or prioritized permitting decisions raising concern that federal funding is being used to accelerate extractive development without sufficient oversight, environmental review, or community input. H R five nine two nine would automatically treat all DPA actions to expand domestic production of so-called critical minerals as covered projects under FAST forty-one subjecting them to expedited permitting. In practice, this further accelerates an already fast-tracked mining approvals tied to federal investments. We are seeing permitting timelines under emergency procedures compressed to as little as fourteen to twenty-eight days with limited environmental review severely restricted public participation and tribal consultation. Compared to those emergency processes, FAST forty-one may offer more structure and transparency, but that is not what the standard that is not the standard we should accept for decisions with long-term impacts on land water and public health. As I mentioned in my previous statement, the hermosa mine in Patagonia Mountains of southern Arizona illustrates what's at stake local leaders and community members have raised concerns about potential impacts to groundwater, water quality and public health. The town of Patagonia formally requested a comprehensive groundwater study years ago, and those calls have been echoed by members of Congress, including my late father, Congressman Grijalva. Yet the study has not been completed. Moving forward with accelerated permitting in the absence of this basic analysis only deepens uncertainty and undermines public trust. In contract to the ru contrast to the rush to large-scale extracted projects, this administration has arbitrarily brought solar and wind permitting to near complete stop. Renewable energies like solar, wind, and geothermal provide real energy security and resilience, while reducing environmental harm and strengthening long-term sustainability. These types of projects are much better suited to the FAST forty-one permitting structure and are badly in need of transparency it would provide. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and affirm our commitment to honoring

This young lady yields back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Mister Huffman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I strongly support Representative Grijalva's amendment. Uh, this administration uh, is fast-tracking, creating a a so-called emergency permitting process, fourteen day process for projects in many cases that are enormously environmental, environmentally destructive, and don't seem to meet any of our national security concerns, don't really represent the kind of projects that we say we need in this country, but they do tend to uh invariably have uh investment connections to trump family members and cronies. The system is being gamed. This so-called emergency permitting process is being used to enrich people not to help build the things we need in this country. And meanwhile, the things we really do need, solar and wind energy projects that could bring down energy prices for struggling families in this country, 'cause we acknowledge the reality of the affordability crisis in America. Those projects are being shut down in every possible way. We just learned this week that Donald Trump is paying a billion dollars to buy out a huge offshore wind lease, uh, just lighting a billion dollars of taxpayer money on fire to prevent a French company, Total, from building an offshore winder wind energy project that could bring abundant, affordable, clean, renewable energy to the East Coast. It is one uh exercise after another in corruption, and this amendment uh would set it straight. Look uh, we acknowledge that Fast-forty-one brings some transparency benefits to the permitting process, the posted timelines for uh fast-track permitting could be a great thing for projects we actually need like wind and solar. So that's what this amendment does. It would make them eligible for that. What a great idea. I strongly support the amendment and yield back.

Gentlemen yields back. Is there further discussion? I recognize myself, I do oppose the amendment. I'm for um speeding up the permitting process for uh all projects, but this bill changes the or this amendment would change the purpose of the bill, from promoting domestic mining to streamlining renewable energy project approval. However, it's unnecessary because renewable energy projects are already considered projects under the FAST Act, giving them access to the streamlined permitting that we want to see for minerals. For too long, overburdensome regulatory processes have delayed the development of the minerals, necessary to power everything from energy transmission lines to national defense system. Given the minerals necessary to manufacture renewable energy technologies, it's surprising that anyone would be opposed to the development of American mineral supply chains. Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and I yield back. Is there further discussion on the amendment? We're now, uh, if there's no further discussion, the question is on the amendment offered by Mr. Grihova, designated Grihova number one. All those in favor say.

aye

those oppose no

no

you can pin the chair the no's have it a recorded vote is requested for the proceedings on this amendment will be postponed

order

you can take your uh we're going to recess until approximately one ten p m uh one one ten one ten to go back for one second that's good staff work when they can predict it that uh but there will be a notice sent out when uh when we will reconvene for both the the uh meeting is in recess

ok

oh yeah i know this is a very hard question how did you decide on your own um

oh

i was just gonna say it's hard to win any one of those we didn't win any one of those world cup

oh

races so i'm not sure if you can win any one of those but i'm not sure if you can win any one of those yeah oh wow but i'm not sure if you can win any one of those but i think that's just a matter of how many people can win that's all we can do oh it's so good oh it's so good yeah yeah yeah oh it's so good yeah oh it's so good oh yeah yeah yeah yeah it's so good yeah yeah yeah it's so good yeah yeah it's so good yeah yeah yeah oh it's so good yeah it's so good yeah yeah it's so good yeah yeah yeah

yeah

yeah well i don't think i'll be able to go out and eat at the same time so i'm gonna try to get a sandwich to go with the same menu yeah right that's what i did yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah now it's the national committee's

mmm the committee will come to order the chair notes the presence of a quorum the unfinished business is on the request for a recorded vote on amendments to the ans to hr fifteen O one members will record their votes using the electronic voting system the question is on the to the the a n s h r fifteen O one offered by ranking member huffman designated huffman number two on which the no's prevail by voice vote the clerk will open the vote

i i hope so um i always cast this first vote

well there it goes ok and that will be fast yeah once it gets ok no no

ok

have all members voted does any member wish to change their vote hearing none the clerk will close the vote and report

mister chairman on this vote the a's are sixteen and the n's are eighteen

the amendment is not agreed to the question is on the amendment to the ans hr fifteen O one offered by the gentleman from new mexico miss ledger fernandez designated ledger fernandez number one on which the no's prevail by voice vote the clerk will open the vote

get that instant super fast it is crazy how it does that every

have all members voted does any member wish to change their vote the clerk will close the vote and report

Mr. Chairman on this vote the a's are seventeen and the nay's are nineteen

the amendment is not agreed to the question is on the amendment to the ans to hr fifteen O one by the gentlewoman from arizona miss grahalva designated grahalva number three on which the no's prevail but voice vote the clerk will open the vote

i'll just get that

oh come on

If all members voted, does any member wish to change their vote? Clerk will close the vote and report.

Mister Chairman, on this vote the yeas are seventeen and the nays are twenty.

The amendment is not agreed.

aye no no no

the opinion of the chair the ayes have it and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted the question is now the question now occurs on reporting hr fifteen O one is amended to the house with the recommendation that the bill be favorably approved all those in favor signify by saying aye

aye

those opposed no

no

you've been in the chair the eyes have it

request recorded

a recorded vote has been requested members will record their vote using the electronic voting system the clerk will open the vote have all members voted does any member wish to change their vote Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report.

Mister Chairman, on this vote the yeas are twenty one and the nays are sixteen.

The bill as amended is ordered, reported to the house with the recommendation that it be favorably approved. Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The unfinished business is on the request for a recorded vote on the amendments to the ANS to HR fifty nine twenty nine. Again, members will record their votes using the electronic voting system. The on the amendment to the a. and s. to h. r. fifty nine twenty nine offered by the gentlewoman from arizona miss grahalva designated grahalva number one on which the no's prevailed by voice vote the clerk will open the vote have all members voted does any member wish to change their vote Hearing none, the clerk will close the vote and report.

Mister Chairman, on this vote the yeas are sixteen and the nays are twenty one.

The amendment is not agreed to. The question now occurs on the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H R fifty nine twenty nine, offered by the chair designated Westerman sixty seven A N S. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed no.

No.

Opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, and the amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted. The question now occurs on reporting H R fifty two twenty nine as amended to the House with the recommendation that the bill be favorably approved. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye. Aye.

Those opposed no.

No. No.

The opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.

No.

The bill is ordered reported uh without objection. Uh the the bill is amended as ordered reported to the House with the recommendation that it be favorably approved. Without objection, the most to reconsider is laid on the table. We now turn to the UC package. With the cooperation of Ranking Member Huffman and the other members of the committee, it appears that we have worked out an agreement on six bills scheduled for mark-up today. As we've done before, rather than going through a formal mark-up process for each of the bills, I will make a single unanimous consent motion to report out the bills favorably with any amendments that have been filed and agreed to. Before we begin, does any member seek time to speak on any of the bills in this unanimous consent motion? Miss Sandsbury, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman and Ranking Member Huffman, I wanna just take a moment to say thank you to the entire committee for your unanimous support for our two New Mexico bills. This is a big day for New Mexico and for our communities, and we are so grateful for the bipartisan support of these two bills in committee today. H R sixty-one, sixty-two is the Albuquerque Indian School Act, which will transfer almost ten acres of land to the Pueblo Cultural Center in Albuquerque. which was established in eighteen eighty four as part of the federal Indian school in our great city. The bill will transfer this land into trust for the benefit of the nineteen Pueblos who govern the Pueblo Cultural Center, which has transformed this entire area and our community into a hub for cultural, educational, economic, and community development. While centering the resilience, the leadership, and the self-determination of our Pueblos. The second bill we passed here today, unanimously as hr four two nine zero the downwinder commemoration act which is led by my colleague gabe vasquez and also cosponsored like both of these bills by congresswoman ledger fernandez this recognizes a painful chapter in our nation's history when the us tested its first atomic bomb at the trinity site in new mexico in the tuleroso basin communities like carzozo tulerosa and communities for miles experienced nuclear fallout that has caused generations of cancer and disease. This is a long overdue acknowledgement of both the suffering but the resilience of our communities, and reaffirms our responsibility as a federal government to care for those affected by the federal government's action. This follows on the reauthorization and expansion of RICA to ensure that our families and our communities are able to access care, in which Congresswoman Leder Fernandez led for a number of years. Together, these bills reflect a broader principle. The stewardship of our public lands and resources must also include the stewardship of our shared history and the acknowledgement of our communities. I wanna say thank you to Mister Chairman, to your staff, to the ranking member and his staff, and to the Department of Interior and its leadership for helping to support New Mexico today. These bills are deeply meaningful for our communities and we thank you all. I yield back.

And the lady yields back. Is there further discussion?

Mister M- Mister Chair,

Mister Ledger Fernandez, you're recognized.

I I I do want to uh echo and I won't add much to the thought to the comments, but I do wanna echo uh our appreciation for you uh for your staff and for the entire committee for agreeing to move these. I know this is a lot of work for your staff as you consider these, and I am very grateful. It is so very important to our state, so muchisimas gracias, thank you.

You wanna lay the yields back? Is there further discussion? Mister Mister Magaziner, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I'm very excited uh that there are two bills in this unanimous consent package, uh for which I'm the lead uh democratic sponsor and very strongly in support. Uh the first is the bipartisan Fish Act, uh introduced along with uh Representative Crenshaw and Begich. Uh international illegal fishing undercuts law abiding American fishermen and seafood producers including those that I represent in Rhode Island. Uh the fishermen and and the fishing industry that i represent in my state isn't asking for any special treatment, they're just asking for a level playing field.

Yeah.

And we need to level the playing field by cracking down on bad actors who break the rules, who don't abide by quotas, who don't follow environmental regulations, who engage in slave labor labor and other abuses. The Fish Act will allow us to crack down on illegal international fishing by blacklisting offending vessels from US ports and waters, bolstering the Coast Guard's enforcement capabilities, and directing the President to impose sanctions on entities that participate in illegal fishing. Uh, by strengthening US enforcement against illegal international fishing, the Fish Act will protect our oceans, our coastal economies, and our consumers. I'd also, uh, like to thank the committee and the chair and the ranking member, uh, for advancing the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act, uh, for which, uh, I'm the Democratic Leader, uh the lead sponsor representative kiggins uh i'm also a proud co-chair along with rep kiggins on the congressional battlefield caucus the american battlefield protection program uh amendments act will insure that future generations can experience and learn from and honor our nation's sacred grounds uh this is not just about preserving our history it's about preserving uh our sense of patriotism and unity as a nation in inspiring future generations uh, to, uh, with the, uh, stories, uh, of those who sacrificed in order, uh, to make our country and our democracy and our freedom possible. Uh, this bill will reauthorize the American Battlefield Protection Program through twenty thirty five, authorize funding, uh, and reduce the non-federal match, uh, so that, uh, communities can more easily participate in this program. Uh, once again I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for, uh, support. supporting this legislation. And with that, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Is there further discussion? I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources be discharged from further consideration of HR sixteen eighty seven, the committing leases for Energy Access Now Act or the Clean Act without objection. So ordered. I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries be discharged from further consideration of HR thirty the fighting foreign illegal seafood harvest act of twenty twenty five, or the fish act of twenty twenty five, without objection. So ordered. Ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on Indian and insular affairs be discharged from further consideration of H R sixty one sixty two, the Albuquerque Indian school act of twenty twenty five, without objection. So ordered. Ask unanimous consent that the subcommittee on federal lands be discharged from further consideration of H R forty two ninety, the downwind H R fifty nine eleven, the Crystal Rose of War Convance Act, and H R seventy six eighteen, the American Battlefield Protection Program Amendments Act of twenty twenty six, without objection. So ordered. I now ask unanimous consent that the following measures be approved and favorably reported as described to the House of Representatives, H R sixteen eighty seven, the committing leases for energy, access, now act, or the clean act, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by the gentleman from idaho mr. fulcher designated fulcher one a n s hr thirty seven fifty six the fighting foreign illegal seafood harvest act of twenty twenty five or the fish act of twenty twenty five with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the chair designated westerman sixty eight a n s hr forty two ninety the downwind or commemoration act of twenty twenty five with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from colorado mr. nagooth designated nagooth hr fifty nine eleven the crystal reservoir conveyance act with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from colorado mister herd designated herd ans hr sixty one sixty two the albuquerque indian school act of twenty twenty five with an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from new mexico miss stansberry designated stansberry seventy one ans hr seventy six eighteen the american battlefield protection

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I uh give notice of my intention to file supplemental additional dissenting or minority views on the measure just considered. I ask unanimous consent that this notice be extended to all measures considered at the mark-up, under House.

Without objection? So ordered. If there's no further business, oops, excuse me. I ask unanimous consent that the staff be allowed to make any technical and conforming changes to the documents the committee just adopted subject to the approval of the minority without objection. So ordered. And if there's no further business, the committee stands adjourned.

Excellent.