To redesignate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of two important pieces of legislation that I have sponsored and that are now included in the natural resources bill that we have received from the Senate, S. 22.

San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act

The first, the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, will bring to a close 18 years of litigation between the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Friant Water Users Authority, the U.S. Department of the Interior and others. Representatives Cardoza, McNerney and Radanovich joined me as co-sponsors of this legislation. This bill is similiar to the one that we introduced in the waning days of the 109th Congress, and reintroduced at the beginning of the 110th Congress as H.R. 24. The bill approves, authorizes and helps fund an historic Settlement on the San Joaquin River in California.

However, the bill we are introducing today does reflect a few significant changes resulting from discussions among the numerous Settling Parties and various ``Third Parties'' in the San Joaquin Valley of California. During the past year the parties to the settlement and these affected third parties, such as the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors, have agreed to certain changes to the legislation to make the measure PAYGO neutral and to enhance implementation of the settlement's ``Water Management Goal'' to reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts to Friant Division long-term water contractors. The legislation that we are voting on today incorporates these changes, which are supported by the State of California and major water agencies on the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. The Bush Administration also supported this legislation.

This bill will approve a settlement that seeks to restore California's second longest river, the San Joaquin, while maintaining a stable water supply for the farmers who have made the San Joaquin Valley the richest agricultural area in the world.

The Settlement has two co-equal goals: to restore and maintain fish populations in the San Joaquin River, including a self-sustaining salmon fishery, and to avoid or reduce adverse water supply impacts to long-term Friant water contractors. Consistent with the terms of the Settlement, we expect that both of these goals will be pursued with equal diligence by the federal agencies.

The bill also authorizes $1 million for the California Water Institute at California State University, Fresno, for the creation of an Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the Central Valley. The plan will serve as a guide for those in the study area to use to address and solve long-term water needs in a sustainable and equitable manner.

This legislation is crucial. Without this consensus resolution, the parties will continue the fight, resulting in a court-imposed judgment. It is widely recognized that an outcome imposed by a court is likely to be worse for everyone on all counts: more costly, riskier for the farmers, and less beneficial for the environment.

The Settlement provides a framework that the affected interests can accept. As a result, this legislation has enjoyed the strong support of the Bush Administration, California Governor Schwarzenegger's Administration, the environmental and fishing communities and numerous California farmers and water districts, including the Friant Water Users Authority and its member districts that have been part of the litigation.

When the Federal Court approved the Settlement in late October, 2006, Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne praised the Settlement for launching ``one of the largest environmental restoration projects in California's history.'' The Secretary further observed that ``This Settlement closes a long chapter of conflict and uncertainty in California's San Joaquin Valley . . . and open[s] a new chapter of environmental restoration and water supply certainty for the farmers and their communities.''

I share the former Secretary's support for this agreement, and it is my honor to join with Representatives Cardoza, McNerney and Radanovich, as well as Senators Feinstein and Boxer who have previously introduced and supported this legislation to authorize and help fund the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement.

For almost two years we have worked with the parties to the settlement, affected third party agencies and the State of California to ensure that the legislation complies with congressional PAYGO rules.

In November of 2007, the House Natural Resources Committee favorably reported a revised version of the bill (H.R. 4074) that included amendments conditionally agreed to by the parties that allow most Friant Division contractors to accelerate repayment of their construction cost obligation to the Treasury. In May of 2008, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee favorably reported the Senate companion measure (S. 27) with provisions that further refined the accelerated repayment concept and addressed third party concerns about its implementation. These changes, included in the bill we introduce today, both increase the amount of up-front funding available for the settlement and decrease the bill's PAYGO ``score'' by $88 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In exchange for agreeing to early re-payment of their construction obligation, Friant water agencies will be able to convert their 25-year water service contracts to permanent repayment contracts, so-called ``9D contracts'' under federal Reclamation Law.

I note that the Bureau of Reclamation and the Friant Water Users Authority on behalf of its members have had very specific discussions on how the repayment amounts will be calculated in accordance with this legislation, memorialized in a letter dated February 20, 2009, from Mr. Donald Glaser, Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation for the Mid-Pacific Region. I request that Mr. Glaser's letter be inserted in the Record.

U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Reclamation,

Sacramento, CA, February 20, 2009.

Mr. Ronald Jacobsma,

General Manager, Friant Water Users Authority, Lindsay, CA.

Subject: Financing Provisions of the San Joaquin River

Restoration Settlement Act.

Dear Mr. Jacobsma: As you are aware, amendments were made

early in 2008 to the proposed San Joaquin River Restoration

Settlement Act (Act) in an effort to reduce the ``PAYGO''

score of the Act. One of the amendments made in the Act would

authorize and direct the Secretary of the Interior to convert

certain Friant Division, Hidden Unit, and Buchanan Unit

irrigation contractors' water service contracts to water

repayment contracts, subject to certain provisions. The Act

was recently passed by the Senate as Title X, Subtitle A,

Part 1, of S. 22, and we expect the House of Representatives

to consider it shortly. As you know, staff from the Bureau of

Reclamation and the Friant Water Users Authority have had

technical discussions concerning the financing provisions of

the bill. This letter and enclosures set forth our

understanding of how the financing provisions will be

implemented if the conversion sections of the Act, found in

Section 10010, are in their current form upon enactment, if

those provisions of the bill are modified before enactment,

we will of course need to reevaluate whether the information

in this letter and enclosures is still accurate.

Enclosed is a summary of each of the financing provisions

in Section 10010 related to the contract conversion and our

understanding of how they would be implemented by Reclamation

(Enclosure 1). Also, enclosed are two specific examples to

demonstrate how the financial calculations for this

conversion and related funding would work given a number of

specific assumptions (Enclosure 2). Enclosure 2 consists of a

description of the assumptions used and a spreadsheet for

each of the examples.

If there are any problems with the information provided in

the enclosures, please contact Jason Phillips as soon as

possible to discuss and resolve.

Sincerely,

Donald R. Glaser,

Regional Director.

These new contracts will be administered as repayment contracts consistent with federal Reclamation Law, including the Acts of August 4, 1939 (ch. 418, 53 Stat. 1187) and July 2, 1956 (ch. 492, 70 Stat. 483). The later Act, among other things, provides in part that the contractors shall have a first right ``. . . to a stated share or quantity of the project's available water supply . . . and a permanent right to such share or quantity upon completion of payment. . . .'' It is my understanding that, except as specifically provided in this legislation, the operative provisions of such repayment contracts will be substantially similar to the existing water service contracts.

The bill also provides in Section 10010(c)(1) that, consistent with Section 213(a) of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, the ownership and full-cost pricing provisions of federal Reclamation Law no longer will apply to the individual Friant Contractors upon repayment of their capital obligations. A question has arisen as to whether these Reclamation Law limitations would apply to water delivered under such a repayment contract after full repayment of capital, where a Friant contractor also had a contract for another supply under a water service contract, such as the Cross Valley Canal contract. It is my understanding that the Department of the Interior and Friant contractors concur that in such a situation, the acre-limitation and full-cost pricing provisions would not apply to water delivered from Central Valley Project facilities for which the capital costs had been fully paid, but would apply to water delivered from Project facilities for which the capital costs had not been repaid, such as water from the Cross Valley Canal contracts.

The Senate Committee amendments also included new provisions to enhance the water management efforts of affected Friant water districts. These provisions are contained in Part III of Title X, Subpart A, of the legislation before the House today. These changes were developed by the parties to the settlement at my request and the request of Mr. Cardoza and Mr. Radanovich to ensure that the Friant districts have the best opportunity to mitigate water supply impacts resulting from the Settlement.

Specifically, the legislation now includes new authority to provide improvements to Friant Division facilities, including restoring capacity in canals, reverse flow pump-back facilities, and financial assistance for local water banking and groundwater recharge projects, all for the purpose of reducing or avoiding impacts on Friant Division contractors resulting from additional River flows called for by the Settlement and this Legislation.

In addition, with respect to Part III authorizing financial assistance for local projects for water banking and groundwater storage, recovery and conveyance, the bill authorizes the

Bureau of Reclamation to share up to 50 percent of the cost of such projects. It is my understanding that in administering other cost- sharing programs, the Bureau typically provides the maximum cost sharing authorized unless the applicant requests less.

Near the end of the 110th Congress, parties to the Settlement and affected third parties came to agreement on additional provisions that would greatly facilitate passage of the bill by making it fully PAYGO- neutral.

The legislation we are introducing today includes substantial funding, including direct spending on settlement implementation during the first ten year period of $88 million gained by early repayment of Friant's construction obligation, and substantial additional funding authorized for annual appropriation until 2019, after which it then becomes available for direct spending again. This additional funding is generated by continuing payments from Friant water users and will become directly available to continue implementing the settlement by 2019 if it has not already been appropriated for that purpose before then.

In 2006, California voters showed their support for the settlement by approving Propositions 84 and 1E, which will help pay for the Settlement, with the State of California now committing at least $200 million toward the Settlement costs during the next 10 years. When State-committed funding, direct spending authorized by the bill, and highly reliable funding from water users are added together, there is at least $380-390 million available for implementing the Settlement over the next 10 years, with additional dollars possible from additional federal appropriations.

It is my understanding that Senator Feinstein intends to work during the 111th Congress to find a suitable offset that will allow restoration of all of the direct spending envisioned by the settlement without waiting until 2019, and I will do whatever I can to aid in those efforts.

Today's legislation continues to include substantial protections for other water districts in California who were not party to the original settlement negotiations. These other water contractors will be able to avoid all but the smallest water impacts as a result of the settlement, except on a voluntary basis.

The bill we are introducing today contains several new provisions to strengthen these third-party protections in light of the changes made to address PAYGO. These include safeguards to ensure that the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors and other third parties will not face increased costs or regulatory burdens as a result of the PAYGO changes.

This agreement would not have been possible without the participation of a remarkably broad group of agencies, stakeholders and legislators, reaching far beyond the settling parties. The Department of the Interior, the State of California, the Friant Water Users Authority, the Natural Resources Defense Council on behalf of 13 other environmental organizations and countless other stakeholders came together and spent countless hours with legislators in Washington to ensure that we found a solution that the large majority of those affected could support.

I urge my colleagues in the House to approve this legislation and provide the Administration the authorization it needs to fully carry out the restoration, water management and other actions called for under the settlement.

Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Wilderness

I also rise today in support of the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks Wilderness designation.

This provision adds about 85,000 acres of wilderness in the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in California. About 45,000 acres of the wilderness created by this bill will be incorporated into the currently existing Sequoia-Kings Canyon Wilderness area. The other 40,000 acres will comprise a new wilderness area, which will be named after former Congressman John Krebs.

John Krebs served two-terms in Congress, from 1975 to 1979, representing California's San Joaquin Valley and the central Sierra Nevada mountains that include Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. He was born in Berlin in 1926 and immigrated to the United States in 1946. He graduated from the University of California and later US's Hasting College of Law. He had lived in Fresno, California since 1958 and prior to being elected to Congress was active in local government, including serving a term on the Fresno County Board of Supervisors.

I had the great privilege of working in John Krebs first congressional campaign and joining him during his first term in Washington. It was through his efforts that Congress first provided federal wilderness designation for the Mineral King area.

The wilderness areas designated by this Act include some spectacular areas within the Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. The Redwood Canyon area contains Redwood Mountain Grove, the largest stand of Giant Sequoia within the parks. The Redwood Canyon area also includes over 75 known caves, including the longest cave in California with over 21 miles of surveyed passage.

This bill is obviously very important to me--both for preserving these natural areas for future generations, as well as for honoring my former boss--and I urge my House colleagues to approve S. 22 so this measure can become law.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, I have a series here of questions I would like to ask under parliamentary inquiry, and that does not count against my time; is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, as we are considering S. 22, has the gentleman from West Virginia made a motion to amend S. 22?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is this motion by the Democrat bill manager the only way that this bill may be amended under suspension of the rules?

Further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, then, under suspension of the rules, no other Member except the Democrat bill manager may offer amendments or text directly to S. 22 to change any other provisions of the bill which have not been considered by the House or which have substantive issues like cutting off recreational opportunities, reducing border security, locking up energy sources, or high costs?

Mr. Speaker, if S. 22 had been considered under an open rule, would any Member with a germane amendment be able to offer that amendment?

I think I know the answer, but further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, could the Rules Committee have issued a rule to allow Members from both sides of the aisle to offer amendments to strike objectionable provisions or restore House- passed language which was not included by the Senate?

I suspected that would be your response, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion to consider the Senate Omnibus Lands bill by suspending the rules of the House.

Let us be very clear about what's happening on the House floor this morning. For weeks and months, Democrat leaders in the Senate and the House, and outside special interest groups, have repeatedly insisted that the House must pass this massive Senate bill without changing a single word or it will be doomed to Senate purgatory and no further action will be taken. This was the justification given for why every Member of this House should be blocked from offering their ideas and amendments to improve or change this 1,200-page bill. Yet this morning, as I have just confirmed with the Speaker through the parliamentary inquiry, Democrat leaders are using the special suspension process to

amend the Senate bill and simultaneously block other Members from offering an amendment.

The Senate's Rubicon of not changing one word has now been crossed. S. 22 has been amended. If we change one part of the bill, then this House deserves the opportunity to consider it in an open and fair manner. Instead, the Democrat leaders are shutting down everyone from offering amendments, including Democrats who have publicly been outspoken about wanting to remove entire provisions from S. 22. I urge these Democrats and all House Members to oppose this bill under suspension and demand a fair and open process of debate.

The suspension process, Mr. Speaker, should be reserved for noncontroversial bills with little or no cost to the taxpayers. Yet, this Senate Omnibus Lands bill costs over $10 billion and consists of over 170 bills folded into a 1,200-page monster piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is an extreme abuse of the process for considering bills under suspension of the rules.

Under suspension of the rules, the House has only 40 minutes to debate the bill. With over 170 bills in this omnibus package, that allows just seven seconds--seven seconds--to debate each bill. And of these 170 plus bills, 100 of them have never been passed by the House. Any notion that this is just a package of bills already passed by the House is absolutely false.

Now, I know that for some Members there may be a page or two in this 1,200-page bill that does something positive for their district. In fact, three separate pieces of legislation, Mr. Speaker, that I authored were attached to this package. But I am more concerned about the other bills that have not been closely examined or been debated by the House.

This massive bill was assembled behind closed doors with the purpose of creating a package that tries to force individual Members to vote for it in order to get their own bill passed despite broad policy differences that will have serious and harmful impacts. Members of the House should consider this bill in its entirety and what it does for our country.

This bill contains 19 provisions to block American-made energy production, locking away hundreds of millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. Under this bill, our country becomes less secure, and we must rely on foreign imports of energy to fuel our vehicles and run our businesses.

When the Federal Government shuts down energy production in America, we are sending good-paying jobs overseas. Over 3 million acres of land will be locked up from possible energy production, and new jobs won't be created when Americans desperately need them in these times. With our economy reeling, and thousands of Americans losing jobs every week, this is a poisonous policy that makes it tougher and more expensive to get America's economy back on track.

This bill also bans recreational access to millions of acres of public lands despite proponents' claims that it will do otherwise. Lands that citizens currently use for enjoyment will be barricaded from recreational vehicle use. Riding a bicycle won't even be allowed.

I yield myself an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, this bill costs $10 billion at a time when taxpayers and the economy simply can't afford it. Our National Parks Service system can't even keep existing priorities open and in working order.

With the maintenance backlog of $9 billion on existing lands, Congress should not be passing a $10 billion bill to buy more lands to make the problem worse. This bill makes it more difficult for the Border Patrol and other law enforcement agencies to secure the southern border. And this bill makes criminals and potential felons out of children who want to collect fossils on Federal lands.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on much longer, but I only have 20 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.

And we are considering a package of over 170 bills, with just seven seconds to debate each bill's cost.

So I urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to oppose passage of this bill under suspension of the rules and insist on the ability to consider under an open process that allows for amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this motion to consider the Senate Omnibus Lands bill by suspending the rules of the House.

Let us be very clear about what's happening on the House Floor this morning. For weeks and months, Democrat leaders in the Senate and the House, and outside special interest groups, have repeatedly insisted that the House must pass this massive Senate bill without changing a single word or it will be doomed to Senate purgatory and no further action will be taken.

This was the justification given for why every Representative in this House should be blocked from offering their ideas and amendments to improve or change this over 1,200 page bill.

Yet this morning, Democrat Leaders are using the special suspension process to amend the Senate bill and simultaneously block every other Representative from offering an amendment.

The Senate's rubicon of not changing one word has now been crossed. S. 22 has been amended. So then why isn't the House allowed to consider additional amendments except the one approved by Democrat leaders. If we change one part of the bill, then this House deserves the opportunity to consider it in an open and fair manner. Instead, Democrat leaders are shutting down everyone from offering amendments, including Democrats who've been publicly outspoken about wanting to remove entire provisions from S. 22 that they strongly oppose. I urge these Democrats and all House Members to oppose this bill under suspension and demand a fair, open process of debate on this bill in the House.

The suspension process is reserved for noncontroversial bills with little cost to the taxpayer. Indeed, other bills on suspension today include supporting the goals of International Woman's Day, urging the President to designate 2009 as the Year of the Military Family, and supporting the designation of Pi Day. Yet, this Senate Omnibus Lands Bill costs over 10 billion dollars, and consists of over 170 individual bills being amassed into a 1,200 page monster piece of legislation. This is an extreme abuse of the process for considering bills under suspension of House rules.

Under suspension of the rules, the House has only 40 minutes to debate the bill. I've been recognized for 20 of those minutes. With over 170 bills in this Omnibus, that allows just 7 seconds . . . 7 seconds . . . to debate each bill.

And of these 170 plus bills, some 100 of them have never been passed by the House. Any notion that this is just a packaging of bills already passed by the House is absolutely false.

I recognize what I have just spoken about is inside baseball, legislative process arguments, yet it is important for the American public to understand the heavy-fisted manner in which this House is being run. It's also important for all Representatives to understand that this bill has now been amended and that we should have the opportunity to consider other changes to it.

For every Member of the House, there may be a page or two in this 1,200 page bill that does something positive in your district. In fact, three separate pieces of legislation that I authored were attached to this package. However, I am more concerned about the other bills that have not been closely examined or debated by the House. This massive bill was written behind-closed-doors with the purpose of creating a package that tries to force individual Members to vote for it in order to get their own small bill passed despite broad policies that will have a serious and harmful impact. Members of the House should consider this bill in its entirety and what it does to our country.

It contains 19 provisions to block American-made energy production, locking away hundreds of millions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. Under this bill, our country becomes less secure as we must rely on foreign imports of energy to fuel our vehicles and run our businesses. When the federal government shuts down energy production here in America, we're sending good-paying jobs overseas. Over 3 million acres of land will be locked up from possible energy production and new jobs won't be created when Americans desperately need them. With our economy reeling and thousands of Americans losing jobs every week, this is a poisonous policy that makes it tougher and more expensive to get America's economy back on track.

This bill bans recreational access to millions of acres of public lands despite proponents' claims that it will protect vast new land areas for the appreciation of Americans. Lands that citizens currently use for enjoyment will be barricaded from recreational vehicle use.

Riding a bicycle won't even be allowed. The harm to American's outdoor enjoyment is so outrageous that even ESPN has covered it.

This bill costs $10 billion at a time when taxpayers and our economy simply can't afford it. Our National Parks System can't even keep existing properties open and in working order. With a maintenance backlog of 9 billion dollars on existing lands, Congress should not be passing a $10 billion bill to buy more land and make the problem worse.

This bill makes it more difficult for the Border Patrol and other law enforcement to secure our southern border by restricting vehicle access onto specific lands. This bill would make criminals and potential felons out of children and others who collect fossils on federal lands.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on much longer, but we have only 20 minutes for debate and we're considering a package of over 170 bills, so we have just 7 seconds to debate each bill's cost and effect upon domestic energy production, American jobs, recreation access to public lands, and border security. I urge my colleagues to oppose passage of this bill under suspension of the rules and insist on the ability to consider it under a fair, open process that allows for amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to a very valuable member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, how much time on both sides remains?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis), a new member of the committee.

I yield the gentlelady an additional 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are kind of out of balance here.

I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of my friend from West Virginia how many speakers he has.

I will reserve my time.

I will reserve.

And I have two speakers, including me.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of my friend how many speakers he has left?

Including you?

Why don't I reserve my time, and we'll be even.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to a new member of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Chaffetz).

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I understand that I am ready to close on my side. If the gentleman from West Virginia is prepared to close after I speak, I will go ahead.

I yield myself the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a point. There's some reference here to the NRA and what their position is on this bill. I just want to say that there was a letter passed to all Members that NRA has no position on this bill. They are neutral.

Mr. Speaker, because under suspension of the rules Members cannot offer amendments directly to S. 22, so, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentleman from West Virginia to yield for the purpose of an amendment to his motion to strike the provisions of S. 22 which can criminalize rock-collecting on Federal lands?

Mr. Speaker, let me try another one. There are several issues here. May I ask the gentleman from West Virginia to yield to me for the purpose of an amendment to his motion to guarantee that S. 22 will not prohibit or delay energy development on millions of acres of Federal lands affected by this bill?

The gentleman won't yield. Mr. Speaker, I will try one more time.

May I ask the gentleman from West Virginia to yield to me for the purpose of an amendment to his motion to guarantee that S. 22 will not prohibit recreational access for all Americans to the millions of acres of Federal lands affected by this bill?

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that this is an extraordinary process. Suspension of the rules for bills are generally for noncontroversial issues. This is a $10 billion authorization bill, and it was amended. It was amended. But nobody else, including those that I referenced here earlier, had an opportunity to come to the floor and offer their amendment in their way to try to perfect this bill.

So, I am urging my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill. When it's defeated under suspension of the rules, the majority can take this back to Rules, have an open rule so we can debate this process, I think, in a very reasonable way.

Because, keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, we were told, ``No amendments on this bill or the Senate will take it down to their purgatory.'' That didn't happen. So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time and urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 22) to designate certain land as components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, to authorize certain programs and activities in the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the Senate bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, in a speech given in the fall of 1964, as the War in Vietnam intensified, President Lyndon Johnson quoted Scripture from the Book of Matthew which says that the floods came, but the house did not fall because it was founded upon rock.

President Johnson then said the following, ``The house of America is founded upon our land, and if we keep that whole, then the storm can rage, but the house will stand forever.

Once again we find ourselves as a Nation seeking shelter from the storm; the storm of two wars, the storm of economic collapse. But like President Johnson, we remain convinced that no matter what adversity we may be facing, if we are faithful stewards of our land, our house will stand forever.

The legislation before us today, S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, will keep America's land whole. The bill contains more than 160 individual measures, including new wilderness designations, new wild and scenic rivers, new hiking trails, heritage areas, water projects, and historic preservation initiatives.

Taken as a whole, this omnibus bill is the most important piece of conservation legislation we will consider this year and perhaps this Congress. Some have argued, and will argue today, no doubt, that the challenges we face mean that we should not spend time considering environmental legislation. They dismiss the package before us as ``feel good'' legislation. Well, I think the American people could use some feel good legislation right now. They could use legislation that protects our pristine public lands, the clear running streams and rivers, the wide open spaces, and the unique history that make this Nation great.

When the headlines read that banks are failing and companies are folding, they could use some headlines announcing that our national parks are still beautiful, our national battlefields are still sacred, and our rivers are still wild and scenic.

When the headlines read that America's status as an economic superpower is in doubt, they could use some headlines announcing that our status as a conservation superpower has never been stronger.

The package before us is exactly what the American people want, and it is exactly what our public lands need. In my own case, I'm enormously proud of the fact that included in this package is the Wild Monongahela Act, which will designate more than 37 acres of wilderness in my home State of West Virginia.

It should be noted that we are amending S. 22 today to insert language making it absolutely clear that this bill will not affect existing State authority to regulate hunting, fishing, and trapping on the lands in this package. The amendment also makes clear that nothing in S. 22 will affect these activities. My colleagues should know that this provision was negotiated with the National Rifle Association and has the NRA's full support.

Opponents of this bill fail to grasp the deep and abiding love the American people have for their land. They fail to understand the power of our wide-open spaces and magnificent vistas, the power of those magnificent vistas to inspire our generation and renew our spirit. It's that kind of inspiration and that kind of renewal that are always valuable, but when times are tough, they are priceless.

We should approve S. 22 today, not in spite of the challenges we face but because of them. These storms will pass and the house of America will be standing because we have kept our land whole.

I urge passage of S. 22.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

To respond to the gentleman, over 70 bills in this omnibus land package were considered by our Committee on Natural Resources and passed out of the House of Representatives. Some 20 more were reviewed by our committee during the last session of Congress when the gentleman from Washington was on a leave of absence from our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona, the subcommittee Chair of our National Parks Subcommittee, a gentleman who has been very instrumental in crafting this legislation and does so much for our national parks, Mr. Grijalva.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire), who has been very instrumental in crafting additional language in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the gentleman's words be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I think previous colloquies or language at least put into this debate by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) made it very clear that it is not the intent of the sponsors of this legislation to see innocent civilians collecting fossils on public lands go to jail. That's not the intent, and it's been made very clear both in the legislation and already in this debate thus far.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent to the distinguished gentleman of our Energy and Minerals Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

(Mr. COSTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California, our subcommittee Chair of our Water and Power Subcommittee, Mrs. Grace Napolitano.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, Mr. Mike Thompson.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am mindful and remain committed to progress in implementing and funding the December 19, 2000, Trinity River restoration record of decision. Restoring the fishery resources of the Trinity River is important for the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe, commercial and recreational fishing families along the coasts of California and Oregon. I agree to work with the gentleman from California in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the omnibus lands packages of the past by Republican Congresses that were jammed down our throats at the last minute, this bill has been around for well over a year in our committee. To have the bill described as being jammed down their throats at this point, the gentleman from Utah has been in quite a few battles with this bill, so he must know a lot about it.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California, the distinguished chairman of our Education and Labor Committee, Mr. George Miller.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a very valued new member of our committee, Mr. Martin Heinrich, the gentleman from New Mexico.

(Mr. HEINRICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Chris Murphy.

If the gentleman will yield, I have four speakers, and it is my intention to conclude the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Brian Baird.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Tom Perriello.

How much time does the gentleman from Washington have, and what are his intentions to use it?

Two.

Not including me.

All right. Then I will yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Gerald Connolly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished Member and a valued member of our Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I am prepared to close.

Simple, simple answer. No.

That is not the case. The answer is no.

The question is not in order, Mr. Speaker.

How much time, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the cost of this legislation. I think it's important to note that CBO estimates that enacting S. 22 would have no effect on revenues and no net effect on direct spending over the 2009 to 2018 period, which is the time period relevant to enforcing the pay-as-you-go rules under the current budget resolution. So, this legislation is PAYGO-compliant. PAYGO rules do apply here; something the Republicans never followed when they were in power.

This is an authorization process and, as most Members know, there's a difference between authorization and appropriation. If Members oppose certain projects in this bill, then the case is to take this to the Appropriations Committee, where those concerns can be properly aired.

The bill contains numerous provisions related to non-Federal matching funds in order to maximize public benefit while minimizing Federal expenditures, an important point that has not yet been made in the pending legislation.

So, as I conclude, Mr. Speaker, let me say, as I said in the beginning, this bill is important, especially in today's troubled economic times. We find more and more families where both breadwinners have to find jobs in order to make ends meet. That means that quality time spent at home is rare, and the quantity of time in which families can spend together is even more rare today. Whenever there is time found together, it must be quality time, and that quality time can be found in our National Parks and our public lands and our heritage areas and our historically preserved areas, in our open spaces.

And that's what this legislation is about. It's a family values issue. Providing hardworking American families today time to spend quality time and quantity time is rare; to spend quality time together in our open spaces, recognizing the vast heritage and important heritage and proud heritage of this great land that we call America. That is what this legislation is all about, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I submit for inclusion in the Record the following exchange of letters between the Judiciary and Natural Resources Committees regarding a certain jurisdictional aspect of S. 22.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, February 5, 2009.

Hon. Nick Rahall,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Rahall: I am writing regarding S. 22, the

Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which has been

received in the House after passing the Senate.

Subtitle D of title VI of that bill is a measure based on

H.R. 554 from the 110th Congress, the Paleontological

Resources Preservation Act, containing significant provisions

within the Rule X jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee,

including criminal penalties, judicial review and enforcement

of administrative fines, use of civil and criminal fines, and

forfeiture. The Judiciary Committee received an extended

referral of H.R. 554 in the 110th Congress, and our two

committees had extensive discussions about refining the bill

in important respects.

While I understand and support the decision, in light of

the difficulty in passing S. 22 in the Senate, to attempt to

pass it in the House without amendment to ensure it reaches

the President, I regret that we will be unable to make

appropriate refinements to the provisions in the Judiciary

Committee's jurisdiction before the bill becomes law. I

appreciate your willingness to work with me to make these

refinements as soon as practicable in subsequent legislation.

I would appreciate your including this letter in the

Congressional Record during consideration of the bill on the

House floor. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and

for the cooperative relationship between our two committees.

Sincerely,

John Conyers, Jr.,

Chairman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. President, the Senate will have before it a series of amendments to the lands bill made by Senator Coburn. I rise to oppose specifically two of these amendments, amendment No. 683 and amendment No. 675, and I do so on behalf of myself and my friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer.

These amendments would essentially throw out a legal settlement agreement concerning the restoration of the San Joaquin River. The settlement agreement ends 18 years of costly litigation. It is the product of 4 years of negotiation by the Bush administration, the State of California, dozens of water agencies, the Friant water users--it affects Friant, and Friant is a Division of the Central Valley Project and 15,000 farmers draw their water from this Division; it is big, it is important, it is critical--and by environmental and fishing groups.

This was a suit brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council against the Federal Government saying that what was happening at Friant Dam was not sufficient in the release of water to protect the salmon.

I wish to have printed in the Record at the end of my remarks a letter by the Governor of the State of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, supporting the settlement agreement, and a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice supporting the settlement agreement. I also commend to my colleagues a Congressional Research Service Memorandum entitled ``Institutional and Economic Context of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement,'' spelling out the institutional and economic context of this settlement agreement.

Thank you very much.

So we have broad and strong support for the settlement agreement. Now, the question is, Why do we have it? The reason we have it is because it is my understanding that the Government has lost the case, and the result is that with or without the settlement, a Federal court will require restoration of the San Joaquin River. According to all of the parties, the court could--and we believe would--order a huge release of water from Friant Dam, negatively impacting the 15,000 farms in the Friant Division of the Central Valley Project.

In contrast, the settlement agreement allows orderly restoration of the river, with minimized impacts to irrigated agricultural and municipal water users. It provides negotiated flood control and other protections for private landowners. It represents a sensible and hard- fought consensus solution. I know, because these parties came to me and asked me if I would sit down with all of the parties and try to put together this settlement agreement, and we did, in fact, do this. It is virtually supported by all of these elements.

Also, the settlement would be far less costly to the taxpayers than returning to court and having the end result of having a Federal judge manage the river. That is what the alternative is. Here is why: The settlement provides almost $400 million in non-Federal funds, so what would have had to have been funded by the Federal taxpayers will be lowered. Effectively, the costs are lowered to Federal taxpayers. The affected water districts have agreed to help fund the settlement with approximately $200 million. The State of California will provide another $200 million. If the Coburn amendment is successful and this is dropped from the bill, the Federal Government will have to pay an additional $400 million and face the fact that the judge could well order a huge release of water, not staggered to any particular time, in no orderly manner, which could have tremendous adverse impacts on the farming community.

The settlement also minimizes economic costs to the region by providing water supply certainty for users, but without the settlement water users in Friant could face more severe water losses and potentially millions of dollars of lost income and lost jobs. As I say, this is 15,000 separate farming entities, so that is unacceptable.

Critics have argued that this provision is wasteful spending and that it would cost millions of dollars for every fish restored. But the facts prove them wrong. To get the number the critics use, they assume that only 500 fish will ever be restored; that is, salmon, instead of the 30,000 salmon that will eventually return to the river each year as a self-sustaining fishery. They ignore all the other benefits of the settlement.

According to the Congressional Research Service analysis I have referenced, it is ``misleading'' to disregard the ``full array of likely project costs and benefits,'' including ``the values that Californians and U.S. citizens place on improvements in environmental quality and restored runs of salmon.''

The bottom line: The settlement offers the best possible solution to a longstanding water fight in my State. I do not believe there is anything wasteful about it. Remember, this suit has gone on for 18 years. I have talked with every one of the parties. They have all come together asking for a settlement agreement, including the Federal Government, the State of California, and actually the environmental group that sued, the NRDC, because they believe that if left to the judge, the action might be very adverse in terms of large amounts of water, rather than being staggered and done in a more sensible way, would be detrimental to the Friant farmers as well as, quite possibly, to the fish.

The other problematic amendment offered by Senator Coburn is amendment No. 675 which would remove the Government's eminent domain authority for the public lands omnibus bill, including the San Joaquin River settlement title of the lands bill.

Now, to be candid, none of us like the use of eminent domain. In the 9 years I was mayor, I refused to use eminent domain in San Francisco and, in fact, never did. But Senator Coburn's amendment ignores the basic reality that the use of eminent domain is sometimes necessary to carry out western water projects that are vital for an entire region because the water comes from one place, the State is vast, and it has to be moved to other places, and the public benefit of moving that water is enormous in the seventh largest economy on Earth.

These water projects need to have the use of eminent domain as a last resort for building water projects and flood channels on a willing seller-willing buyer basis. Otherwise, the Government clearly is not going to be able to build water conduits, water projects, and flood control elements where they are most needed. That may be different in small States, but in huge States such as California, where the water comes primarily either from the very north of the State, the Sierra Nevada mountain range, or the Colorado River--where we are being weaned off of the Colorado River, and have an

agreement to dramatically cut our take of water from the Colorado River--we have to have the conveyances to move the water around the State.

Private landowners also receive the benefit of upgraded flood protections and bypasses around key diversion points, so that fish are not diverted along with irrigation supplies. This is a very sensitive, very problematic area. It has taken a lot of work to know how to do this. The Federal Government could not build these flood and bypass measures to benefit third party landowners without the ability to acquire land through eminent domain. That is just a fact.

There is a great need for water projects in my State. If we don't move, I believe California will end up a desert State. We are faced with high wildfire potential, with warming climates, and reduced water. We are in the third year of a drought.

Mr. President, you might be interested in knowing that for the big Central Valley of California, which makes California the No. 1 agricultural producer in America, most of that valley's water allocation from the Central Valley Project for this year is zero, which means fallowing, which means cutting out trees and crops. So we are in a very sensitive situation.

I urge the Senate to vote no on these Coburn amendments. I think it is very easy to come in and second-guess a situation and not know anything about 18 years of litigation and the fact that the Government is going to lose the case and having to try to work out a settlement, which gets the best for all of the parties concerned. I believe we have done it, and it has taken hours and hours of negotiation.

This has been approved by this body once. To remove the bill and the eminent domain authority from the lands bill would be tragic. Again, the Federal Government would have to pick up the costs the State of California is willing to pay under this settlement--$200 million--and the cost these water contractors are willing to provide--$200 million-- and do the whole job itself, which is going to cost an additional $400 million.

These amendments are in no way, shape, or form, cost effective, and they will hamstring California's effort to solve what is an egregious problem, and that is an increasingly drying State, which is in drought almost on a perpetual basis and is trying to solve its problems.

On behalf of Senator Boxer and I, I urge a ``no'' vote on both of these amendments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time not count against the time allocated for the Kirk nomination.

I thank the Chair.

Exhibit 1

State Capitol,

Sacramento, CA, May 5, 2008.

Hon. Dianne Feinstein,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Feinstein: As Congress again considers

legislation needed to implement the Settlement Agreement

reached to restore the San Joaquin River, I write to

reiterate my support of your leadership in this matter and to

urge Congress to act now to take advantage of this historic

opportunity. Restoring the San Joaquin River will provide

vital benefits to the environment, to the people of the San

Joaquin Valley, and to all Californians. I remain confident

that this settlement can be implemented to provide these

important benefits while minimizing impacts to the Friant

water users and preserving the regional economy.

The state of California has already committed substantial

funding to support the settlement effort. In November 2006,

California voters approved Proposition 84, the Water Quality,

Safety and Supply, Flood Control, Natural Resource Protection

Bond, which earmarks $100 million to support San Joaquin

River restoration. Other bond funds are available to provide

flood management improvements and to support regional water

supply reliability projects. Moreover, I have directed my

Administration to pursue all available opportunities to

contribute to the dual restoration and water management goals

of the Settlement Agreement.

Thank you again for your leadership to secure the passage

of the necessary legislation to advance the restoration of

the San Joaquin River. Please know that my Administration

remains committed to this important effort and we look

forward to continuing our work with the federal government on

this significant restoration program.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger,

Governor.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time during the quorum call be charged equally.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for S. 22, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.

I want to thank Chairman Rahall for his leadership during the previous Congress to move this important legislation forward. While we were unable to vote on this package last year, it is time that we pass these bills.

This legislation is a bipartisan package of more than 160 individual bills, and incorporates a wide range of public lands, water resources, and ocean and coastal protection measures that impact various regions of our Nation. All of the bills included in the package have been thoroughly reviewed and approved by the House or favorably reported by the Senate committee of jurisdiction during the 110th Congress.

Today, I wish to highlight four bills in the omnibus package that I sponsored during the 111th Congress.

First, the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program Act.

This legislation codifies and strengthens an existing NOAA program-- the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program or CELCP--that awards grants to coastal states to protect environmentally sensitive lands.

As someone who represents over 200 miles of California's coastline, I'm well aware of the pressures of urbanization and pollution along our nation's coasts. These activities threaten to impair our watersheds, impact wildlife habitat and cause damage to the fragile coastal ecology.

Coastal land protection partnership programs, like CELCP, can help our Nation meet these growing challenges.

For example, in my congressional district I've worked collaboratively with environmental groups, willing sellers, and the State to conserve lands and waters around Morro Bay, on the Gaviota Coast, and near the Piedras Blancas Light Station.

These projects have offered numerous benefits to local communities by preserving water quality, natural areas for wildlife and birds, and outdoor recreation opportunities--thereby protecting for the future the very things we love about the coasts.

Although the program has been in existence for six years, it has yet to be formally authorized. This legislation seeks to do just that. It expands the federal/state partnership program explicitly for conservation of coastal lands.

Under this program, coastal states can compete for matching funds to acquire land or easements to protect coastal areas that have considerable conservation, recreation, ecological, historical or aesthetic values threatened by development or conversion.

It will not only improve the quality of coastal areas and the marine life they support, but also sustain surrounding communities and their way of life.

I would also like to acknowledge the work of former Congressman Jim Saxton. Mr. Saxton introduced this legislation in the 109th and 110th Congresses. His longstanding commitment to passage of this legislation will ensure the protection of the important coastal habitat and provide for increased recreational opportunities throughout his home state of New Jersey.

The Omnibus Public Land Management Act also includes my Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act.

This legislation seeks to establish a national ocean and coastal observing, monitoring, and forecasting system to gather real-time data on the marine environment, to refine and enhance predictive capabilities, and to provide other benefits, such as improved fisheries management and safer navigation.

To safeguard our coastal communities and nation, we must invest in the integration and enhancement of our coastal and ocean observing systems.

The devastation caused by tsunamis, hurricanes, and other coastal storms demonstrates the critical need for better observation and warning systems to provide timely detection, assessment and warnings to millions of people living in coastal regions around the world.

The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, the Pew Oceans Commission, and many government ocean advisory groups have called for the establishment of a national integrated coastal and ocean observing system as the answer to this challenge.

Specifically, the National Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observing System Act would formally authorize the President to develop and operate a genuine national coastal and ocean observing system to measure, track, explain, and predict events related to climate change, natural climate variability, and interactions between the oceans and atmosphere, including the Great Lakes; promote basic and applied science research; and institutionalize coordinated public outreach, education, and training.

Importantly, this system will build on recent advances in technology and data management to fully integrate and enhance the nation's existing regional observing assets, like the Southern and Central and Northern California Ocean Observing Systems, which operate off California's coastline. These systems have proven invaluable in understanding and managing our ocean and coastal resources.

I would also like to commend our former colleague from Maine, Congressman Tom Allen, for championing this legislation in the 110th Congress. Congressman Allen worked tirelessly to enact this important legislation in the last session, and he deserves a tremendous amount of credit when this measure is signed into law.

S. 22 also includes my City of Oxnard Water Recycling and Desalination Act.

This bill authorizes a proposed regional water resources project--the Groundwater Recover Enhancement and Treatment or GREAT Program--located in my congressional district.

Many communities today are faced with the difficult task of providing reliable and safe water to their customers. The City of Oxnard is no exception.

Oxnard is one of California's fastest growing cities and is facing an ever-growing crisis: it's running out of affordable water.

The water needs for the city's agricultural and industrial base, together with its growing population, have exceeded its local water resources. As a result, over 50 percent of its water has to be imported from outside sources. However, through a series of local, state and federal restrictions the amount of imported water available to the city is shrinking, while the cost of that water is rising.

Recognizing these challenges, Oxnard developed the GREAT Program to address its long-term water needs.

The GREAT Program elements include a new regional groundwater desalination facility to serve potable water customers in Oxnard and adjacent communities; a recycled water system to serve agricultural water users and provide added protection against seawater intrusion and saltwater contamination; and a wetlands restoration and enhancement component that efficiently reuses the brine discharges from both the groundwater desalination and recycled water treatment facilities.

Implementation of the GREAT Program will provide many significant regional benefits.

First, the new desalination project will serve ratepayers in Oxnard and adjacent communities, guaranteeing sufficient water supplies for the area.

Second, Oxnard's current water infrastructure delivers approximately 30 million gallons of treated wastewater per day to an ocean outfall. The GREAT Program will utilize the resource currently wasted to the ocean and treat it so that it can be reused by the agricultural water users in the area.

During the non-growing season, it will inject the resource into the ground to serve as a barrier against seawater intrusion and saltwater contamination. To alleviate severely depressed groundwater levels, this component also pumps groundwater into the aquifer to enhance groundwater recharge.

Finally, the brine produced as a by-product of the desalination and recycling plants will provide a year-round supply of nutrient-rich water to the existing wetlands at Ormond Beach.

I commend Oxnard for finding innovative and effective ways of extending water supplies in the West. In my view, the City of Oxnard Water Recycling and Desalination Act supports one such creative solution.

It will reduce the consumption of groundwater for agricultural and industrial purposes, cut imported water delivery requirements, and improve local reliability of high quality water deliveries.

Finally, the package includes my Goleta Water Distribution System Conveyance Act.

This bill authorizes the title transfer of a federally owned water distribution system in my congressional district from the Bureau of Reclamation to the Goleta Water District.

The purpose of the legislation is to simplify the operation and maintenance of the District's water distribution system and eliminate unnecessary paperwork and consultation between the District and the Bureau.

The Goleta Water District has operated and maintained the facilities proposed for transfer since the 1950s. They have worked through all requirements of the Bureau's title transfer process, including public meetings, fulfillment of their repayment obligations, completion of an environmental assessment, and compliance with all other applicable laws.

The only step remaining to complete the process is an act of Congress enabling the Secretary of the Interior to transfer title.

It is important to note that the proposed transfer would apply only to lands and facilities associated with the District and would not affect the District's existing water service contract with the Santa Barbara County Water Agency, nor the Federal government receipts from water deliveries under the contract.

In addition, the proposed transfer does not envision any new physical modification or expansion of the service infrastructure.

I'm pleased the Bureau supported my legislation, which will allow the Bureau to focus its limited resources where they are needed most.

In my view, this is an example of local problem-solving at its best. I commend the staff of the water district and the Bureau for their efforts to reach this agreement. I know that they have been working on this for several years now.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, all of these bills could not have been accomplished without the strong support and hard work and dedication of the House Leadership and Chairman Rahall, and I thank them for successfully moving these priorities in my congressional district.

I urge all of my colleagues to support the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.