Debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking and minority member of the committee of Natural Resources or their respective designees. The gentleman from arkansas, mr. Westerman, and gentleman from colorado, mr. Neguse, will cole 30 minutes. The chair recognizes th gentleman from arkansas, mr. Westerman. Mr. Westerman i ask all members have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h. R. 3397. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Westerman mr. Speaker, i rise today in support of representative curtis bill, h. R. 3397, the we were Economic Security today act, or west act of 2024. The west act withdraws the flawed illegal conservation and Landscape Health rule which was finalized earlier this month by the bureau of Land Management or the b. L. M. You may be asking, why is a rule focused on conservation and Landscape Health so bad . Well, it wouldnt be bad if thats what it was really focused on, but the name is very misleading. This rule is a poorly concealed effort to lock up more lands to advance the Biden Administrations radical 30 by 30 agenda. It has absolutely nothing to do with true conservation or improving the health of our landscapes. Responsible uses of b. L. M. Lands are central to the western way of life. This rule would fundamentally up end more than 50 years of Land Management practices across the west that Rural Communities have relied on for their lively hoods. Under the federal land policy and Management Act, or flpma, it is used to manage lands with concurrence to multiple use and sustained yield. If responsible use of public lands are prohibited, family and small businesses, multigeneration ranches and local communities and schools will suffer from a lack of economic development, access and tax revenue. This is more than a western issue. If you ate a hamburger this week or filled your car with gas, this rule affects you. This rule will severely impact the lives and waltz of every wallets of every single american. Havent we had enough of that already . Havent we had enough of inflation and rising prices . The finalized rule will broadly allow the b. L. M. To lease lands under new and vaguely defined, quote, restoration and mitigation leases, and change standards around land use decisions. The rule will elevate conservation as a use of our public lands. This is clearly contradictory with the plain reading of flpma and Congress Intent. Congress very clearly defined the principle or major uses of b. L. M. Lands to include and be limited to domestic livestock grazing, fish and Wildlife Development and utilization, Mineral Exploration and production, rightsofway, and timber production. Nowhere in the act do the words conservation, restoration, or mitigation appear as a use. And conservation is not a use, its a value and an outcome that can be generated by the uses that i just mentioned. If the administration determines that uses such as grazing, timber production, energy production, mining, or recreation are incompatible with the lease, they will not be allowed and could be prohibited indefinitely from those lands. At best, the rule is duplicative, unnecessary, and burdensome. Meaningful conservation work is already being done on the 245 million acres of b. L. M. Land with multiple stakeholders. Often uses overlap on b. L. M. Land and coexist with each other. Meaningful conservation occurs simultaneously with and often for the Mutual Benefit of other uses like grazing and recreation. At worst, restoration and mitigation leases are a guise to restrict any meaningful activity on federal land, including energy and mineral production and timber management. The final rule allows the b. L. M. To issue mitigation leases indefinitely and wastes fees on restoration leases and could take land that otherwise would be creating a return for the american taxpayer and give it away for free to environmental extremists. But what will this rule look like on the ground and mean for westerners . Specifically, the Biden Administration can kick off the multigenerational rancher who has been grazing on the land since before the bureau of Land Management existed. They can restrict the mining of minerals we need for phones, computers, cars, and batteries to sustain life. They can limit oil and Gas Development, creating dependence on hostile foreign nations and threatening our economic prosperity. In addition to this new convoluted leasing system, the rule would also expedite the designation of critical Environmental Concern by removing Public Comment periods and allowing the b. L. M. To, quote, temporarily restrict land use without public input. This provides the b. L. M. With virtually Unlimited Authority to lock up millions of acres without any input from the public or support. The rule sorely favors types of Energy Development, the administration likes, and hurts other responsible Energy Development theyve deemed unworthy. The rule chooses winners and losers, wealthy elites who want to protect views from their mansions and extreme Environmental Groups that want to kick locals off public lands. They are the winners. Guides and outfitters who bring young and old alike to our public lands or the ranching family that works every day to put food on the millions of american tables, they are the losers. And finalizing this rule, the Biden Administration has jeopardized the activities and land use to feed and fuel our country. Make no mistake, this affects every american. This impacts every acre, every user, every lease, and every american. The finalized rule comes after a year long effort by western governors, communities, stakeholders, and members of Congress Calling for the abandonment of this flawed rule. The concerns fell on deaf ears within the Biden Administration. This prompted us to bring this bill to the floor this week, forcing the withdrawal of the rule. I again want to thank representative curtis for his work on the bill and urge all of my colleagues to support h. R. 3397, the west act of 2024. I reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from colorado is recognized. Mr. Neguse thank you, mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill, the socalled west act. Mr. Speaker, i have Great Respect for the chairman and the member who has authored this particular piece of legislation, but we strongly disagree about this particular bill. And i want to tell you why. First and foremost, just by way of context, weve been on the house floor all day today, the better part of a few hours, debating proposals that the majority has submitted that would roll back environmental protections. House republicans want to remove protections for pristine Boundary Waters watershed in minnesota. They want to eliminate protections for endangered species, as we heard in the last debate, apparently now increase the use of poisonous lead ammunition. This is not what this agust body should be spending its time focused on. Unfortunately, h. R. 3397 is just more of the same. Now, i heard during the presentation by my colleague, my distinguished colleague on the other side of the aisle, reference to hamburgers, to the cost of gasoline, to mansions, i believe, none of which has anything to do with this particular bill, mr. Speaker. I want to try to explain to the American People what this bill is all about. The Biden Administration, in short, has taken steps to enhance public Land Stewardship. House republicans are standing in the way. What do i mean by that . Two weeks ago on april 18, the Biden Administration released the bureau of Land Managements conservation and Landscape Health final rule, or what has been referred to as the public lands rule. The rule is a necessary and long overdue update to the agencys framework for public Lands Management, in particular the rule will protect clean water, clean air, and Wildlife Habitat. It will promote the restoration of degraded landscapes. It will ensure that decisions are based on the best available science and in collaboration with tribal, local, and Rural Communities. That, mr. Speaker, is progress. But here is what the bill does not do. It does not disallow or preclude any one of the multiple uses that the chairman referenced during the opening of this particular debate. Look, either the rule, as my colleagues on the other side have described, and i think i heard the word duplicative. Its either duplicative, or in the view of the majority, as they said it, ends all uses of all lands in all of the country. It cant be both. Clearly, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, take issue with this particular rule and its protection of wildlife and its inclusion of conservation. I understand that disagreement. But the American People do not agree with that position. The bureau of Land Management, just by way of background, or b. L. M. , manages more than 245 million acres of federal public land which is roughly one 10th of the public land base. In colorado, the b. L. M. Manages 3 million acres of land, such as the yampa county trail in route county. This includes National Conservation lands, a collection of revered landscapes, recreation destinations, other special places that are managed to protect resources to us as americans. These lands stretch across the Rocky Mountain west. Our citizens, our constituents, rely on these land. That is why this rule is such a critical development. Its also why this rule is so popular. Over 90 , mr. Speaker, 90 of the comments received during the extensive Public Comment period were positive. Those comments came from local community leaders, Outdoor Recreation industry, scientists, small businesses, tribal communities, many others. Citizens in my state and states across the west. They want to see our public lands managed in a balanced and sustainable manner that will promote access and and and and resilience and what the Biden Administration achieved with this new rule and why im proud to support it. Again, i dont want to belabor this point but bears repeating. Despite the claims from my republican colleagues, the plain language of this rule does not prioritize one use over another. It does not do that. I encourage any american who wishes to learn more to look at the plain language of the rule. It simply puts conservation on equal footing with livestock grazing, with mining, oil and Gas Development. It doesnt block or stifle development. It achieves a critical balance. And that balance is important. A reasonable balance, a prudent balance. I support this rule because it will enable us to masaiencebased and informed decisions about the management of our nations public lands. And i would encourage all of my colleagues to support the rule for the same reason. And if they do, id encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill which seek recognition to undermine those efforts. And i would urge my colleagues to oppose the legislation. I reserve the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman reserves. The gentleman from arkansas is recognized. Mr. Westerman as i Wasserman Shultz listening to my as i was listening to my friend from colorados comments, i was reminded of a saying of a graduate School Professor who taught statistics used to say, if you said numbers and people are a lot alike, if you torture them long enough, theyll tell you anything you want to know. This study my colleagues talk about references a cherrypicked 10,000 comments that were analyzed. And according to the b. L. M. , 8,000 were unique comments. 2,000 of the comments were identical comments. These are comments that get submitted when you put click bait out there and say, send this comment in, and you just hit the button from your favorite radical Environmental Group and it goes in to the b. L. M. Or to the other federal agency. But also, you know, i would expect the results to actually be even higher, because its kind of like asking, do you like ice cream . Or do you like chocolate . Do you like candy . And when you say are you for conservation and protecting the land . Yeah, i think most people are for that. But when you look at what this bill does, its anything but that. It locks up land and takes it away from the multiple uses that congress has designated that this b. L. M. Land is for. Mr. Speaker, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from utah, i yield four minutes to the gentleman from utah, mr. Curtis. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman is recognized. Mr. Curtis i rise in support of my will, the my bill, the western Economic Security today act or west act. My bill, as has been discussed, would require the bureau of Land Management to withdraw their proposal regulating conservation and Landscape Health. Utahs farmers and ranchers for generations have worked on this land, leaving it better than they found it. They understand how to live in a way that strengthens the landscape but allows them to provide for their family and community. I like to tease them that theyre the original environmentalists. They dont always like that term. Ironically, this rule also undermines the work of these individuals who keep the land in good health and help prevent for the risk of wildfires to instead lock the public out of utahs lands. Let me be clear. I have immense respect for utahs local landing mores who do their best with the resources they have. I appreciate their commitment to integrating into each unique community and working hard to find consensus. They are not the problem. The problem is washington politicians who think they know better than the generations of families who actually live in utah. The question isnt whether or not we want to protect the lands but who gets to make the decisions. Since coming to congress, one of my favorite experiences has been connecting with utahs Rural Communities. They give so much and ask for so little. They work hard to feed our families, protect American Energy and lead in manufacturing. We should be making it easier for them. Instead the Biden Administration is pushing this rule to allow Environmental Groups funded by swiss billionaires who propretend to be representing utahans to lock up public lands. This is completely backwards. Mr. Speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two stories about how this foreign dark money is funding Environmental Groups in utah. The speaker pro tempore without objection. Mr. Curtis the Biden Administration didnt even pretend to care what rural utahans thought about this rule. I sent a letter nearly a year ago with my Natural Resource colleagues asking the stint hold more public listening sessions on this rule including a session in utah. Instead, the agency ignored this request and finalized the rule. Over 6 o 60 of utahs land is federally managed. I have counties with 90 and yet no public listening session was held in utah. This rule has an oversized impact on our state. That is why the west act must pass today. We must fight to stop this rule and then immediately repeal it under the next administration. It is critical that utahs lands remain under the stewardship of those who have tended it for generations. Theres a lot of hyperbole in washington and im genuine when i say this is one of the most offensive attacks on rural utah i have seen in my career. I will continue to work tirelessly to repeal this disastrous effort. My bill, the west act is pushing against this flawed rule. We should be empowering local communities, not punishing them. I yield my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields. The gentleman reserves. The gentleman from colorado is recognized. I thank the speaker and i yield to the gentlewoman from new mexico, ms. Stansbury. The speaker pro tempore the gentlewoman is recognized. Ms. Stansbury i stand today to also respectfully oppose h. R. 3397, what think colleagues across the aisle are calling the west act. I too have Great Respect for the chair and for the sponsor of this bill and especially for the farmers and ranchers and Land Stewards who were just referenced. But i vehemently disagree with the premise of what this bill and the underlying rule does and how it was characterized. This bill would overturn a long overdue administrative action to protect our public lands, wildlife and cultural sites and access to the outdoors. With the intent of tipping the scales back to a time when extractive industries, oil and gas company, multinatio