I will be bird-dogging this real close.

I am a strong supporter of the Essential Air Service program, which is vital to rural America, but specifically to Alaska and Alaskans.

Setting, maintaining and enforcing minimum safety standards is a core government responsibility, and should not be left to the collective bargaining table.

By passing this important legislation, Congress would do what FRA has been unwilling to do: place the safety of workers and the general public above corporate profiteering.

The Federal Government has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust toward tribes.

Congress has abandoned that trust responsibility for many tribes.

Put yourself in our position: what would you call this if not colonialism?

I do take offense to the notion that this is a wilderness ecosystem.

I keep stressing that.

This bill--ironically--whitewashes the decades of harm that the U.S. Congress and other arms of the Federal Government have inflicted on our people.

My tribe is Gwich'in.

I just want to make it clear.

The Gwich'in are 'foreigners' and do not live in the Refuge.

H.R. 1146 makes a wilderness out of an area that is not a wilderness.

We should consider the people directly affected by the legislation, not people who live hundreds of miles away.

I think that is unfortunate.

When you own a boat, Mr. Huffman, you never go to the bow and urinate. You go to the stern.

But what we don't manage, we lose the forest.

I often think it is hypocrisy to talk about we cannot use fossil fuels when the product they sell and advocate against is made by fossil fuels--in China, not with American labor.

If the Democrat Majority is truly serious about reducing vast amounts of Carbon Emissions into the atmosphere, they should be working more closely alongside Republicans in supporting common-sense forest management reforms.

I want to get the science, how much pollution was put in the air by that fire.

Fearmongering and unrealistic rhetoric should have no place in this debate.

All too often, this issue has been used as a vehicle to push a radically progressive agenda that would prove to be devastating for American families and would offer minimal at best climate results.

Other countries have done beautifully. If you go to Sweden, they have managed their forests for centuries, and they produce a lot of timber and they employ a lot of people.

We have to manage the timber. But you even mention cutting the tree and, 'Oh, we can't do that,' including those people who sell goods made in China.