WAGES Act

Madam President, how much time remains in opposition to this first amendment?

Let me take 2 of the 4 minutes because I know my colleague from Alaska was hoping to speak also. If she arrives, I will yield that time to her. If she does not, I will reclaim it.

Madam President, let me go ahead and briefly describe my reasons for urging we not support this first amendment. This first amendment is an amendment Senator Coburn offered and is very nearly identical to an amendment he offered to the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008. That was the package of public land bills the House sent us that year.

Most of the Senate voted against the amendment. I hope they will again. The amendment required the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to post an annual report on the Internet detailing a great deal of information about lands owned by the Government: buildings, structures on those lands, extensive information on which are used, which are not used, the cost of operation of those lands, and those structures estimated backlog for maintenance of various structures of the agencies.

The issue the Senator is trying to get at was dealt with in the previous administration, when President Bush issued Executive Order 13327. Therein, he set up the Federal Real Property Council, a Federal real property council, that has, as its job, tracking asset management, inventory of assets, setting up systems to do that, working

under the auspices of the General Services Administration; the Government Accountability Office or the General Services Administration.

I believe that is a much better thought-through way to proceed with this. The cost of this amendment would be fairly extensive. We do not have an exact estimate, but we have been told there are 1.2 billion pieces of real property or real property assets worldwide, over 636 million acres of land we are talking about here, that would have to be inventoried and reported on in an updated fashion every year. So this is an extensive undertaking.

Madam President, how much time remains on my side?

I withhold my time until the Senator from Alaska can have a chance to get her thoughts together.

Madam President, I yield myself 1 minute.

Let me speak on that one issue. I think my colleague from Alaska is correct, this does involve a change in current law. It says that the decision as to what affects national security will be made by OMB for purposes of this inventory and display. It will not be made by agencies such as the Department of Defense, CIA, Department of Energy, and others that currently make those decisions. That is a mistake. It also specifies that items can be left out for national security reasons. The Executive order made clear that items could also be left out or should be left out if they involved foreign policy issues or safety issues for the public.

The amendment is not consistent with what I believe we ought to be doing in this area. I urge colleagues to oppose it.

I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 682

Madam President, this amendment No. 682 is one I have advised the Senator from Oklahoma is acceptable to Senators on this side of the aisle.

Let me briefly describe what it does. It would modify the underlying provisions of the substitute amendment dealing with the protection of fossil resources on Federal land by making three changes. First, the underlying bill says the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture may allow casual collecting of common fossils without a permit for personal use. That is consistent with the management policies of the Federal land in question. The Coburn amendment says it requires that the two Secretaries allow that casual collecting for personal use. Secondly, the Coburn amendment would remove a provision that would have authorized agencies under some circumstances to acquire new lands. Finally, the amendment removes a provision in the underlying bill that would have authorized forfeiture of any vehicle or equipment used by someone illegally removing fossil resources.

I think all three of these changes improve the bill and I support the amendment. I believe we can act on this with a voice vote, but I will leave it to the Senator from Oklahoma to make his statement.

Madam President, we yield 2 minutes in opposition to this amendment to Senator Feinstein from California.

Madam President, I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, let me take 5 of the 15 minutes we have. If you will advise me when that time is used.

In just a few minutes, the Senate will vote on final passage of H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Lands Act. I believe our actions this week will make it

more likely that the House of Representatives will be able to consider and approve the Senate amendments expeditiously.

Today's vote will culminate many years of work on more than 160 bills that are included in this package and represents a major achievement for the protection of our Nation's cultural, natural, and historic resources. As I have observed before, when you take all of these bills together, I believe they represent the most significant conservation legislation passed by the Senate, at least in the last 15 years.

In addition, the bill will finally resolve three very important and complex water rights settlements in three different States and literally decades of litigation and controversy about that water. The wilderness and other conservation areas designated in the bill represent years and years of efforts by local citizens, through countless public meetings, in an effort to find a way to protect some of the most important scenic areas in their States, while balancing wilderness designations against other uses. In my opinion, the sponsors of these provisions have gone to great lengths to find that balance.

Some contend that the wilderness, national parks, wild and scenic rivers, and other conservation designations will frustrate our Nation's ability to develop new domestic energy supplies. I strongly disagree. We have gone to great lengths to assess the energy potential of the new areas, and in almost all cases the Bureau of Land Management has concluded that the wilderness areas do not have significant energy development potential.

The Energy and Natural Resources Committee which I am privileged to chair and of which Senator Murkowski is ranking member is assembling a comprehensive energy bill. We hope to bring it to the Senate floor for consideration soon. That bill will provide an opportunity to promote programs to expand the development of domestic energy resources.

I believe the question of whether we should protect our Nation's natural and cultural heritage or instead develop our energy and other resources is a false choice. They are mutually exclusive goals. We can accomplish them both.

A former Senator from my State, who also chaired the then-Interior Committee in the Senate, once said the following:

Wilderness is an anchor to windward. Knowing it is there,

we can also know that we are still a rich Nation, tending our

resources as we should--not a people in despair searching

every last nook and cranny of our land for a board of lumber,

a barrel of oil, a blade of grass, or a tank of water.

Let me also indicate that there are many provisions in this bill that are of particular importance to my State: the Navajo Nation Indian Water Rights Settlement; the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Project; the Rio Grande Pueblo Irrigation Infrastructure legislation; the SECURE Water Act, which has national implications but is important to my State as well; Prehistoric Trackways National Monument; Fort Stanton-Snowy River Cave National Conservation Area; Sabinoso Wilderness, which Senator Udall has spearheaded; Rio Puerco Watershed Act; and also the Forest Landscape Restoration Act.

This bill will have a far-reaching and positive impact on New Mexico's precious and scarce water resources. The most significant provision is the settlement of the Navajo Nation's water rights claims in the San Juan River basin.

This settlement will avoid conflicts, risks, and costs that would be borne by the Navajo Nation, individual water users, municipalities, the State of New Mexico, and the Federal Government if the Navajo claims were litigated in-full. Instead, defining the Navajo Nation's water rights by agreement will improve water management in the basin and ensure that future water demands can be addressed through an efficient administrative process.

Most important, however, is that the settlement will provide a sustainable water supply to Navajo communities in the eastern portion of the Navajo Reservation. Currently, 40 percent of the population on the reservation--approximately 70,000 people--must haul water for use in their homes. This situation has resulted in serious health, education, and economic consequences for the Navajo people. This legislation will begin to address these issues, as well as the United States' obligations to the Navajo Nation.

On the opposite side of the State, several communities are facing an uncertain water future due to falling levels of groundwater in the Ogallala aquifer. To address this problem, the bill authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to help develop the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System. This project will use an available water supply in Ute Reservoir to provide communities in eastern New Mexico with a renewable water supply and the long-term security that is critical to the region's future. As a measure of its importance, the State of New Mexico already has provided about $8 million to develop the project. Enacting this legislation will help communities in Curry and Roosevelt Counties secure the water needed to sustain current economic activity and support future development in the region.

In the heart of New Mexico is the Rio Grande. Over the past decade, there have been many conflicts over this magnificent, but limited resource. Conserving water and improving inefficient infrastructure has been a key factor in minimizing these conflicts. Unfortunately, Native Americans residing in the Rio Grande basin have not benefited greatly from these improvements. This bill will change that situation by directing the Bureau of Reclamation to work with the Rio Grande Pueblos to assess irrigation infrastructure and initiate projects to rehabilitate and repair such infrastructure on Pueblo lands.

By focusing Federal resources and expertise on this problem now, the Federal Government, as part of its trust responsibility, will help prevent further deterioration of Pueblo irrigation systems and avoid additional rehabilitation costs in the future. The Pueblos will benefit markedly from increased agricultural productivity, increased water conservation, and safer facilities. More importantly, however, these improvements will help the Pueblos to sustain their historical way of life, both economically and culturally. Finally, the overall health of the Rio Grande basin will likely benefit through increased efficiency in water use.

The final water provision I want to mention is one that will benefit New Mexico and many other States. The SECURE Water Act is based on the view that effectively addressing water issues requires a better understanding of the resource, and increasing the efficiency of its use. For that reason, the bill seeks to strengthen the national streamflow program, improve ground water monitoring efforts, enhance our understanding of water uses and availability, and provide grants to implement water conservation and efficiency projects.

It also will improve our understanding of the impacts of climate change on water and ensure that adaptation strategies are formulated and implemented. This is particularly important in New Mexico, where one recent study by researchers at the University of New Mexico and New Mexico State predicts that surface water in the Rio Grande basin could decline by as much as 12 percent by 2030 and 33 percent by 2080.

New Mexico will also benefit from a number of important public land provisions, including the designation of a new national monument.

The Prehistoric Trackways National Monument in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, will protect a remarkable ``megatracksite'' of 290 million- year-old fossils. This site of worldwide scientific significance has preserved the trackways of some of the earliest creatures to make their way out of the ocean, which will help fill in the gaps left from studying only their fossilized bones.

Las Cruces resident Jerry MacDonald first brought the find to light in 1988, and thanks to a more recent discovery by MacDonald, we now know that the National Monument also will protect a well-preserved 290 million-year-old petrified forest where three new species of trees already have been discovered. The local curation of these specimens should provide unique scientific and educational opportunities for the surrounding community and visitors to the region.

The Fort Stanton-Snowy River Cave National Conservation Area in Lincoln

County, NM, will permanently protect the cave system, including a passageway containing a more than 4-mile-long continuous calcite- crystal river bed, a unique formation that is believed to be the longest one of its kind in the world.

While exploration of this cave began centuries ago, it was not until 2001 that volunteers with the Fort Stanton Cave Study Group discovered the Snowy River passageway, which defied their wildest expectations. This discovery already has yielded valuable scientific research in hydrology, geology, and microbiology, the last of which may even have applications in interplanetary exploration. We will be proud to include the Fort Stanton-Snowy River Cave on New Mexico's prestigious list of world-class sites.

The bill also includes legislation spearheaded by Senator Tom Udall-- the designation of the 16,000 acre Sabinoso Wilderness in San Miguel County, NM. The Sabinoso Wilderness will protect a rugged and beautiful landscape that provides important wildlife habitat and represents an important watershed to our State.

New Mexico is the home of the first congressionally designated wilderness area, and the Sabinoso Wilderness represents a well-deserved addition to the National Wilderness Preservation System. I hope our efforts to permanently protect this area will ensure that future generations can enjoy this outstanding public resource.

This bill also will reauthorize the Rio Puerco Watershed Act, which formalized the Rio Puerco Management Committee in New Mexico. The committee has become one of the most effective collaborative land management efforts in the Southwest. And for more than 10 years, it has helped facilitate the restoration of the highly degraded Rio Puerco Watershed, the largest tributary to the Rio Grande. There is much more work to be done to restore this watershed, and this legislation will assist the committee in that effort.

Title IV of the bill--the Forest Landscape Restoration Act--holds great promise for our fire-dependant forests and communities in New Mexico and across the country. Wildfire activity and suppression costs have grown dramatically in recent years. The affects of global warming are increasingly impacting forest and watershed health. And communities across the country are struggling economically.

This legislation will establish a program to select and fund collaborative landscape-scale forest restoration projects that will improve forest health, reduce wildfire management costs, and benefit local economies. The positive response that we have seen from Members of Congress, State and local officials, and communities across the country speaks to the importance of these issues and the promise of this approach. I hope we can quickly provide funding to implement the legislation, as we cannot afford to wait to begin this critical work.

It is past time for us to enact these measures to provide water to our communities, to protect our natural wonders, and to restore our natural resources. Many New Mexicans have worked for years to see these provisions enacted into law, and I am pleased the Senate is taking the important steps toward achieving that goal.

I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Alaska.

Madam President, before the Senator from Oklahoma has the final say, which he certainly should, let me say there are a great many people, excellent staff working for the Democratic side of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and staff working for Senator Murkowski on the Republican side of the committee who deserve great credit. We enumerated those staff when we dealt with this legislation 2 months ago, and we will do so again in the Record. Let me particularly indicate David Brooks here with me and Kara Finkler as the two who have done the most to make this possible. Without their good work, this would not be legislation coming up for final consideration.

Madam President, let me add two additional individuals to the list of folks I particularly mentioned by name. Mike Connor, who is responsible for all the water rights legislation contained in the legislation in the Secure Water Act, I note for my colleagues that he has been named just today as the President's choice to be head of the Bureau of Reclamation, which I think is a great thing for the country; and Scott Miller, who worked very hard on the forest issues involved with this legislation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I am informed the time to vote has arrived, and I yield back any time that remains on our side.

Madam President, today the Senate has passed H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009. As I said during the debate, H.R. 146 includes over 160 bills from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and reflects many years of hard work.

This achievement would not have been possible without the hard work of our outstanding staff. Both our ranking member, Senator Murkowski, and I are very fortunate to have a very dedicated and experienced professional staff. They service the committee and the Senate well. They deserve our thanks.

On the Democratic staff of the committee, I would like to thank the committee's staff director, Bob Simon, and chief counsel, Sam Fowler, for all of their work on this legislation, as on all the legislation that comes through our committee. I would also like to thank senior counsel Patty Beneke; counsel Mike Connor, who worked on all of the water issues included in the bill; counsels David Brooks, Kira Finkler, and Scott Miller, who coordinated all of the park and public lands bills; professional staff members Jorge Silva-Banuelos, who worked very hard on many of the New Mexico land bills; and Jonathan Epstein; and two National Park Service fellows, Karl Cordova, who worked on the committee last year, and Mike Gauthier, who is on the staff for the current year.

I would also like to thank the committee's chief clerk, Mia Bennett; executive assistant Amanda Kelly; communications director Bill Wicker; press secretary David Marks; and staff assistants Rachel Pasternack, Anna-Kristina Fox, Gina Weinstock, and Rosemarie Calabro.

On the Republican side, let me acknowledge Senator Murkowski's new staff director, McKie Campbell, and chief counsel Karen Billups. I would also like to note my thanks to former Senator Domenici's staff director during the previous Congress, Frank Macchiarola, former minority chief counsel, Judy Pensabene, and former professional staff member Tom Lillie. I would also like to recognize counsel Kellie Donnelly; as well as professional staff members Frank Gladics, Josh Johnson, Chuck Kleeschulte, and Kaleb Froehlich, all of whom made significant contributions to this bill.

In addition, I am very grateful to the committee's nondesignated staff: Allison Seyfurth, Dawson Foard, Nancy Hall, Amber Passmore, Monica Chestnut, and Wanda Green.

H.R. 146 contains over 1,200 pages of text, and was the subject of numerous revisions. I am grateful to the help of the Senate legislative counsel office, and Gary Endicott, Heather Burnham, and Colin Campbell in particular.

I would also like to thank Cliff Isenberg from the Senate Budget Committee for his help; as well as Deb Reis from the Congressional Budget Office, and Tyler Kruzich, formerly with CBO.

Finally, let me acknowledge the great help in bringing the bill to the floor we received from the majority leader and his staff: Neil Kornze, Chris Miller, Randy DeValk, Gary Myrick, and, as always, the secretary for the majority, Lula Davis, as well as Tim Mitchell, the assistant secretary for the majority. I would also like to thank the cloakroom staff, Joe Lapia, Meredith Mellody, Brandon Durflinger, and Estaban Galvan, for all of their assistance.

All of these fine staff members had a hand in putting H.R. 146 together and moving it through the legislative process. We would not have been able to pass the bill without their hard work and their professionalism. I wish to thank each and every one of them for their good work.

Madam President, since I am controlling the remaining 10 minutes, I would be happy to yield to the Senator from Florida 2 minutes of that time.

Madam President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Florida.

Amendment No. 683

Madam President, I wish to rebut some of what the Senator from New Mexico said in terms of the real property reform.

What you heard in his statements is a profound admission that we do not have the information right now. We do not have it. We have over 650 million acres of land, we have over 21,000 empty buildings now that we know of. That is just a guess.

How, in a time when we are going to run a $2.2 trillion deficit this year, can we say we do not want the tools to manage the real property in this country. The Executive order has not done it. It was basically about buildings, Federal buildings.

I worked with the OMB on that 3 years ago to set that up. Much to the avail, we now know we have the 21,000 buildings, but the Senate continues to block any real property reform so we cannot get some of the $18 billion we are wasting every year on those 21,000 buildings. We cannot get any of them sold; we cannot dispose of any of them; we cannot even raze any of the ones that need to be razed.

The very fact that we would oppose having the information we need to make real decisions, frugal financial decisions with America's taxpayer dollars, at a time when we are in an economic malaise, and have a deficit that is going to be $6,000 to $7,000 per every individual in this country is amazing to me.

This requires 1 year of hard work and requires very little work anyway after that. So it is not an onerous task. But even if it were an onerous task, the thing we ought to be doing is getting the information with which to make good management decisions, which we continue to not want to have, so it can be an excuse so we can do what we want to do without knowing what the facts are.

Nobody would run any organization without trying to know about their assets. Yet we are going to refuse to list out and know what we own, where it is, where we are behind, what needs to get fixed, and what does not need to get fixed.

Common sense would dictate that if, in fact, you have a large number of assets and a limited budget, and it is going to get more limited as the years progress given the tremendous borrowing, the tremendous taxing that is getting ready to come about in this country, common sense would suggest we know what we are doing and that we have the information with which to make good decisions.

To defeat this amendment says we want to continue to go on blindly; we do not want to have the information at our fingertips with which to make good, informed decisions about where to put taxpayer dollars. The very fact that the GAO now says we have between a $13 and $19 billion backlog just on structures in national parks and that the Department of the Interior is so far behind and is growing about $400 million every 6 months in terms of its backlog and for us to not know what is there and what should be prioritized to me is the height of foolishness.

So we can defeat this amendment, and we can continue to go on blindly, making poor decisions because we are not making them within the perspective of the complete knowledge of what we own, what is important, and what should be prioritized. The Senate continues to refuse to prioritize its spending. The whole purpose behind this amendment is to give us the knowledge with which to make those decisions. But our political nature tells us we want an excuse so we do not have to make those good decisions. We do not want to have the information.

Consequently, we put the credit card in, we spend money not wisely, not fiscally responsibly, and we charge it to our grandkids. At some point in time it has to stop. Now, it is probably not going to stop with this amendment. But you would not run your personal household this way. If you had your own business, you would never run it this way. You would never want your city government to not know what it owned and what its backlogs were, you would have an accounting.

States do not do that. But we do that, and we do it at our own convenience, which I think is a shame. It belies our responsibility to future generations. It also belies the fact that we need the capability to make the tough choices. Not having this information means we will continue to make

choices that are politically expedient but are policy poor and policy foolish.

So I understand--actually I do not understand. Let me correct that. I do not understand why somebody would not want this information, and why--even though it is hard to get the first year, why we would not want it.

Now, 100 percent of the Senators agreed we ought to have the Federal Financial and Transparency Act where we put online where we are spending the money, 100 percent of us. We thought that was a good deal. Here is another step toward transparency we can make that will give us information, give the American people the information to judge us.

If we are going to put X money on a certain project, they ought to be able to see it in relationship to everything else we are doing. We are going to refuse to do that. I don't understand why. I don't have a clue to understand why we would not want factual information with which to make priority decisions in terms of the Department of Interior and in terms of national parks and forestland. It belies any sense of reality and any connection with common sense that we would refuse to do that.

I retain the remainder of my time.

Let me answer my colleague. There is an exception in this bill for anything of national intelligence or confidence, that it should not be related to the general public. It is already in there. So there is no problem where we would expose things we should not. It has been covered in the amendment. If Members truly believe we need to have the information, they need to be voting for the amendment. This is a wise approach to give us information we need to make cogent decisions.

I retain the remainder of my time.

Madam President, that argument rings hollow. The two of you sitting right there have the power to amend and change this and fix it with what your concerns are. It hasn't been offered once. You say you are for it. You have the power to change it to meet what you think are problems with the amendment. Yet there has been no offer to do that. That says one of two things: Either you don't want us to have this information or you are claiming a false claim that there is a defect with the amendment. You have every ability to change this, offer an amendment, modify it with my consent to meet your needs, but it has never been offered. The real fact is, we don't want the information. We can't manage 650-plus million acres; we can't manage millions of facilities without the information. We are going to sit here in the dark of night and continue to throw darts, missing the dart board all the time with what we do when we don't have this information.

I yield back the balance of my time and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, the chairman is correct. I will gladly accept a voice vote.

Madam President, I won't spend the time to refute all of what the distinguished Senator from California said, other than to note that in 1924 the salmon were gone from that river; before any of the water canals or anything else was built. We are going to spend $30,000 a fish based on the 300,000 salmon.

More importantly, this amendment talks about five total different earmarks in this bill. My office had a conversation with the mayor of St. Augustine, FL, this morning. Here are his words: I am really worried about the fiscal nature of this country. I am really worried that we are in real trouble, but I still want my money.

Well, the way a republic dies is when the constituency learns they can vote themselves money from the public Treasury regardless of what the overall financial situation of the country is. These are the main earmarks in this bill. The President has said he doesn't want a bill full of earmarks. This strips them all out. We can either do what the American people want--we can act fiscally responsibly--or we can continue the age-old process of putting our positions ahead of those of the constituents we represent.

With that, I yield the floor and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I have just a few observations before we start the vote. This has been a long process on this bill. I appreciate the pain and patience of the chairman of the committee. He has been a gentleman to work with all the time in our discussions.

I also note for the Senate that over 70 of these bills could have gone by unanimous consent, but because we chose to have a procedure where up until now, over the last 2 years, no amendments were ever allowed to be offered on any of these bills--none; it was never an option--we have taken approximately 7 weeks on something we could have done in 2 weeks if we had an open amendment process like the Senate is supposed to. We find ourselves ping-ponging between the House and the Senate because we want to avoid the very purpose for which we

are here, which is open debate and amendment.

It should be a lesson to us. The American people win when there is a debate. They lose when we use unanimous consent to pass something that is controversial. To say it is not, the average we got on our amendments was 31 votes. That is almost a third of the Senate. So to say we should pass legislation by unanimous consent when a third of the Senate does not agree, I would say there is a great lesson for us and that is, let's open up, let's have a debate, let's put a short period of time on it, and let's not have to use procedures to try to, in fact, get a debate for the American people.

I will also say, in looking at this bill, what have we done? There are a lot of good provisions in this bill. I am not opposed to half of this bill. Half of this bill I am adamantly opposed to.

I was thinking, as we recognize the Republican and Democratic staff, who is representing truly the American people rather than parochial interests and what staff worked on that? We went through this. We rejected transparency for the American people. We rejected the ability to know what we have and how to deal with it and how to manage it. We have said no by a vote of this body that we are not going to do that; we like the darkness, the lack of accountability, the lack of transparency that goes to the American people. We rejected eliminating earmarks. Every appropriator voted against that amendment, even though the President says and the American people say that is not the way they want to do business. But we rejected it.

We have rejected significant amounts of potential renewable energy. Ninety percent of all geothermal, potential renewable clean energy, is put at risk by what we are doing. I know that is disputable, but our own Secretary of the Interior this week said we should not put the cart before the horse. We should have good planning on where we are going with transmission lines, the grids, and everything else, so we can take advantage of solar, wind, and geothermal. But yet we have rejected that.

We have rejected prioritizing the needs of our national parks. That is what the Senate has done this week. We said: No, we are not going to do that, if we want to do something new, even though we have between $12 billion and $19 billion worth of backlogs, as the Government Accountability Office said we have significant health and safety risks for our employees and the American public who visit our parks--we rejected that. We said: No, we should not take care of what we have now before we start something new. We have done exactly the opposite of what the average American would be doing with their own assets.

The other thing we have done is we have taken a large amount of oil and natural gas and said you can never touch it again. Let me emphasize why. Of the 80 wilderness bills my colleagues put in this legislation, 35 of them, under the Wilderness Study Area they said they never should be put into the wilderness, and my colleagues put them in the wilderness anyway.

The whole project of having the Wilderness Study Area is to use the study to determine if an area should be wilderness. Not counting Colorado and Utah, my colleagues put 448,000 acres into wilderness that the study says should never go into wilderness area because they have significant oil and gas and other energy.

We rejected the process by which we do it because parochial interests have trumped the national energy needs of this country, and that does not count Colorado and Utah. Utah has a significant area. So probably well over 35 percent of all the land my colleagues have taken away and said forever we are never going to touch, we are never going to utilize the natural resources that this country could utilize when we are sending $400 billion a year overseas for carbon-based energy which we are going to do for the next 20 years no matter what, you have taken it away. You said never.

As I said earlier, you have taken clean renewables. We don't know what the percentage is but a significant percentage of geothermal for sure. A bill is going to be introduced that is going to take several hundred thousand acres out of the California desert by the Senator from California which is prime land for solar. It is getting ready to be introduced so that can never be touched.

We have to have energy, and we are ignoring assets that we have. We are putting into wilderness area assets that have significant energy. We are ignoring the process under which we said we would make those determinations. When well over 35 of the 80 were recommended they not be put into wilderness area, what are the American people to think? Where is the common sense to say maybe we ought to plan for the future? Maybe we ought to look and say: If we are going to go to a renewable portfolio totally of energy in this country, how long is it going to take us to get there and what do we need in between now and then to do that?

We are not making good long-term decisions with this bill. We are handicapping ourselves, and we are telling the Middle East: Go ahead and jack it up because we are going to limit our options with which we can balance energy needs in this country by what we are doing in this bill.

Finally, we have said in this bill eminent domain is going to be utilized. We say we are not going to do it, but we certainly said: American landowner, if we are there and if we decide we want to do something, we are going to keep it.

The fact is, one of the most painful things that occurs to an American citizen in this country is your land, without your permission, even though you are paid an equitable price for it, is taken from you. We said that is fine. We rejected that. Thirty-five Senators voted to not reject it but 60-some voted to reject it.

Let me summarize. We like our earmarks. We don't want to think long term on energy. We reject policies that say we should not put land into the wilderness area, but we do it anyway. We have taken away our ability to handle the next energy crisis, which is coming. We have told the American people we are going to keep eminent domain and, by the way, it doesn't matter if you own property, we will take it if we need it.

Besides all that, we have now more land area in wilderness in this country than we have developed land. There is 108 million acres now in wilderness in this country and only 106 million acres of developed land. When do we have enough? When do we stop tying our arm behind our back in terms of energy, whether it is renewable or carbon based? When do we do that? Is it wise and prudent to say we should not leave all options on the table for our energy needs for the future, whether it is green energy or traditional energy? Why would we send that signal to the rest of the world? And why would we do that to the American taxpayers?

What is going to happen on energy prices in this country is natural gas is going to double in the next 2 years, and it is going to double for a couple of reasons. One is because they cannot afford to drill for it right now at $4. No. 2, we are taking a large swath, 13 million cubic feet, one area you have isolated, enough to run this country for 2\1/2\ years. It is proven, we know it is there, it is easy to get out, we don't have to do a whole lot more drilling, but you can't have it. We have taken 300 million barrels of oil in that same area and said: America, you can't have it. We know its there, its not hard to get out, but you can't have it. And that is just in one of the ranges we are setting off to the side and not making available to the American public to lower their energy costs, to balance the supply-and-demand imbalance we will see in the future.

It is important that this bill was put together by combining what individuals wanted for their States. I know some of these land and water rights issues are complicated. I know the exchanges are hard, and I know protecting things in the right way is important. I know it is to the Senator from Idaho, the Senator from Alaska, and the Senator from New Mexico. But when does the overall best benefit for the American people start trumping things around here instead of what we want parochially?

I think we have two diseases. I think we have attention deficit disorder in the Senate to what the real problems are, so I think we need to be in a 12-step program to correct that. Then I think we have hyperparochialism in the sense that what is most important

is what is important in my State; be danged what happens to the rest of the country.

Our country is failing in a lot of areas now, and most of it is our fault. But what we will ultimately fail on is when we start thinking more about individual States than the best long-term benefit for the country. This bill is a classic example where we put parochial interests ahead of the long-term interests of the country.

I worry about the grandchildren of this country. This is an $11 billion bill with $900 million in mandatory spending. When we have all these things we need to do that are a much higher priority, we are going to do this now. I am disappointed in us because we don't think long term, that we think short term. It is beneath the oath we take when we continue to do this. I want to be proud of what we do, and I want us to be above the influence of any short-term, any parochial, or any political decision.

The people in this body know me, that I go after Republican projects as much as Democrats. I go on the basis of what I think is in the best long-term interest. That is not to say my colleagues don't too, but as a collective body we have not been doing that. And we are not going to fix the real problem in our country, which is the economy. It is amazing to me that we are spending time on this bill instead of fixing the economic problems of this country; that we are sitting here and we have spent a total of 7 weeks in the last 3 or 4 months on this bill rather than working on the real problems and the real needs of this country.

The long-term future of our country is at great risk today, and I am not just talking economically. When we choose to protect home--i.e. State or city or earmark--at the expense of the long-term interest of our country, we won't last. What has made this country great throughout its years is we have had leaders who have said: The heck with my position. What is best for the country should come first.

The irony of that--and it is really paradoxical--is, when people see that, we restore confidence. When they see the opposite of that, they lose confidence in us. And we ought to be about restoring the American people's confidence. They are rattled today. They are rattled over the economy. They are rattled over their confidence in us, and we ought to be about restoring that. I don't think this bill does that.

I appreciate the patience of my colleagues. I have great respect for you. I know your sincere desires. But I truly think we need some coaxing to get our eye back on the ball.

Madam President, I yield the floor--I understand we will not vote until 12:20--and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.

Madam President, today, the Senate can be very proud of a very significant accomplishment for the enjoyment and protection of wilderness areas, historical sites, national parks, forests, trails and scenic rivers. Collectively, this is one of the most sweeping conservation bills the Senate has passed in many years.

This bill has been through many twists and turns over the last year. But today's successful vote could not have been possible without the tenacity and dedication of the Majority Leader.

I thank the majority leader for his steadfast support and dedication to seeing that these important public land priorities become law.

There are a number my bills in this omnibus lands package that I would like to speak to.

First, the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail Designation Act. This bill will create a National Park Service trail to celebrate the remarkable geologic history of the Pacific Northwest region. This bill has enjoyed regional, bipartisan support. I would like to thank Senators Murray, Wyden, Crapo, and my former colleagues Senators Smith and Craig for working with me on this legislation.

There are too many people to thank by name but I want to acknowledge the dedication of the Ice Age Floods Institute, particularly its President, Gary Kleinknecht, who has worked tirelessly to educate our country on the significance of the Ice Age Floods Geologic Trail.

In many ways, the members of the Institute serve as the proteges of people like University of Washington professor J. Harlan Bretz and USGS geologist Joseph Pardee, who fought to make credible their hypothesis about the historic existence of the Ice Age Floods.

This is a wonderful day for many communities, scientists, and Ice Age Floods enthusiasts throughout the Pacific Northwest, and for tourism and geologic education.

The Ice Age Floods Institute has promoted the development of an Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail for over 12 years. With the growing interest and enthusiasm for this concept, this Geologic Trail is a long time coming. The story of the Ice Age Floods is a truly amazing story of the forces of nature and their impact on our lives.

When geologists first saw the vast Columbia Basin in eastern Washington, they recognized that glaciers and flowing water had played a large part in shaping the extraordinary landscape, with its canyons, buttes, dry cataracts, boulder fields, and gravel bars.

During the last Ice Age, some 13,000 to 18,000 years ago, an ice cap covered almost all of Canada and extended down across much of the Pacific Northwest. In Idaho, a 2,000-foot-high glacier backed water up in western Montana until it formed Glacial Lake Missoula, totaling 530 cubic miles or more than Lakes Erie and Ontario combined.

When Glacial Lake Missoula deepened enough, the sheer force of the backed up water undermined the glacial ice dam, and the ice give way in a cracking explosion. The huge lake was released all at once.

When the dam broke, a towering mass of water and ice was released and swept across parts of Idaho, Washington, and Oregon on its way to the ocean.

The peak rate of flow was ten times the combined flow of all the rivers of the world. The huge lake may have emptied in as little as 2 or 3 days.

Geologists at the University of Washington counted 89 floods without reaching bottom, leading to present-day estimates of up to 100 catastrophic water releases.

The glacial ice dam would break, sparking cataclysmic floods, fresh ice would eventually flow from Canada to once more create an ice dam and Lake Missoula, and the cycle would be repeated every 50 years or so. It ended only with the melting of the continental ice cap.

These epic floods fundamentally changed the geography and way of life in the Pacific Northwest. The coulees, buttes, boulder fields, lakes, ridges and gravel bars they left behind still define the unique landscape of our State and our region today.

These floods are a remarkable part of our natural heritage. They have profoundly affected the geography and ways of life in the region but have remained largely unknown to the general public.

The legacy of the floods includes not only stark scabland and dramatic dry coulees and cataracts, but also exceptionally fertile, productive farmland, and significant wetlands and aquifers.

Creating a National Park Service trail to recognize and celebrate how these floods literally shaped the face of our state will provide an unparalleled educational resource for Washingtonians and visitors from across the country.

It will also spur economic development and create jobs in local communities across eastern and central Washington.

I appreciate the Senate's attention to this bill that will help educate and interpret one of the largest flooding events known to science.

To date, more than 30 entities spanning State and local governments, chambers of commerce, and other civic and community organization support creation of the trail concept.

This Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 also includes my Snoqualmie Pass Land Conveyance Act. This hill would transfer an acre and a half of Forest Service land to the Snoqualmie Pass fire district to help them build a new fire station.

I specifically thank the fire district commissioner Chris Caviezel for working so hard on behalf of the people at Snoqualmie Pass and providing top rate emergency services at one of the most traveled mountain passes in the country.

During our recent winter storms, which brought several feet of snow, following by pounding rain and massive land slides at the Pass, Chris has been on the front lines providing tireless and dedicated round the clock public service to keep Snoqualmie Pass safe.

The Snoqualmie Pass Fire Department serves a portion of two counties on both sides of the Cascade Mountains along Interstate 90, a community of 350 full-time residents that peaks to 1,500 during the ski season.

Additionally, the ski area estimates 20,000 patrons on a busy weekend, and the Department of Transportation estimates that up to 60,000 vehicles travel through the fire district on a busy day, making it the busiest mountain highway in the country.

This area is also the major transportation corridor for goods and services between eastern and western Washington. The all-volunteer fire department averages over 300 calls a year with about a 10 percent annual increase in call volumes, which is more than triple the amount of calls a typical all-volunteer fire department would respond to in a year.

Eighty-four percent of those incidents are for nontax paying residents. Consequently, the fire department has the characteristics of a large city with the limited resources of a small community.

In recent years, this area has been the scene of major winter snowstorms, multi-vehicle accidents, and even avalanches.

The fire district is often the first responder to incidents in the area, which is prone to rock slides and avalanches and it is not uncommon for this community to be isolated for hours or even days at a time.

Several thousand people can be stranded at the pass during those periods when the Pass is closed and while the Department of Transportation works quickly to get the roads back open, it can be very taxing on local resources.

For decades, the fire district has been leasing its current site from the Forest Service. They operate out of an aging building that was not designed to be a fire station.

Through their hard work and dedication, they have served their community ably despite this building's many shortcomings. However, with traffic on the rise and the need for emergency services in the area growing, the fire district needs to move to a true fire station.

The fire district has identified a nearby site that would better serve the public safety needs at the pass. This location would provide easy access to the interstate in either direction, reducing emergency response times.

The parcel is on Forest Service property, immediately adjacent to a freeway interchange, between a frontage road and the interstate itself. The parcel was formerly a disposal site during construction of the freeway and is now a gravel lot.

It is my understanding that there are offers of support to construct a new fire station from State and local officials, and to mitigate any effects of construction, and I support those efforts.

I appreciate the efforts of Senator Murray and my colleagues on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to review this issue and bring this bill forward. I look forward to continuing to work with the community at the pass and my colleagues to improve public safety in the area.

This Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 also includes my Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Act. This bill would designate the Pacific Northwest trail a national scenic trail.

The Pacific Northwest is home to some of the most pristine and breathtaking scenery this country has to offer--from vast patches of forest and steep, snow capped mountain ranges to sandy beaches, rocky ocean coast, and green pastures.

The Pacific Northwest Trail, zigzagging from the Continental Divide to the Pacific Coast, offers all of these spectacular views. The Pacific Northwest Trail, running from the Continental Divide to the Pacific Coast, is 1,200 miles long and ranks among the most scenic trails in the world.

This carefully chosen path runs through the Rocky Mountains, Selkirk Mountains, Pasayten Wilderness, North Cascades, Olympic Mountains, and Wilderness Coast. From beginning to end it passes through three States, crosses three national parks, and winds through seven national forests.

And designating the Pacific Northwest trail a national scenic trail will give it the proper recognition, bring benefits to neighboring rural communities, and promote its protection, development, and maintenance.

In 1980, the National Park Service and the Forest Service completed a feasibility study of the proposed Pacific Northwest trail. And the study concluded that the Pacific Northwest trail has the scenic and recreational qualities needed for designation as a national scenic trail.

Today, approximately 950 miles of the Pacific Northwest trail are completed and provide significant outdoor recreational experiences to citizens and visitors of the United States.

With more recognition and more people from all over the country ``putting on their hiking boots,'' the trail will receive more eligibility for grants funding and increased attention, which in turn will result in increased use and more economic activity in rural areas.

National scenic trails provide recreation, conservation, and enjoyment of significant scenic, historic, natural, and cultural qualities. The Pacific Northwest trail is a national prize and should be recognized as such.

This Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 also includes my wildland firefighter safety legislation. This legislation will improve accountability and transparency in wildland firefighter safety training programs. Wildland firefighting and the safety of wildland firefighters is vitally important to our brave men and women who battle these blazes, and for the communities that depend on them.

When wildfires do occur we rely on courageous men and women to protect our communities and natural resources. Every summer, we send thousands of brave firefighters into harm's way to protect our Nation's rural communities and public lands.

Of course, fighting fires is inherently dangerous. But we must not abide preventable deaths: We must not lose firefighters simply because rules are broken, policies are ignored, and no one is held accountable.

Six years ago, Washington State suffered a horrible tragedy. On July 10, 2001, near Winthrop in Okanogan County, during the second worst drought in Washington history, the Thirtymile fire burned out of control and four courageous firefighters died. Sadly, subsequent investigations revealed that they didn't have to die. The Forest Service has said the tragedy ``could have been prevented.''

Since then, the courage of the Thirtymile families, standing up and demanding change, has had a positive impact on the safety of our wildland firefighters. But we must do much more.

Through training and certification we can lower the risk to the brave men and women who protect our forests and communities. It's critical that Congress is actively engaged to ensure this happens.

An inspector general's report released in March 2006 found problems in the Forest Service's oversight of contracting firefighting crews. Hundreds are contracted by the Forest Service and State agencies every year to fight fires. Roughly one-third of the records it sampled showed that fire fighters' qualification standards had not been met. Too many have been dispatched to fight fires without the necessary preparation.

This is not new. A 2003 Seattle Times report cited an internal Forest Service memo identifying the lack of accountability in the contract firefighting program. A 2004 GAO report found that insufficiently trained contract crews hampered firefighting efforts. And a 2004 IG audit found that at the time the Forest Service could not monitor the certification of more than 80 percent of its own firefighters. That is unacceptable.

This legislation is a very modest yet important proposal. The Senate has already passed it once as an amendment to the 2003 healthy forests legislation, but sadly, it was not included in the conference version of the bill.

It is clear: this bill's provisions are still a necessary tool to ensure that Congress and Federal wildland firefighting agencies are as proactive as possible in protecting the lives of wildland firefighters.

First, the Wildland Firefighter Safety and Transparency Act requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to track the funds they spend on firefighter safety and training. Congress and taxpayers deserve to know whether and how Federal funds are being spent to ensure the safety of firefighters.

Improved accountability means improved safety: I hope the Forest Service will agree to track its funds as part of the administration's annual budget request.

Second, my legislation requires the Secretaries to report to Congress annually on their departments' safety and training programs. We need to monitor Federal firefighting agencies and ensure commitments to reform are being acted upon. An annual check-in on safety programs from Congress is essential to making that happen.

Finally, my bill would require the Forest Service to ensure that private firefighting crews working under federal contracts receive training consistent with their Federal counterparts. This is critical not only to protect those private crews but also to safeguard the Federal, State and tribal employees who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the contractors on the fire line.

And so we have an obligation to protect and prepare the brave firefighters we send into harm's way. I look forward to working with my House colleagues on approving this legislation.

All of this could not have been accomplished without the strong support and hard work and dedication of the majority leader and I thank the leader for successfully moving these priorities.