WHAT AM I

If you don’t know what to ask at your next town hall, feel free to use one of these questions below.

These questions are all being managed by one (1) person, so edit and correct them to your liking and make them your own.

Or, email me/ if you have a question idea you want to submit. I don’t always check my email, but I will try!

Question 1

The administration is expanding drilling, opening more public land to fossil-fuel development and weakening environmental protections, while simultaneously restricting wind, solar and other clean-energy projects. Why should the government favor one energy industry instead of letting all sources compete, and will you support a balanced energy policy that protects consumers, creates long-term jobs and preserves our resources for future generations?

SOME SOURCES

• PROJECT 2025 January 20, 2025: Page 709 is about leaving the UN Convention on Climate Change, and page 366 complains about clean energy subsidies Project 2025 PDF

• CLEAN ENERGY July 4, 2025: Most clean energy incentives were terminated Carbon Direct.com

• CLEAN ENERGY August 26, 2025 Trump cancelled offshore wind projects in Rhode Island & Connecticut PBS NewsHour on YouTube PBS NewsHour

• CLEAN ENERGY March 23, 2026 Trump paid a French energy company $1B to cancel offshore wind farm projects Huffman.House.gov

• PROTECTIONS October 24, 2025: Trump removed protections from Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuge Alaska Beacon.com

• PROTECTIONS April 16, 2026: The Senate voted to remove protections from Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Minnesota Post.com

• PROTECTIONS March 21, 2026: Trump dismantled the Office of Environmental Justice Environmental Protection Network.org

• PROTECTIONS April 29, 2026: Trump weakened the Endangered Species Act OPB.org

Answer 1

Submitted to Congress by HistoryListory: Yes. This was emailed to two (2) Congressman, two (2) Senators and one (1) Governor on July 20, 2026.

Included message: “Please be advised any non-response or response will be publicly included on my website HistoryListory.com for readers to review”.

Response received? One (1) Senator responded with the following on July 23, 2026: As you know permitting reform is needed to expedite the process for states and private entities to develop American infrastructure. As a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), I am a cosponsor of the Spur Permitting of Underdeveloped Resources Act (SPUR) Act, Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act, and Revitalizing the Economy by Simplifying Timelines and Assuring Regulatory Transparency (RESTART) Act to reform the permitting and environmental review processes. Both the SPUR and RESTART Acts would expedite the permitting process and expand energy production, therefore reducing energy prices. Both pieces of legislation would streamline the agency review process with enforceable timelines, enact time limits to prevent countless legal challenges and modernize current laws while preserving environmental protections. Improvements to the federal permitting process will strengthen the development of our power generation, transmission, infrastructure, and flood control. The ADVANCE Act supports the adoption of nuclear energy technology to ensure American energy independence and security. I’m proud to support this effort to facilitate America’s nuclear leadership, modernize current technology, and improve the environment. This legislation will benefit operating reactors, like (STATE) own (CITY) Nuclear Station, and assist with decommissioning of reactors, like (CITY). In total, these pieces of legislation will reform federal energy permitting to improve our energy and the American economy. Making government work better for taxpayers was one of the things I was most proud of when I was Governor, and it continues to be one of my main priorities in the U.S. Senate. My primary mission as your United States Senator is to make government work with proven (STATE) solutions that are ready for America. To better inform my decision-making, it is important that I hear the ideas, concerns, and opinions of all (STATE). I appreciate the time and effort you took to provide input on clean energy permitting reform and will keep it in mind as the U.S. Senate considers this issue.

One (1) Congressman responded on July 22, 2026 with a canned-response pertaining to trade. They sent, “Thank you for contacting me regarding President Trump’s trade policy. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views on this issue. During his first term, President Trump enacted trade and economic policies that put the American economy, the American worker and our nation’s security first. These policies contributed to substantial increases in real wages, massive economic growth and the renegotiation of trade agreements to secure stronger, fairer deals for the United States. He has promised to continue pursuing trade agreements that protect American workers and businesses in this term. On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order establishing a trade policy that promotes domestic investment and production, enhances our nation’s industrial and technological advantages and defends our national and economic security. (STATE) and all Americans deserve trade policy that puts them first, which is why I support policies that boost domestic production, create jobs and prioritize (STATE) farming, manufacturing and business sectors. We must return America to an era of trade dominance and continue to reduce our dependence on China, especially in the area of supply chains critical to our national security. I support the use of every lawful tool available to keep growing our economy and ensure American goods compete on a level playing field abroad.

A second (2) Congerssman responded on July 29, 2026 with the following: Thank you for contacting our congressional offices with your views and concerns. I appreciate the opportunity to engage with you on the matter of protecting the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness and its surrounding nature. Listed within H.R. 9171—Department of the Interior Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2027, Section 441 suggests a relaxed change to the mining prohibitions on the Boundary Waters region. The overall bill itself carries a large variety of environmental policy issues to be considered, and when making legislative deliberations, I believe that concerns regarding balancing wildlife protection and economic pursuits ought to be recognized in the process. As Congress moves forward with debating this legislation, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. Nevertheless, in line with my beliefs on thoughtful lawmaking, earlier this year I voted against H.J.Res.140, relating to the nullification of Public Land Order No.7917 and the same associated Boundary Waters area. The challenging decision came after thorough discussions with approximately 30 members of our (STATE) community, who frequent the waters and are property owners in the area. The constituents expressed concerns regarding the potential for contamination of their nearby drinking water, which is sourced from the unfiltered lakes, upon the sulfide-ore mining and subsequent acid mine drainage in the watershed. From our conversation, I could tell that they feared the impact that mining would have on their limited water source and their concerns led me to err on the side of caution. Although the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness possesses immense capacity to strengthen our domestic mineral production and economy, I found that we must first maintain a balanced approach in our economic endeavors, especially in the face of potential public health risks. In 2023, the Biden administration passed Public Land Order (PLO) No. 7917, withdrawing nearly 225,504 acres of National Forest System lands in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis counties, Minnesota, from disposition under the United States mineral and geothermal leasing laws, for a period of 20 years. The intended purpose of the PLO is to protect and preserve the ecosystems and the reserves of natural resources within the area from the effects of exploration, extraction, and exhaustion. The subsequent H.J.Res.140, of 2026, then allowed for the repeal of such measures and permits the leasing of the Boundary Waters land for the exploration and development of minerals and geothermal energy. A vote in any direction on the matter would need to come with great thought and consideration of our nation’s energy sector, physical environment, and public health. Ultimately, for reasons listed above, my ballot was cast against the legislation. Seeing as the matter of the Boundary Waters continues to evolve legislatively, I will be sure to remain updated and well read on the issue so that I may best represent you.