California Coastal National Monument Expansion Act of 2013

Mr. Chairman, as I said on the rule, sometimes I am amazed at the kind of misinformation and inaccuracy that is taking place about this bill. This bill does not stop parks. It does not stop monuments. We have heard about the Grand Canyon being made a monument under this act, under this power, but please realize it was a national forest before that, and it was made a park by Congress because only Congress can make parks.

The gentleman from Delaware, I appreciate him being here, he still has his park because only Congress can go through that particular process.

I also get somewhat confused when people talk about how this is a way of rolling back any kind of protection. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government owns over 635 million acres. We already have 336 million acres that presently are in a protected status. There is no way they can be touched by anyone at any time for anything. And those that are for development are only 38 million acres. It is almost a 10 to 1 ratio between the two of them.

I want you to think back on when the Antiquities Act was originally passed. It was 1906. The States of Hawaii, Alaska, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oklahoma did not exist. They were all territories. My home State had only been in the Union for a decade. There were very few environmental laws. Today, if you were to list all of the environmental protections that we have on the statutes, both by the Federal Government and by the States, it would take four or five pages, small type, just to list them all. There could have been a reason for doing this. This is back in the era when there was no Bureau of Land Management. There was not even a Park Service when this was being done. The majority of the designations Teddy Roosevelt made were in territories that were not States. Things have changed since that time. Unfortunately, this law hasn't.

And if you don't allow the NEPA process to allow public input, you make mistakes. You made mistakes in Utah--and, yes, we have had bills that have been filibustered by the Senate to make those changes, but 20 years later we are still trying to work through what ought to have been there.

The gentlelady from Maryland was here, and I appreciate her concept. Her Harriet Tubman national monument is a good idea. The unfortunate thing is it was poorly done because you didn't take the time to go through the NEPA process and get some public input. It is still in draft status. This is the boundary within the green. The stuff with the stripes on it are private property they just kind of found within the boundary that now they have to try to get approval to try to acquire that property. The white is also other private property that right now they don't think they need to acquire.

Now, how come we missed all that stuff? It is simply because the President decided to use the Antiquities power without taking the time to get public input to go through those situations.

Yes, a lot of Presidents have used this stuff.

One other thing, too. The proclamation that created Harriet Tubman said there would be 11,750 acres set aside. The Park Service says it is actually 25,000, and no one knows the difference--25,000 acres of Federal, State and private lands. See, that is the problem. If you rush this stuff through without taking the time to get input from people, you make mistakes.

Don't make mistakes.

The National Resources Defense Council said that NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, which regulates the requirement to have public input before you go forward with that, held that the Magna Carta protects people from the dangers of monarchy, and NEPA protects people by providing transparency in Federal projects. Both the Magna Carta and NEPA espouse the ideals of public participation and democracy by giving citizens a voice in government decisions.

Giving people the chance to have a voice in government decisions is the purpose of NEPA. Every Federal agency has to use NEPA. Congress has to do something very similar because everything requires some kind of hearing. The only person that doesn't have to do that is the President when he uses this archaic act, over 100 years old, in situations that have changed.

Instead, what was said about this in some of the misinformation going out, they said if this bill is passed, it eviscerates one of the America's bedrock conservation laws. Look, you can't say it is good to have public involvement except here, in which it is bad to have public involvement. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the administration said. The administration said the President should not have to go through NEPA, should not have to get public input because he is only head of the executive branch, he is not an agency of the executive branch. That is intellectual gymnastics, and one of the reasons why we have problems.

This bill doesn't stop anything. Any monument that was made could easily be made. This bill recognizes there may be an emergency situation, and anything less than 5,000 acres can be done.

Mr. Chairman, what I was trying to say was, this is a damn good bill. And there is a reason why it is a good bill: because it simply requires the President to have public information and get the input of people.

If there is an emergency situation, it allows for them to create something under 5,000 acres on an emergency basis without doing NEPA, it is just that Congress has to respond within 3 years to validate it, otherwise it reverts back. Anything that he wants to do with NEPA, he can do it regardless of the size. It is the appropriate thing to do.

This bill moves us forward and takes a bill that may have been appropriate in 1906--but we are certainly living in a different time and a different era, and we need to make sure that a President, before he puts his pen to a paper, has actually talked to local people, and it has not always happened.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment tries to clarify the process for monument designations of 5,000 acres or less, providing that they can become permanent if the President follows the regular NEPA public involvement process.

There was a question on the clarity of the language in the underlying bill that is there.

It also ensures that new taxpayer dollars are spent by requiring the use of existing funds to conduct any study or analysis that is in the bill or may be added by an amendment.

With that, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Chairman, just to respond one more time, the purpose of this is to make sure that it was

very clear on those emergency situations that were 5,000 or less. If, indeed, the President uses the NEPA process, that 3-year clock does not tick on all those parcels of property. Anything that he does NEPA process, that is okay.

It was not clear in the underlying bill. This attempts to make it clear.

With that, I encourage adoption of the managers' amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim the time in opposition, even though I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I think what the Barber amendment does is reemphasize the fundamental purpose of this bill, which is to ensure there is transparent public participation and input in making these types of designations.

I appreciate the addition he has made as to what should be studied and what should be encompassed. I think it an addition to the bill. I think it is a good amendment. I would urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim opposition to the misguided amendment to the well-proportioned bill that is under there.

I appreciate what the gentlelady from Massachusetts is trying to do. I am an old history teacher, so these sites are important to me.

But as well-intended as this amendment may indeed be, it still undermines the intent of the legislation, which is to make sure that any designation that is at large has public transparency, and you allow the local people to do it, whether it is a military site or not.

This would create a very large loophole that is unnecessary because the provisions of the bill provide for that. If something is smaller than 5,000 and in immediate jeopardy, it can be handled.

If it is larger than that and goes through the NEPA process, it is handled. There is no problem that could develop from this particular piece of legislation.

I might also add that, in the Antiquities Act, any harm to anything that is an antiquity of element on a public property already is subject to fine and imprisonment.

This amendment was attempted in committee--I appreciate the sentiment--but it was also defeated in committee by a vote of 24-13. It is the same amendment here.

I would urge my colleagues to also defeat it, simply because it undermines the very purpose of this bill, and it does not lead to the public process.

With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am still having a difficult time trying to grasp the concept that my good friend, the gentleman from West Virginia, would be opposed to such a brilliant bill in its current form in the first place; but with that, I appreciate his efforts and his concept dealing with this MTR.

I just want to remind of you of one element. If you pass this motion, you don't raise the minimum wage, and you don't bring about any of the consequences CBO or other organizations talked about, that concept.

All this amendment does is delay the bill. It doesn't raise anything. It simply delays the bill.

This bill, the underlying bill, tries to take an act that is 108 years old and modernize it, so that the American people are given the right to be heard before the President takes his pen and signs his name to a piece of paper and a proclamation.

This bill simply says let Americans have the chance to talk about this before the President acts, like every other element of government has to do.

With that, I urge your rejection of this MTR. I urge you to favorably vote for passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1459.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, President Obama has not been shy about his willingness or his desire to circumvent Congress and take unilateral action on a variety of issues. This lack of shyness includes the designation of new national monuments.

In fact, during the President's first term in office, an internal memo was leaked that showed plans to potentially lock up more than 13 million acres of Western land with the simple stroke of the President's pen.

Major land use decisions such as this should not be made behind closed doors and should fully involve the local citizens whose livelihoods would be directly affected by such action.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 1459, the Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act, sponsored by our colleague from Utah (Mr. Bishop). This legislation would require public participation before a President can designate a national monument under the Antiquities Act.

Mr. Chairman, let me repeat this last sentence that I gave because this is the heart of the legislation. This legislation would require public participation before a President can designate a national monument under the Antiquities Act.

Over 100 years ago, the Antiquities Act was passed to allow a President to unilaterally designate national monuments without any input or involvement from the people, communities, or elected officials of the areas that would be directly impacted.

However, this authority was intended to be used under narrow circumstances and in emergencies to prevent destruction of a precious place; but unfortunately, we have seen this power abused by Presidents of both parties. It has been used as a tool to score political points, rather than to protect areas facing imminent threat or harm.

National monuments are one of the most restrictive of all land use designations. They can significantly block public access and limit public recreation and other job-creating economic activities.

The American people and their elected leaders deserve to have a say in which of their lands deserve special protections as national monuments and which should, instead, be allowed to contribute to the full range of recreational, conservation, economic, and resource benefits that carefully managed multiple-use lands provide.

H.R. 1459 would guarantee public involvement and ensure that the designation process is transparent by requiring all national monument designations made under the Antiquities Act to comply with the NEPA process.

Most, if not all, major land use decisions are statutorily required to go through the NEPA process. Designations made by the President should be treated no differently than those other processes.

I will openly state, however, that I--and many of my Republican colleagues--believe that NEPA is a law that should be streamlined and updated. However, this bill is about transparency and ensuring that the public has a voice.

So let me ask the rhetorical question, Mr. Chairman: If my Democrat colleagues believe that the NEPA is a worthwhile law that works and that NEPA is important, why should they oppose making sure that Presidential designations should not go through the same process?

This bill continues to uphold the original intention of the Antiquities Act, which is to allow the President to act in emergency situations. It protects the President's ability to act if there is an eminent threat to an American antiquity by allowing for a temporary emergency designation of 5,000 acres or less for a 3-year period.

After that time, in order to ensure public participation in the process, the designation would be made permanent if the NEPA process is completed or if it is approved by Congress.

The bill would also limit national monument declarations to no more than one per State during any 4-year Presidential term and prevent the inclusion of private property in monument designations without the prior written consent of the property owners.

National monument designations deserve public input from the people and communities who are directly impacted. This bill is necessary to stop unilateral actions by the President and ensure participation by the American public.

I commend subcommittee Chairman Bishop for his work on this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Amodei).

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes now to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), a former member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), one of my classmates.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague from Wyoming, I want to address what the previous speaker mentioned. She was talking about the Tubman bill.

Had this bill that we are debating here today been in effect, we wouldn't have had the problem with the Tubman issue right now. The Tubman issue was designated as a national monument, but it didn't go through the local process, and as a result--as a result of that--there are flaws in that designation. Thus, the bill that the gentlelady from Maryland is introducing is to correct the flaws that were put in place because of the monument designation.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask my friend from Arizona how many more speakers he has.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the sponsor of this legislation.

I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a couple of points. It is pretty hard to follow-up on what the author of the legislation did, talking about the history of this legislation and why there needs to be some changes. I thought he did that in a very, very good way.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, at least the previous speaker, but also others, have mentioned about different pieces of legislation that we have passed out. I understand that they are probably in opposition to having more exploration, making us less energy dependent with offshore legislation, with onshore legislation, and so forth.

But, Mr. Chairman, what wasn't said in that argument was that in every case, in every case the legislation that the gentleman lamented that we passed, we had a hearing in the committee. We had a hearing and went through the normal legislative process. When you look at what the intent of this legislation is all about, it is simply to have a hearing with consultation and transparency with those that are affected, nothing more. You may not like it, but at least you have that transparency.

Several Members said we haven't passed national park legislation in several years, and that is true. There is some pending, and obviously we hope to have that done by the end. But this point needs to be made, too. The National Park Service, by their own admission, has over a $10 billion backlog in maintenance. Shouldn't we, as the keeper of the taxpayers' purse, look at that and say before we rush on some of this, let's make sure that we can afford to maintain whatever is going to be ensuing next.

Finally, let me make an observation about my colleague from California, from Mendocino County, Mr. Huffman. He was saying that his community was very in favor of that monument designation that is going to happen, I guess, later on this year.

I don't think the gentleman, however, mentioned that that precise piece of legislation, which was H.R. 1411, passed this House on a voice vote. In other words, there is no need to make a monument designation for that because this House had determined that it was the right thing to do.

The problem is the Senate hasn't moved on that piece of legislation; so, on the one hand, they say we haven't passed legislation, and when we do, the President steps in and, I think, overstates his authority on the Antiquities Act.

I am sorry. Before I close, I did have another speaker. I apologize to my friend. If the gentleman wants to take more time, I will give him more time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise).

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to, again, make the point there of my colleague from California (Mr. Huffman). He had a bill that passed the House and is pending in the Senate.

There is no need for the President to go through this. All you have to do is pass the legislation which, by the way, had a hearing and was marked up properly in our committee.

This piece of legislation, I think, is a good piece of legislation. I think it corrects abuses that have happened by the way of Presidents in both parties over the years.

I ask my colleagues to support the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think his amendment adds to this legislation, and I support his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this week, the majority advanced a bill that would block the administration from implementing a stream buffer zone rule intended to protect waterways from the impacts of mountaintop removal coal mining, adding to the list of their attacks on the environment.

House Republicans ignore the fact that Americans want clean water, clean skies, and more--not less--national parks and national monuments because, now, they are forcing a vote on H.R. 1459, a bill that will make it harder for Presidents to create new national monuments, adding layers upon layers of duplicative oversight and unnecessary congressional review.

This is not what our constituents are asking Congress to do. It is simply another attempt by the majority to stall the protection of Federal land.

In its 100-year history, the Antiquities Act has been used by 16 out of 19 Presidents. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt used it to protect the Grand Canyon, and over half our national parks started out as national monuments.

Congress should not be diluting this popular tool or making it more difficult for future Presidents to set land aside and honor our shared history, but that is exactly what this legislation is trying to do.

There are two ways to create a new national monument. Congress can pass a law, or the President can use the Antiquities Act.

As we all know, it is becoming increasingly difficult to pass a law, even for popular bipartisan conservation measures. Bills languish in Congress for years, and the Antiquities Act is often the only way to move some of these projects across the goal line.

The majority will refute this by pointing the finger at the Senate, blaming the other side of the Hill for inaction, and highlighting their own track record of passing bills out of the House.

That is a smokescreen. They have only moved a fraction of the conservation bills sitting before the House. Many do not even get a subcommittee hearing, and some of these proposals have been around for 10 years.

As Democrats, we are very pleased to create new wilderness in the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore. Don't get me wrong. This is a good legislation; but passing one standalone wilderness bill, one national monument, and one new national park bill in 3 years is not proof that Congress can do the work of conserving land and creating national monuments.

For example, I introduced a bill to establish a national monument in my district that would honor and recognize land considered sacred by Native American communities in the Southwest.

It is an area full of ancient petroglyphs increasingly under threat for looting and vandalism. A national monument designation will ensure that these cultural treasures receive the level of protection that they deserve.

This proposal is supported by the National Congress of American Indians and every tribe in Arizona. Like many of my colleagues with similar national monument proposals, I am unable to get even a hearing on that particular bill.

If the majority is truly concerned about public input or congressional review of national monuments and conservation of Federal land, why don't they consider bills to establish new monuments, parks, heritage areas, or wilderness?

Nearly 100 conservation designation bills have been introduced in the last two Congresses. Four have become law. This track record doesn't prove that we need more Congressional review. On the contrary.

If the majority is so eager to apply NEPA to the Antiquities Act, why are they trying to limit its scope for other activities on public lands?

In the Natural Resources Committee alone, the majority has considered and advanced measures to limit public review for timber operations, mining activity, and oil and gas leasing.

Following this logic, there is too much review when foreign corporations want to extract American taxpayer-owned natural resources, but not enough when we set aside land for future generations.

House Republicans have attempted to rewrite California water law, undermine the Endangered Species Act, blow up the Stream Buffer Rule, and encourage State and private takeover of Federal lands, a trust owned by all of the American people.

Putting up barriers to Presidential proclamations of national monuments, as envisioned by H.R. 1459, is just another feather in the antienvironmental cap.

H.R. 1459 will set up arbitrary per-State limits on Presidential monument designations and require congressional review of any monument under 5,000 acres. Monuments over 5,000 acres won't have to be approved by Congress, but they will be delayed by a process intended to evaluate the environmental impact on major Federal actions.

I hate to break it to the majority, but conservation and the establishment of national monuments don't have the same footprint as open-pit mines and oil wells.

Republicans want us to believe that this bill is about protecting private property. The Antiquities Act only applies to Federal land--let me repeat, only applies to Federal land.

If there are some concerned about people who have inholdings within that Federal land, why are they standing in the way of Federal land acquisition and depriving those property owners who are willing sellers of the right to sell?

H.R. 1459 is a wasteful and duplicative piece of legislation that will, like most bills passed out of this House, have no chance of ever becoming law.

I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1459, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

I yield the gentleman from California an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the ranking member.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).

I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Carney).

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan).

I have one more speaker, and then I will close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).

I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me just say that at the direction of the Republican leadership, this House has approved a remarkable series of anti-environmental bills in this Congress. While conservation bills languish and are stalled in Congress, we have seen time and time again House Republicans vote to deregulate mining, make drilling on public lands less safe, prevent Federal regulation of fracking, open virtually the entire coast of the United States to unsafe drilling offshore, give away precious public lands, override State and local water laws, and just yesterday, weaken existing limits on dumping coal mining waste in streams and rivers.

In the last 6 years, 7.4 million acres of public lands have been leased for oil and gas drilling; only 2.9 million protected for the future legacy and conservation, for the future use of the public and this Nation. That imbalance is directly the responsibility of a lack of action by this Congress.

Each of these measures were not only poor public policy, but also poor use of our time. They were, thankfully, dead on arrival in the Senate. This bill, H.R. 1459, is simply another bill in this series of deeply flawed proposals, and it will rightly suffer an identical fate.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we are not really sure what this amendment is trying to achieve. If the underlying goal of the bill is to make sure that every national monument designation goes through a NEPA process or is approved by Congress, this amendment makes things more confusing.

The amendment states that all monuments established through the use of the Antiquities Act shall expire after 3 years. It goes on to say that they may become permanent if the President follows the review process under NEPA.

Does this mean the President could declare the designation a categorical exclusion? If so, what is the point of the amendment? Does that mean the administration has to file an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement? Can they just issue a finding of no significant impact?

Again, the amendment does nothing to fix or clarify the underlying bill. I oppose the legislation and the adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank my friend and colleague for the time.

Mr. Chair, since Congress passed the Antiquities Act in 1906, both Republican and Democratic Presidents have used the power granted under the act to protect some of our most recognizable, most beloved natural wonders: Grand Teton in Wyoming, Zion in Utah, Olympic in Washington, and the Statue of Liberty. That is a few.

Last week, I had the opportunity to backpack for 7 days in what is the best known and most visited--4.4 million people last year--the Grand Canyon of the United States.

In 1908, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt granted national monument designation for the Grand Canyon under the Antiquities Act, and all but two Presidents since then have used this authority.

At that time, it was critical to protect the Grand Canyon because tremendous development was being proposed, both for tourism purposes and for commercial uses and mining and other issues, so that was an extraordinary step that that President took back then.

Why would we turn back the clock? Why would we strip this President or future Presidents from having this authority to preserve and conserve national treasures when they are indefinitely stalled, as was the Grand Canyon, in the morass of Congress?

It was dysfunctional for a different reason back then; but it is just as dysfunctional or more dysfunctional today as it was back then. There is going to be no protection passing this House easily or freely with this majority in charge.

Now, it is true that there have been some controversial designations, one mentioned previously and earlier by Chairman Bishop; but I would also note that no one--no one--has proposed legislation to repeal that designation by President Clinton.

If they are so aggrieved and it is so egregious, I wonder why they haven't done that. Perhaps because it enjoys tremendous popular support, except from among a few people.

Now, they say this is about more control. Let's take a look at what they have done with control. Over the last 4 years, the Republican majority has proposed legislation to sell off public lands.

They have passed multiple bills that would open our public lands, virtually unregulated, as of yesterday, to mountaintop removal, mineral, and energy extraction. They shut down access to our national parks because of their stupid government shutdown last fall, and they found out that wasn't too popular.

Then they held a hearing to find out why the parks were shut down when the government was shut down. Look in the mirror, guys. That is why the parks were shut down. They found out that the parks and these monuments enjoyed tremendous support from the American people.

There have been 89 conservation bills introduced from both sides of the aisle in this House in the last two Congresses, and only four of the 89 have become law. This Republican majority is genuinely openly hostile to conservation designations; yet, today, they are pretending that they actually really care about these iconic places, and they are just making a couple little changes to the law to include more public input.

You know, I have an experience from the Clinton administration for the Steens Mountains in Oregon. We only got it done because President Clinton and Secretary Babbitt said: we are going to make that a monument.

Now, we don't have as much flexibility in designation, but if you would legislate something, we will work with you.

We had a meeting in my office with the Republican Senator, a Republican Member from Oregon, myself, a couple of other Members came in and out, and the Secretary, and we hammered out a bill to protect the Steens Mountains in Oregon, and it passed on a bipartisan basis in a Republican Congress, with a Republican House and a Republican Senate. Unfortunately, those are the old days.

As I said earlier, 16 out of 19 Presidents have used this power. Teddy Roosevelt said it best, I think, about the Grand Canyon, that we should:

Let this great wonder of nature remain as it now is. Do

nothing to mar its grandeur, sublimity, and loveliness. You

cannot improve on it, but what you can do is to keep it for

your children, your children's children, and all who come

after you, as the one great sight which every American should

see.

Today, the majority here would undo the potential for future legacies under the Antiquities Act.

Just one side note: Chairman Bishop made much of talking about, in a Dear Colleague letter, that there was a provision in legislation, of which I was a sponsor, critical and unique to my State, designating the O&C lands, and he said it precludes new monument designations.

Yes, he is right. That was in there at the insistence of the Republican majority. I would have been happy to take it out, but I will cut him a deal. I would be happy to negotiate.

He voted for that bill, but it also includes 1.2 million acres of old growth preservation, 90,000 acres of wilderness, 300,000 acres of riparian set-asides, and 150 miles of wild and scenic designations.

If he will fully support those conservation provisions in my bill, I will, perhaps, negotiate with them, that they could say: well, we won't do any more monuments in that area because we have already had a massive conservation victory.

But that is why it is in the bill. They insisted, not me. Let's not create phony arguments here.

With that, I urge my colleagues to reject this horrible legislation.

To the previous speaker and others who have complained about Grand Staircase-Escalante, you could introduce a bill to repeal it. Why don't you?

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill. It will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If the amendment is adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.

My amendment is quite simple. It raises the minimum wage to $10.10. My amendment assures that, in America, if you work hard, you will not be forced to live in poverty.

In this era of stagnant and falling wages, of a widening gap in inequality between the haves and the have-nots, we must ensure that the promise of the American Dream remains a reality for all Americans, not just the wealthiest among us. We can't just say it. We have to act to make it possible.

Today, the minimum wage is 22 percent below its peak level in the 1960s. It has not increased since July 2009, when it reached $7.25 per hour. It has not been raised in five long years.

It has not increased since the near bottom of the Great Recession, when working Americans were walloped by the greed and reckless behavior of the privileged and the elite on Wall Street.

We like to think that, if you work hard, if you earn calloused hands, you can rise to the heights of success in America. The reality is that, by not raising the minimum wage, we are condoning--we are endorsing a pay cut for the very hardworking Americans that we speak about in such glowing terms whenever we talk about working our way--working your way up the ladder. Such doublespeak makes a mockery of the American Dream.

This is the House of the people, not the House of the 1 percent. Ours is a government of, for, and by the people and not a government of, for, and by the billionaires, at least not yet. Heaven help us.

As Representatives of the people, we have a constitutional obligation to look after the interests of all of our citizens, but more fundamentally, we have a moral obligation to ensure that opportunity is available to all and not reserved only for the most well-to-do among us.

Each and every year, minimum wage workers face a pay cut as inflation eats away at their earnings. Each and every year, this House, the people's House, sits inactive. It sits silent. It sits shamefully moot.

As the House of the people, we have a moral obligation to do what we can to help boost the paychecks of hardworking Americans. There should be outrage. There should be contempt for our inactivity on this issue.

I am talking about the 3.6 million American workers whose salaries are at or below the current minimum wage, more than three-quarters of whom are adults, nearly two-thirds of whom are female, more than one- third of whom are full-time workers, and nearly three-quarters of whom have graduated from high school.

These are real people--real people, Mr. Speaker, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers. Every day, they must make hard choices to provide for their families. Every day, they look to this body, this House of Representatives, the House of the people, they look to us for help; and every day, this body has nothing to say, nothing new to offer.

Introduced in 1938, the minimum wage has been increased 22 times, by both Republican and Democratic Congresses. It was even raised in the hyperpartisan Congress of the Gingrich impeachment era twice--twice; but it has not been raised in this Congress, nor the last. That is more than shameful. It is immoral.

In running against the do-nothing Republican-controlled House of Representatives in 1948, Harry Truman spoke of the gluttons of privilege, of cold men, of cunning men who were curiously deaf to the voice of the people, but who also were curiously able to hear even the slightest whisper from Big Business.

Here is a case where the government must be an advocate for the people and for the working men and women of this Nation and for the forgotten man, as another great President once said, those at the bottom of the economic pyramid upon which everything else is built.

Vague promises of hope are not sufficient. Economic excuses are not enough. We must act, and we must act now, and we can. Vote for this amendment to increase the minimum wage for the working men and women of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.