Aviation Jobs and Safety Act of 2011

Well, first of all, I would like to ask my good friend: Why is this not an earmark? Why is this not an earmark for one particular national preserve?

While we are considering that, perhaps Mr. Young can come up with an explanation. And I share the ranking member's great affection for Mr. Young. He is a good friend. But this also creates a precedent. Any time something happens on a national preserve or park land, they could come to the Congress and say, all right, no more inspections, and we could get a proliferation of these kinds of things specific to individual national reserves or parks.

The fact is that if the Park Service has jurisdiction, then they have responsibility. And I'll bet you anything that if we were to say there were to be no boat inspections, something's going to happen and some serious accident is going to occur, and then people are going to ask why in gosh name wasn't the Park Service there to do inspections? And it's going to go back to this, where we set a precedent of not allowing any boat inspection or safety check.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in response to my very good friend, it appears that the conduct--it appears--the conduct of these park rangers was wrong. So they have been reassigned. And I'm sure that whoever has responsibility now in that jurisdiction has been told you don't do this.

Now, these kinds of things happen all over the country, if not all over the world, clearly. Some people in authority abuse their power. It happens with local police departments. It happens with State police. It happens with other people with a badge. And so they get disciplined. Sometimes they get taken to court. But normally we don't change national policy to deal with misconduct, if that's what it was, on the part of certain individuals. We don't change national policy. And that's what you're trying to do.

Let me put into this discussion and deliberation the fact that they had to go through national park land to get to that State water. They do. And the National Park Service runs the concessions. So the National Park Service does have responsibility for some of the vehicles on this water. They don't know if there's contraband stuff coming. They don't know what's on the vessel.

My guess is--I don't know for sure--my guess is it's very seldom that they're going to stop and board any boat. They would probably have to have some reason. I'm sure now, after this incident, they have to have very substantial reason. But it's entirely conceivable that at some point in the future they're going to have very substantial reason to stop and board a boat. And we have precluded their ability to carry out their responsibility.

So that's why we're concerned about the precedent. We're not concerned about the fact that if there was misconduct, that these folks have been reassigned. We're sure that the instructions that have been given by superiors have changed now to ensure that this incident is never repeated. But we really don't think that the solution is to change national policy, which would have repercussions for other national preserves around the country, and it might have very serious ramifications on this particular one in the future. We can't tell right now.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, it's clear that's not just the waterway. That includes all of the land. The entire park on this national preserve, they can't carry out their responsibilities. We're not just talking about the water.

I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

I yield to my very good friend from Alaska to try to clarify what seems to be inextricable.

Reclaiming my time, the language is clear it applies to all waters, not just navigable waters.

It's possible if the language was more specific, we wouldn't have quite the trouble with it.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

I would be happy to yield to the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee.

I was happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, I would respond to the gentleman, the Coast Guard really doesn't spend much time on rivers. It's normally coastal waters. It may have responsibility, but the fact is the Coast Guard normally doesn't apply much in the way of resources.

I would like to know how large is this national preserve, because I suspect it's a very expansive national preserve that we're talking about. Do we know?

I thank the Chair.

I think a number of very good questions have been raised by the ranking member of the full committee--Appropriations Committee--and we are concerned about this precedent. We're also concerned about the safety of people who use this national preserve. We can understand Mr. Young's angst, but nevertheless we have a responsibility not to establish precedent that may come back to haunt us.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding.

We hear from a number of people and organizations around the country who are concerned about this because without the ability to seek injunctive relief from the courts, opponents of a grazing decision are very much handicapped. Meanwhile irreparable damage to a resource may occur while the administrative appeals process is being exhausted. So that's our concern. I know that's the concern of the ranking member of the full committee.

But let me share another concern that I think underlies this whole issue of grazing. Currently--I know the ranking member's aware of this--the Federal Government charges $1.35 per month, per cow to graze on federally owned lands. In the meantime, States like Idaho charge four times that, $5.12; Montana, $6.12. Nebraska can charge up to $41 per acre to graze on State-owned land. Texas--I know the gentleman is aware of this--Texas will charge $65 to $150 per acre per cow. But the Federal Government charges $1.35.

Now that's the kind of Federal subsidy that we really think we ought to go after. When we're cutting deeply into the bone programs for people who are destitute, programs that are absolutely necessary to protect our environment or needed infrastructure in this country, we're giving this kind of a subsidy, $1.35 to graze on Federal land versus as much as $65 to $150 that the great State of Texas charges to graze on State land. And then private land is oftentimes even more expensive. So that's the kind of subsidy that I don't think passes the test of fairness, if the taxpayer was really aware of the kind of subsidy they're providing some grazers on their federally owned land. It ought to be rectified. But this particular issue simply rubs salt into that wound.

Will the gentleman yield?

It's only if a Federal court finds that the agency failed, or was unable to make information timely available during the administrative review, according to this language. So it's probably an unreal situation.

Will the gentleman again yield?

I would like to make two points. One is that this is clearly authorizing language on an appropriations bill. If we're going to change the law, then it ought to be done by the authorizing committee.

But, secondly, I know the gentleman is aware, you can only get an injunction from a Federal judge if you can prove that you are likely to win your case, or if there is imminent harm. So I don't know why the gentleman is so concerned about the existing legal situation.

My only observation is it's ironic that the majority doesn't seem to trust anything that Secretary Salazar does, except if it involves the delisting of wolves. This rider does undercut the public's right to petition a Federal court to review an agency's decision. So, we're establishing a precedent here with regard to wolves. It blocks the court's ability to carry out its customary authority to review executive branch decisions.

That's the way the system's supposed to work. The executive branch makes a determination and, in our system, if there are individuals or organizations that don't agree, they have recourse to the judicial system. This says, no, we're going to suspend that part of the Constitution. No, you don't, you can't go to the courts. The executive branch is inviolate here. They make a decision, that's it. Permanent.

We like Secretary Salazar, and we support Secretary Salazar far more consistently than the majority does, if the majority supports him on anything. But we don't really see why we need to suspend the constitutional process in this particular specific unique circumstance.

So I would support the gentleman's amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Some on the other side may be thinking, well, what's a guy from a heavily residential suburban area in the Washington area and with no cattle in his district know? So I would have thought this would have been a perfectly fine amendment: What do you need to have restrictions for livestock moving from one place to another?

But upon further investigation, what is not immediately apparent becomes very important. As the gentleman has said, we're talking about very wide swaths of land that are covered by these livestock movements, and they don't just take a few hours or a few days to cross. Sometimes they can take weeks. When you've got very large herds of cattle, you can cause quite a bit destruction to the soil, to the brush, to waterways, to any number of environmental resources in the process of major transfers from one area to another of very large herds of cattle. There can be very substantial environmental destruction. That's why those who are involved in this feel there ought to be a NEPA review. The National Environmental Policy Act will review it, it will tell us what the ramifications will be, what are the consequences, and then based upon that information it empowers those who have land or interests that would be adversely affected by large movements of cattle from one place to another. That's why the NEPA review has an appropriate place and role to play in this, and that's why I think the gentleman's amendment makes a lot of sense and I would support it.

I thank the gentleman. Not surprisingly, I fully agree with the gentleman that this language again is inappropriate in here. It's punitive. It requires excessive record-keeping, and ironically, because normally we are getting complaints there is too much record- keeping. Well, now what we do is we're requiring in this bill even more detailed records that are not now required. It is going to expand the bureaucracy. They have to provide quarterly reports on any oil and gas permit or plan that wasn't approved by the agency.

So in other words, the intention is to discourage the agency from not approving anything even if they feel that the oil and gas drilling operation might not be a safe one, that they don't have the requisite rules in place to prevent a Deepwater Horizon tragedy.

It says for each such document that the bureau receives, they have to provide the date the document was returned to the applicant, the date the document is treated by the bureau, and the date of final agency action, and on and on. More and more records that are not necessary.

We know what the intent of this is. It's to tell BOEMRE, the new Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement, it's in your interest to just speed these along. Don't hold up any of these permits because if you do, you're going to have this very burdensome requirement on you. Here it's 16 months after Deepwater Horizon, and the Congress hasn't enacted a single significant safety reform. And the majority wants us to return to the good old days of very lax reviews, quick approvals of every oil and gas permit and

plan. And if you don't, we're going to impose this very burdensome requirement on BOEMRE. That's just not in the interest of safety. It works against our resolve not to let a Deepwater Horizon tragedy occur again.

I'm using this acronym BOEMRE. For those who don't know what it means, it's the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. It's the new agency that was set up to prevent any future Deepwater Horizon tragedies. So here we're seeing language that is intended to mitigate against BOEMRE being able to do its job. I strongly support the intention of the ranking member of the full committee in striking this burdensome language.

Thank you.

You have this deep-seated concern about why we did not ask for a vote; so I can clarify that. The reason is we were overwhelmed with more than 40 amendments and we were trying to look to the welfare of the rest of the committee. There's only so many of these issues that you can call a recorded vote on, so we tried to be reasonable.

The gentleman is quite right that there are now 1.6 billion barrels per day being drilled. Today, 67 new shallow water well permits have been issued since the implementation of these new standards. They're averaging six per month. The average before the disaster had been eight. So they're catching up. Just three of these permits are currently pending. Eight have asked for more information, have not been denied.

In terms of deep water, 75 permits have been issued. There are 25 pending. Twenty-two have been asked for additional information. Mostly, that information is with regard to containment, which is exactly what we instructed the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to do: are they sure, can they assure us that they can contain any spill.

So things are not quite as dire as you might believe.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, as the amendment states, I seek to strike section 124 of this bill because section 124 prohibits expenditures for the Bureau of Land Management to carry out its lawful duties under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976.

Secretary Salazar issued an order appropriately. It was called 3310. It stated the policy that BLM, the Bureau of Land Management, should act consistently with the law. Section 201 of the law, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, requires that the Interior Department maintain a current inventory of land under its jurisdiction and that it identify within that inventory of land the resource values including wildernesses of those lands.

Now, section 101 of the Federal Land Policy Act also says that certain public lands should be maintained in their natural state. Now, that's the law, the law since 1976. Secretary Salazar is simply attempting to implement that law.

Despite what some have claimed, Secretary Salazar's order does not create any de facto wilderness. One of the reasons that I would strike section 124 is that it will then return BLM wilderness policy to the way that it has operated for 27 years until it was unilaterally changed by then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton in 2003 in the Bush administration.

Now, the order that Secretary Salazar has issued directs BLM to develop recommendations to the Congress regarding wilderness land designations. And it directs public involvement in the development of those recommendations. Now what could be wrong with that--make recommendations to the Congress and have public involvement?

But section 124 of this bill removes the requirement for public involvement. Why are we afraid of public involvement? And it also removes the requirement for the Bureau of Land Management to provide recommendations to the Congress.

Why does this bill want to prevent the Secretary of the Interior from making recommendations to the Congress and for having public involvement?

It's not going to prevent the Congress from designating wilderness. What it does do is to prevent the Congress from being properly informed before we can consider those designations.

The Secretary's order is the kind of good government process that encourages public involvement and forward thinking. As a demonstration of that forward thinking, Secretary Salazar reached out to the Congress in June, just a short while ago, and asked for Members' input into the wilderness characteristics of lands within their districts. Isn't that what we want them to do, reach out to the Congress, ask for our input?

I don't know what more we can ask from the Secretary or from the Bureau of Land Management but an open, public process with congressional input.

But this section that I think should be struck, this section 124, wants to foreclose that process, foreclose that open, public process with recommendations to the Congress.

It was a process that the majority and the committee report applauded.

Let me say further that wildlands do have real benefits. They have economic, they have environmental, and they have aesthetic benefits. It's important that we protect not only public land in its natural state but that we protect our ability to make informed decisions about which areas should or should not be designated as wilderness areas.

I do think we need the secretarial order so that we can be informed so that we can make the right decisions with regard to those designations. Wilderness areas are important, but it's also important that we maintain our responsibility. The Secretary makes recommendations to us for us to make these designations within the context of a public process.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I move to strike the last word.

It has been a fascinating debate to listen to the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Virginia tell the gentleman from Alaska how it works in Alaska. I will tell you that he knows more about Alaska than any of you ever thought of knowing. The problem is, you say you're trying to save Mr. Young from himself by offering this amendment. We're trying to save the Park Service from itself and the actions that it has taken.

Now, logically, your argument says if people have problems in their own areas, then you might see other amendments come up like this and we'll be setting a precedent. Exactly. If we can't have oversight about what goes on and about what the Park Service does, why are we even here?

You heard the story, which I won't repeat, of what happened to this gentleman, Mr. Wilde, on the river. We all agree that it's a problem. In fact, when the Park Service stops the gentleman in the middle of the river and tells him to shut down his boat, to shut down his motors--and as they testified in court, they refused to shut down theirs because it was unsafe--who is being protected? That's the point. The safety inspections of these boats will not stop. The statutory authority is given to the Coast Guard. That's who has the statutory authority, not the Park Service. That's the debate that's going on here.

This language is intended to only limit the Park Service's authority to engage in boater safety checks on the Yukon River within the Yukon Charley National Preserve, the only non-ocean navigable waterway within Alaska's national parks. It is important to note that this language will not have any effect on the ability of the Coast Guard to conduct the statutorily granted power of conducting boater safety checks. It is intended to avoid similar incidents between the Park Service and the public.

Yes, when Mr. Young brought this up originally, the manager of the Park Service could have said, ``You're right. There is a problem there, and I'll get rid of these people.'' They didn't do that. It took this to bring about the actions that have finally occurred: that they've been dismissed from that region. We're trying to prevent the Park Service from harming itself.

I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Reclaiming my time, we're not getting rid of law enforcement here. The Coast Guard will still do the safety inspections which they are statutorily authorized to do. The Park Service is not statutorily authorized to do that. They say they have been given that authority from the Coast Guard. I don't think that's the case.

So we're not getting rid of anything. What we're doing is clearing up a jurisdictional problem here.

I yield to the gentleman.

I'll guarantee there is a misunderstanding here.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia's concern about the cost or the subsidies or whatever he wants to call it, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this amendment. It's a whole different issue. Should the Resources Committee be looking at the prices charged for cattle grazing, or mining, other things? Sure, they should be. It's not the purpose of this bill. It's not the purpose of this amendment.

All this amendment says is that in the past, BLM regulations have required that litigants exhaust the administrative review before litigating in Federal court. That means they have to go through the review process that's been set up administratively before they can go to court.

Recently, numerous lawsuits over grazing have been filed in Federal courts before the administrative review process had been completed. That means they haven't gone through to find out whether they would win or lose on the administrative side. This ties up the BLM field offices because they must respond to both an administrative process on one side and a litigation process on the other side. This provision simply requires litigants to first exhaust the administrative review before litigating grazing issues in Federal court. Litigants could still file for temporary restraining orders, contrary to what you said. They have to show irreparable harm, and they can still file for temporary restraining orders. Nothing in this provision prevents that.

I would hope--and I know the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Dicks, because we've talked about this before--if we could spend more money actually managing the lands rather than in court, we would all be better off. All this says is, follow the administrative procedures, and exhaust them before you go to court. You still have that option after those administrative procedures have been exhausted. As I said, you can still get a restraining order if there's irreparable harm. This, I think, will cut down on the lawsuits, and I think this is a good provision in the bill.

And I would hope that the gentlemen from Washington and Virginia would recognize how well the underlying bill is written and would withdraw the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, that's the standard that exists now, as I understand it. We're not changing that.

Reclaiming my time, to answer your question, the reason I'm concerned is the extraordinary amount of money that we are spending in court instead of on managing public lands. That's the real issue here. And we have a process set up where, if you have problems, you can go through an administrative process. Go through it. At the end if you don't like the outcome, go to court. That's all we're saying.

And is this legislating on an appropriation bill? Well, I guess funding unauthorized programs is legislating on an appropriations bill also, which we've done in several provisions in this bill which you support. I hope my colleagues will vote against this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I'll be brief, Mr. Chairman, or as brief as I can.

I appreciate this discussion on wolves because it is something that is near and dear to the people of Idaho.

I was the speaker of the house in Idaho when the gentleman from Washington supported wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone and Idaho and Montana and Wyoming--something that Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana frankly didn't want but, nevertheless, the Fish and Wildlife Service said that's what we're going to do and that's what they did. Since that time, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have been doing the right thing in restoring these wolf populations.

In Idaho and Montana, they came up with a wolf management plan that was approved by the Fish and Wildlife Service--it was approved--but then it was taken to court because it didn't include Wyoming. And a judge said--not based on science. We're trying to get back to science. But a judge said, You can't just delist in Idaho and Montana; you have to include Wyoming, and Wyoming didn't have a State management plan approved then. Since that time, I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service and Wyoming have come up with a plan in principle--and they're still working out the details, but I believe that they will have a plan by the end of this year--to delist in Wyoming.

All we're saying is that when they're delisted by Fish and Wildlife Service, they have an approved plan, then it is not subject to judicial review. Because, frankly, there are people who don't think we ought to have any wolf management plan that would include, guess what? Hunting wolves. I know the gentleman from Washington is astounded by that. Our Governor has indicated that he likes to hunt wolves. The problem is wolves have no natural predator out there except hunger. When they've done away with the food supply, some wolves die; otherwise, they just continue to grow in population.

Anybody that thought we were going to reintroduce wolves into the Rocky Mountains and there wasn't going to be some type of control--a hunt or whatever--were living on a different planet. But those same people now that wanted the wolves reintroduced, that oppose any type of wolf management, go to court to try to stop the delisting.

The gentleman from Washington has explained the problem that exists when you have mixed management of wolves that get confused. They don't know which side of the line they live on, whether they're protected or whether they're not protected, whether they can go out and eat your puppy dog or not. So they're confused wolves. We're trying to clear that up for them.

And in the Great Lakes, the Great Lakes have had a population that is greater than in the Rocky Mountains and have been deserving of delisting for a number of years but have just not gotten it done.

And contrary to what the gentleman from Virginia said, I actually think the Secretary of the Interior is doing a good job. There are many things I agree with him on. Many of my westerners would disagree with that. I happen to think he's doing a good job as Secretary of the Interior. I don't agree with everything he does, but you know what? When I call him up and say we've got some real problems with this, he listens--he might not agree after he listens, but he listens to us. That's all I ask from a gentleman in that position.

So don't believe that we are critical of the Secretary. We do have some differences of opinion, and I realize that he works in an administration that

makes it difficult for him sometimes. He's from Colorado. He knows western issues. But I have enjoyed working with him.

And I trust the Fish and Wildlife Service and the science that they provide to delist wolves better than I do adjudge. That's why this language is here. Wolves will still be protected in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, Oregon, Utah, where they have expanded to, and in the Great Lakes.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman is right. If wolf populations get below acceptable levels, then they go back on the endangered list. Guess what. Wyoming and Montana and Idaho are not going to let that happen.

I think this is a good way to go for proceeding with the Endangered Species Act and making sure it does what it's intended to do.

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

I would just say to the gentleman from Washington that was supportive of the reintroduction of wolves in Idaho and Montana and Wyoming that put us in this situation, several wolves----

Reclaiming my time, western Washington.

I just want you to know that there have been several wolves that have come to my house, and they presented me with a petition that they would like to visit the Cascades.

You're welcome.

I would be happy to yield.

Referring my remarks to the Chairman, I've got to get the gentleman from Virginia on a horse out with some cattle.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. ``Trailing'' is the process of moving a livestock herd from one grazing area to another. It generally doesn't take weeks. It certainly doesn't take weeks in the same location. You're moving from one location to another. Trailing has no significant impact on the environment, so

while in the past it has been generally considered part of the process of grazing on public lands, the BLM has rarely conducted environmental assessments on or issued permits for trailing itself, focusing instead on the impacts of grazing.

Recently--and this is the problem and this is why this amendment is before us--environmental activists that want to get cattle off of public lands, and they have a right to try to do this--I disagree with them--have focused their attention on trailing as a way to shut down grazing on public lands.

Congress, not the courts, has the authority to determine public land policies, and today responsible grazing is an important and legitimate use of public lands. Unfortunately, because activists have tied local BLM offices up in knots with litigation, judges are now determining how public lands can be used in the West.

This provision--and this is the important part--attempts to get ahead of this issue by exempting trailing from NEPA requirements for 2011 through 2014. The Forest Service on their grazing permits require permits on trailing. The Forest Service does. The BLM has not in the past. But, instead, these litigations are tying this up in knots. The BLM is going through a process to include trailing when they issue their grazing permits, so that the NEPA process on trailing will be included. The problem is between now and when they get that completed, we're going to be in court spending all our money in court rather than getting this process moving forward.

We're not opposed to requiring NEPA process on trailing permits just like the Forest Service does, but what this does is exempt this through 2014 while BLM, for lack of a better term, gets their act together. That's all this does.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this debate is always fascinating. I've got to tell you, if rhetoric were fast food, there'd be golden arches over all these doors because I've never heard so much rhetoric in my life. And I hope that the gentleman from California actually read the report. Maybe he did and maybe these pages got stuck together. I don't know.

But if you look at the report--he said that we don't care about the lands and the designations, that we just want to use them up and all that kind of stuff.

Let me read, for the Record, what the report says: As mentioned in the introduction of this report, the committee lauds the Department of the Interior for its significant changes in wild lands policy and notes that the Bureau of Land Management has, to this date, been in compliance with the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution prohibiting funds for the use of Secretarial order 3310, which was to designate, and as the gentleman said, he couldn't designate wild lands because

that policy didn't exist, and he can't. And he's in compliance with that.

It continues: While the Department is now rightly requesting the input of Members of Congress, Senators, and the public, the committee is concerned about the internal direction given by the Bureau of Land Management regarding the inventory of lands managed by the Bureau. As the Department has stated, inventories of bureau lands are required under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, FLPMA, and the committee agrees. The committee agrees with this reading of the act.

The committee points out that inventories should, however, cover all land uses, multiple use, not just lands with wilderness character. The values to be assessed include wildlife, fish habitat, nonmotorized and motorized recreation, hunting, fishing, grazing, conventional and renewable energy development, mining, wilderness character, forest management, and aesthetics. All of these values are important, and one value does not supersede the other.

The committee also directs the Bureau to use the definition of wilderness as defined in the 1964 Wilderness Act, as directed by section 603 of FLPMA. The committee will continue its oversight of this issue.

The Secretary has done the right thing by withdrawing his policy of wild lands designation, a designation that he made up. Only Congress can designate a new land designation. That's what Congress does. The Secretary agreed with that, withdrew it.

We have no problem, and encourage them to go on with the inventories for all of the characteristics of public lands. So the gentleman's comments relative to oh, all we care about is mining and flattening the land, or whatever he said, is just rhetoric.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. The reality is, if the Secretary carries out what he says he's going to do, this amendment probably isn't necessary. If they decide to reverse course, then it was necessary. If they do what they said they are going to do, it absolutely won't have any effect, as the gentleman from Utah said.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, the Secretarial order which is in question needs to be withdrawn, and then he needs to issue a new one which doesn't include this new designation of wild lands because that still stands out there even though he says he's not going to designate any new wild lands.

I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

That's exactly correct.

The amendment deals with the Secretarial order, not just wild lands.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Section 116 would prohibit the National Park Service from carrying out boat inspection or safety checks on the Yukon River within the Yukon-Charley National Preserve in Alaska. This provision was put in at the request of Mr. Young from Alaska who is upset with the National Park Service law enforcement at the preserve.

Last summer, two park rangers arrested a 70-year-old following an altercation during a boat safety inspection. This case is still before the courts, but it has stirred considerable local anger, especially when it was learned that the rangers had handcuffed but later released another local resident who refused to speak to rangers when approached.

Mr. Young of Alaska is a long-time friend of mine, and I am very hesitant to offer this amendment to strike his provision, but I think he has already won the case. The people there, the two rangers, have been reassigned to another duty, and the Park Service does have jurisdiction. I have discussed this with Chairman Young, and the Park Service always has jurisdiction within the national park.

Now, the gentleman from Alaska suggested that the Coast Guard had jurisdiction or the State had jurisdiction, but we have checked this carefully. The Park Service has jurisdiction within the national preserve to look at safety on the river. I think it is wrong to prohibit a safety inspection for people whose lives are at risk up there.

I have been to Alaska many times. These rivers can be very dangerous, and to make sure that the people who are being conveyed--this is a commercial endeavor--the people who are being moved around in these boats are safe, the people who own the boats are safe, whether it is commercial or not.

So I would like to yield to the ranking member and discuss this amendment and the importance of it.

Reclaiming my time, the thing is this has happened before. I can remember one of our colleagues putting in a provision in one of these bills, I think it was the Merchant Marine and Fisheries bill years ago, about one of the boats that was going up to Alaska to fish in these very dangerous waters. This wasn't in the river; it was in the ocean. And that boat went down, and there were many questions raised about why that Member had prohibited boat and safety inspections of that boat.

Now, I think the gentleman is completely right. This is a bad precedent. The gentleman from Alaska has already won. He has already gotten his view across with the Park Service. They have taken these rangers away. It's time to leave this. We're doing this amendment in the best interests of Mr. Young. And if Mr. Young would like to get up and explain this, I would like to hear his explanation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

Again, I plead with my friend from Alaska. You have made your case. You have gotten the relief for your constituents. The rangers have been reassigned. Accept victory and don't give us an amendment that would undermine boat safety inspections. That's what this amendment does.

Let me read this amendment: No other funds made available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of the Interior to implement or enforce regulations concerning boating and other activities on or relating to waters located within Yukon Charlie National Preserve, including waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Pursuant to section 3(h) of public law, or any other authority.

It's within a national park.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Again, relating to waters located within Yukon Charlie National Preserve, including waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

If the Park Service doesn't have jurisdiction, how does the Coast Guard have jurisdiction? That's another Federal agency. The gentleman changed his story and told me it was the State that had authority. I wonder who in the hell has authority.

Again, what I worry about here is we're talking about safety. We're talking about inspecting boats that may be unsafe. I think that is an important issue that we should not deal with in an across-the-board way here in this bill.

I think the gentleman from Alaska has made his point. I think he should support our amendment to strike this in order to make sure that the people of Alaska are protected. I know he cares about them.

We have people in the law enforcement area who make mistakes, but we don't get rid of law enforcement. We don't say we're no longer going to protect people, the other people. We go through a process to see what that officer did. I think the gentleman gets the gist.

I would hope we could clarify this. There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I hope that we can, if my amendment doesn't prevail, that we could try to work together to clarify this before conference.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

I rise in support of my amendment. This would strike section 118, which amends administrative appeals procedures for grazing decisions on public lands to require parties to exhaust all administrative appeals before they may file suit in Federal court.

This is a back-door attempt to curtail the use of court injunctions to stop grazing decisions made by the BLM. Without the ability to seek injunctive relief, opponents of a grazing decision are handicapped because irreparable damage to a resource may occur while the administrative appeals process is being exhausted.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the ranking member, to further discuss this amendment.

Again, I ask for support for my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I am told that the ability to offer a temporary restraining order is very narrowly drafted. So irreparable harm, that wouldn't do it.

Section 119 exempts from judicial review any final rule of the Secretary of the Interior that delists wolves in Wyoming or the Western Great Lakes States, provided the Fish and Wildlife Service has entered into an agreement with the State for it to manage the wolves.

The irony here is that the majority does not trust any action of Secretary Salazar except if it involves the delisting of wolves. The rider undercuts the public's right to petition a Federal court to review an agency's decision and blocks the court's ability to carry out its customer authority to review executive branch decisions.

Now, I have been a strong proponent of the re-introduction of the gray wolf into Yellowstone and in other areas. This has been one of the most successful operations in restoring a species that had been nearly wiped out in our country. And today we're seeing all of the benefits of this. So I don't think we should undercut the people's right to go to court if they don't think the agency has done this according to the law. And I have great respect for Secretary Salazar, and I'm sure he would agree with me that there should not be a prohibition on judicial review.

And I'd like to yield to the distinguished ranking member for any comments he would have on this.

Again, I ask for support for my amendment. I think it corrects a flaw in this bill. And believe me, there are a lot of flaws.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlelady yield?

I appreciate that very much.

I think the problem is that the State of Wyoming, unlike Idaho and Montana, has not come up with a plan where the State would protect the wolf if it were delisted.

As I recall, the fact was that Montana and Idaho had plans that would protect the wolves if they were delisted, and then at some point they would take further action if necessary to protect the wolves if too many of them were killed.

The problem with Wyoming was Wyoming's plan didn't have credibility. Now I understand that it does. But what the judge was saying is that you have to protect the wolf throughout the area, which included Wyoming. That's why they couldn't delist it without dealing with Wyoming, and Wyoming wasn't ready. So, I hope that Wyoming will come up with a credible plan at the State level to keep the wolf going.

I want to say to the chairman, if you would yield, I also tried to reintroduce the wolf in western Washington, but the chairman of the Interior Committee in the other body disagreed with me.

We'd like to have them.

The Olympics too.

Section 120 provides that for 2012 through 2014, the movement of livestock across public land shall not be subject to NEPA review.

Proponents of this provision will argue that moving cattle from one location to another shouldn't require a NEPA review. However, this movement of cattle can be across wide swaths of public lands and take weeks, not just days. The impact on water, plants and other wildlife species, including bighorn sheep, can be significant.

I would like to yield to the ranking member to further discuss this amendment.

Section 121 requires the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement to keep detailed records and provide quarterly reports on any oil and gas permit or plan that was not approved by the agency. They don't ask for the ones that were approved, just the ones that were not approved.

This is the majority's attempt to try to speed up the approval of oil and gas permits and plans, and I have no objection to that. Here we are 16 months after Deepwater Horizon, and the Congress hasn't enacted a single significant safety reform. Despite the serious safety and environmental shortcomings found as a result of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, the majority wants BOEMRE to return to the good old days of lax reviews and quick approval of oil and gas permits and plans.

I think this provision should be stricken.

I yield to the ranking member for his comments on this provision.

This year, I'm sure the gentleman has noticed, we've been trying to reestablish regular order--having a subcommittee markup and a full committee markup and amendments on the floor, which is welcomed by our side. So we have to kind of make a decision: Are we going to ask for a vote on every single issue? We never do that. We try to cooperate. This is comity, something that the gentleman from Ohio understands quite well.

So I would just remind him that we're trying to get through these bills, and that's why we try to not ask for a vote on everything. We wanted to save this one for the floor so the American people would hear about what's going on.

I just wanted to say that the gentleman and I have worked together, and I have great regard for him. I just wanted to mention a couple of facts and that, if we take up time, I'll try to get you extra time.

``To date, 67 new shallow water well permits have been issued since the implementation of new safety and environmental standards on June 8, 2010. Permits have averaged more than six per month over the past 8 months compared to an average of eight permits per month in 2009. Just three of these permits are currently pending, with eight having been returned to the operator for more information.'' Now, the question I have is:

Why don't we ask them to give, when they're doing the report, not just the ones that they've turned down but the ones that they've approved? I mean, wouldn't the gentleman want to have all that information instead of just the negative side of this?

Will the gentleman yield again just briefly?

Now we get to deepwater: Since an applicant first successfully demonstrated containment capabilities in mid-February of this year, BOEMRE has approved 75 permits for 21 unique wells, with 25 permits pending and 22 permits returned to the operator with the request for additional information, particularly information regarding containment.

Now, we want them to do this safely. We don't want to go through what we went through, which was one of the greatest disasters in the history of the country.

I just hope that we can have reports not only about the ones that are turned down. As you say, it may be that the other ones are part of the public record, but I think the report should come back with both of these if it's going to come to the Congress. You know how this place works. Not everybody sees these public

records. If these reports are going to be used by the committee, we ought to have both sides of the equation.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Section 124 prohibits expenditures for the Bureau of Land Management to carry out its duties under section 201 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. Secretarial order 3310 states a policy that the Bureau of Land Management should act consistently with section 201 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and maintain a current inventory of land under its jurisdiction, and identify within that inventory the resource values, including wilderness, of those lands.

Despite what some have claimed, it does not create de facto wilderness. It returns BLM wilderness policy to the way it operated for 27 years before being unilaterally changed by then Interior Secretary Gale Norton in 2003. It directs the BLM to develop recommendations to Congress regarding wilderness land designation, and it directs public involvement in the development of those recommendations.

Section 124 removes the requirement for public involvement and removes the requirement for the BLM to provide recommendations to Congress. Section 124 doesn't prevent Congress from designating wilderness; it just prevents us from being properly informed before we consider these designations.

Secretarial order 3310 is the kind of good government process that encourages public involvement and forward thinking. As a demonstration of that forward thinking, the Secretary reached out to Congress in June asking for Members' input into the wilderness characteristics of land within their districts. I'm not sure what more we can ask for from the BLM and the Secretary but an open public process, as Mr. Moran has stated.

Section 124 seeks to foreclose that process, a process that the majority in the committee report on H.R. 2584 applauded. These wild lands have real benefit--economic, environmental, and aesthetic. It's important that we protect not only public land in its natural state but our ability to make informed decisions about what areas should or should not be designated wilderness. We need the Secretarial order, and we need to be informed.

I yield to the gentleman from California if he would like to make a final comment here.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the body, with all due respect, this is about the State's rights. This bill does not preclude the State of Alaska, the Coast Guard, or any other entity from enforcement on the Yukon River. The Park Service can still move on the river. But it does not allow them to enforce inspections of boats on the river that are private. Not in business, but private.

And I have to tell you a little story about this. This is the reason I'm very adamant about it. The Park Service is for the people; it's not for the Park Service. The Park Service in Alaska has become, very frankly, I'd say, like an occupying army of a free territory. To give you an example, this man that was arrested was 70 years old with his wife, who happened to be from Germany--I'm going to bring that up a little later--and a couple. So 70 years old, 69 years old, 68 years old, on a cruise on the Yukon River in a very seaworthy boat, Coast Guard inspected. And there was another boat on the river and there was a distress signal given by the Park Service. Being a good Samaritan, they went over to help them out. As they approached the boat, they flashed their badges and said: We're the Park Service. We're going to board your vessel and inspect you for safety and registration.

Think about this. A distress signal, and then: We're going to board your boat.

And maritime law says you will not board a boat on a moving river. You have to put it to shore.

And the guy said: Up yours; I'm going to go to shore. And that's what he did.

And he gets to shore, he gets out of the boat. The rangers have already got a shotgun on a 70-year-old man, and carrying a pistol out of the holster. And as the guy walked toward them, they started to say something. He turned around and walked back. They tackled him and rolled him in the mud, a 70-year-old man. These are two young bucks-- cowboys--and handcuffed this man, this 70-year-old man, and made him sit on the shore. And they took him a great distance down the river to a village and flew him to Fairbanks--drove him to Fairbanks-- handcuffed.

This is your Park Service? This is not my Park Service.

Well, it did go to trial and the judge hasn't rendered his decision yet. In the first place, the State never gave them the authority to do any inspection. In the second place, they never gave them the authority--by the way, the Coast Guard did not give them authority. And they do not have jurisdiction over that water; that's State water. In every State in this Union, it's the State's water. To have the Park Service act like that is dead wrong.

So I'm asking you not to support this amendment. This is an amendment that shouldn't be adopted because we have agencies today who are acting, very frankly, like occupiers. The lady I brought up was from Germany. And during the trial they asked her, the prosecution: Did you ever have a gun pointed at you? And she said: Yes, by the SS troops.

Now, that gives you an idea. A 70-year-old lady and have them point a shotgun. Now, that's wrong.

You say it sets a precedent; yes, it sets a precedent because it's State's waters. This amendment should not be accepted. We should leave it in the bill as it is. It's the right thing to do.

I say vote down the amendment. Think about the little people. Quit thinking about these agencies. These agencies aren't God. Think about the little people. People are abused by agencies, and you're paying for them.

And by the way, the one ranger, the one ranger, had a record longer than my arms, and they hired him to enforce the so-called park regulations.

So I'm asking you to think about this a moment. It's the wrong amendment. This is the right thing to do. It's time we start telling these agencies: Think of the people, not the parks themselves.

This is about parks and partners. And they're certainly not partners in Alaska. They say: We're going to educate Alaskans about Alaska. Now, this is a 70-year-old man that had been living there all his life. And to have that happen is dead wrong.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

It is not their responsibility. This is the State waters.

Again, this is Yukon Charlie, the Yukon River that was used by the Gold Rush people, has been used by Alaskans all these years without the Park Service. The State has authority over the waters. The Coast Guard has the authority for inspection. The State has the authority for registration, not the Park Service. This is navigable water that is our water. Now, the land is there on one side. But this is our water.

I have not won because I may have won a temporary battle, but there can be another park ranger--rangers. There can be another park superintendent that does not listen to anyone. Then where are we?

The only navigable water is the Yukon.

Will the gentleman from Washington yield?

Announcement by the Acting Chair

To answer the gentleman, the Coast Guard has all the authority for enforcement on all waters, including all rivers. In fact, sometimes the Coast Guard is too active on the river, as far as I'm concerned. I have been on that river. Like I say, I'm a tugboat captain, a licensed mariner, and my biggest challenge to this is excessive use of the Park Service.

Now, you say I won that battle. Like I said before, that doesn't keep them from trying to enforce this again over the State's objection. The State didn't give them the right to register the boats or check registrations. The Coast Guard didn't give them the right to inspect the boat.

And remember this now: Here are two guys giving a distress signal and a good citizen tried to help them and they flash a badge. This sounds like you know what to me. That's not a good thing. I get very frustrated. Leave this in the bill. Let the Park Service know they no longer can trod over the people of Alaska because they are part of the Federal Government. They are the Park Service--You better listen to us--when this man was breaking no laws. This is wrong.

Now, you say I have won the battle. Maybe I have. But it took a lot of effort to do it. But I haven't won the war. And they will come back. So I'm suggesting this stay in the bill as it is. It's very, very important.

The river is 2,800 miles long. This is one little tiny section. This is a river that's 5 miles wide and 2,800 miles long. It's the third largest river in the United States of America that carries transportation.

Just keep in mind that the Coast Guard has its authority. As soon as this happened, I called the Coast Guard because the Park Service said the Coast Guard had granted them that authority. The Coast Guard said, No way. That's our authority.

Secondly, they said, with registration, only the State has the right to register a boat--that's the same thing in your State--not any Federal agency.

Remember, this is the highway of Alaska. The highway of Alaska has been used for hundreds of years, and we've gotten along very well without any Park Service all these years. By the way, I don't think there was a drowning because of a boat accident on that section of the river--in history. So why all of a sudden you're wanting me to protect the Alaskan people who do not like this, I do not understand.

Very frankly, I think you're meddling. You're meddling in something that a State has a great interest in, that has said before, This is our waterway. We have a right to traverse it from Canada through Alaska, all the way down to the Bering Sea. By the way, it had an illegal boat. According to the Coast Guard, the boat they were driving was overpowered. So just leave this in the bill as it should be.

I ask all of my colleagues to think about this very carefully. Do you want an agency that does not respect the rights of individuals because they work with the government or an agency that does not respect the rights of history? I don't think you do.

So I'm asking for the amendment to be defeated, and I'm asking for my colleagues to understand this is a big issue in my State. It is very, very important, not only to me, but to my people--the people of the State of Alaska, who have been using that river for centuries. So let's just leave it in the bill.

So let's just leave it in the bill.

I appreciate my friend from Washington reading the section, but he left out the last sentence of that section.

I think this is a pertinent part and this is the point that the gentleman from Alaska is making, and it regards safety inspection.

I will quote the last sentence: ``This section does not affect the authority of the Coast Guard to regulate the use of waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the Yukon Charlie Preserve.''

I would interpret that as saying the safety part of that is taken care of. But the gentleman from Alaska certainly is right on the part that these are State waters.

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

I move to strike the last word.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to point out that the staff clearly researched the language here and applicable laws that relate to these waters. That's what we do when we put this language in here.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose my friend's amendment. I hope this isn't a pattern long term, but on this particular bill it seems to be a pattern at any rate.

His amendment would strike the important language in H.R. 2584 that addresses the administration's confusing policies involving Endangered Species Act-listed populations of gray wolves nationwide.

As I mentioned on the House floor during a colloquy with Chairman Simpson on Monday, the Obama administration has created a confusing and impractical result with its recent announcement to delist the gray wolves in some States, but leave other States, such as Washington, Oregon and Utah with mixed management. H.R. 2584, as written, and as clarified in my colloquy with the chairman, would help remedy this flawed policy.

Problems with the Federal management of gray wolves are nearly as old as the Endangered Species Act itself. Five years after ESA's passage in 1978, the gray wolf was listed as endangered or threatened in all of the lower 48 States. In the mid-1990s, the Clinton administration ordered an experimental introduction of wolves into the Yellowstone area, central Idaho, and the Mexican wolf into Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. It also established a new definition to identify the population of listed species. As a result, wolves multiplied. But, unfortunately, because they can't read maps, they moved into areas where they weren't supposed to go.

In 2003, the Fish and Wildlife Service divided gray wolves into geographical boundaries that made more sense. It included the entire States of Washington, Oregon, Utah and other areas so that States would eventually be able to develop their own State management plans to remove wolves from the endangered species list.

Then, in 2009, the Obama administration reversed course and adopted the theory that wolves should be delisted in Idaho, Montana, and only parts of certain other States, but would leave other areas where wolves likely populate still. This is under ESA.

As a result, in my own Fourth Congressional District in central Washington, and I'll put up a map here, the wolves are delisted on the eastern side of Highways 97, 17, and 395. Highway 97, Highway 17, and 395.

Delisted over here, listed over here. This makes absolutely no sense, and it shows how the ESA is badly in need of updating and how ineffective the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in managing wolves. And I might add, this is true in Oregon, in parts of Oregon and parts of Utah.

So I oppose this amendment because the colloquy that I had with the chairman is one that sets the stage for properly managing these wolves in the States that I associate with.

I just might add on a personal level, I live very, very close to here. But I live in the listed area.

Now, we do fish marking. I know my friend is very well aware of fish marking, and I'm not opposing the authorizing on this bill, as the gentleman knows--this year, anyway. But there is no listing here for the gray wolf. Now, I have no idea if a wolf crosses down here into my area, if it is, in fact, a listed or a delisted wolf.

But apparently Fish and Wildlife think that they know where Highway

97 ends, where 17 comes down here and connects with Highway 395, because that's what their arbitrary rule says. It doesn't make any sense at all.

And so as a result of this, the colloquy I had with Chairman Simpson clarified this, that it includes the whole areas that are within that geographic boundary. And for that reason, I oppose my friend's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I asked the gentleman to yield because this is precisely the point that this debate and discussion on the Endangered Species Act is having.

If you recall in the CR, the Endangered Species Act was amended to allow Idaho and Montana to delist, because the way ESA was written, unless the whole identified population could have been managed, nobody could manage, and that was the flaw. And that's what we have been saying--as we had last night and we will probably have later discussions on this--why ESA needs to be looked at in a comprehensive way, because it was clearly a flaw. It was clearly a flaw. I'm glad that the CR amended the Endangered Species Act to take care of this provision.

The colloquy that we had regarding Washington, Oregon, and Utah was simply to recognize these larger populations but recognize States are moving in a direction of managing their populations.

Will the gentleman yield real quickly?

As a matter of fact, the gray wolves are showing up in the Cascades now, the eastern side of the Cascades. So you'll get them.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I understand the gentleman's comments. And I know the hearing yesterday addresses the issue, which is separate from this. Listen, we should have that debate; we should have that discussion.

This issue is an administrative Secretarial order that, to the credit of Secretary Salazar, they withdrew. It was confirmed, by the way, to be withdrawn because of the CR we passed that takes us through September 30. The Secretary, to his credit, said, I'm going to abide by that. As a result, the order has not been withdrawn.

This debate here is about next year's funding. So until we get clarification on that order or the order is withdrawn, this language is appropriate. And that's simply all we're saying.

Now, we can get into a discussion of whether wild lands is, in fact, a designation or not. And as a matter of fact, wild lands has no definition whatsoever administratively. So there's a question on our side, obviously, if they can even do that because wild lands may be synonymous with wilderness, but wilderness can only be designated by the Congress.

And that is the concern that we have. And that's why I think the language that was put into the appropriation bill takes care of next year. And I say, to the credit of the Secretary----

If the gentleman remembers, because he was in a committee hearing, under direct questioning, I think it was Director Abbey said that there is no authority to make any designation under law of wild lands because that was a made-up term. There's no designation.

Can they inventory? Yes. Nobody argues with that. But you can't make up administratively a new designation, and that's what the issue was. And he testified that he had no authority to do that.