Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act

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

I am here with my good friend from the Rules Committee, Mr. Bishop, and he made a passionate case. He cares deeply, as do many of us, about issues affecting our public lands under the Antiquities Act. But the real antique here is our outdated immigration system. That is the antique.

When I have my town hall meetings in my district across Colorado, and join my friends across the country, what I hear from my constituents is not, Let's alter the process whereby a President might designate something as a National Monument. That is not the number one issue. That is not the number five issue. It is not the number 10 issue.

What my constituents demand, what Colorado demands, what our Nation demands, is we replace our antiquated, out-of-date, ill-conceived, completely

dysfunctional immigration system with one that works for our country, with the principle of securing our borders, with the principle of creating jobs for Americans, reducing our deficit, ensuring that people who work here pay taxes, ensuring that companies have a responsibility to authenticate and verify that their employees are here legally. That is what the country needs. It is what more than 75 percent of the American people support.

I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have a bipartisan immigration reform bill, H.R. 15. If we were to advance that bill to the floor of the House, it would pass tomorrow. It would pass the next day.

But instead of that bill being even presented in the Rules Committee for a vote and despite my repeated desires to the chair of that committee, to the chair of the committee of jurisdiction, Mr. Goodlatte, as Mr. Bishop has witnessed over a period of months, saying, When will you bring forward this bill, when will you bring forward this bill, when will you fix our broken immigration system, we have not advanced one single immigration-related bill that addresses any one of the flaws in the immigration system to the floor of the House this entire legislative session.

So our patience is wearing thin, Mr. Speaker. And I have great respect for you, Mr. Speaker, and for the majority leader, Mr. Cantor. Great respect. And I understand it is the prerogative of the majority party to control the bills that are being debated on the floor. But in the absence of leadership, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of you bringing a bill forward that allows us to fix our broken immigration system, we the Members of this body, Democratic and Republican, have no choice but to take it upon ourselves to bring this issue forward to the floor of the House.

I am going to tell you a little bit about, Mr. Speaker, the way we can do that.

These are the rules of the House. I strongly recommend them as a bedtime read, Mr. Speaker. Fortunately, they have a provision called the discharge petition that provides a way that the Members of this body, 218 out of 435, meaning a majority of the Members of this body, can sign a discharge petition for a bill. That means that despite a Speaker or majority leader that refused to schedule that bill for debate, if a majority of Members sign the discharge petition, it goes right to the floor for a straight up-or-down vote.

That is all we are asking for, Mr. Speaker: a straight up-or-down vote. I am confident H.R. 15 would pass tomorrow if we had that opportunity. I call upon my colleagues, Democratic and Republican, to sign the discharge petition. Mr. Speaker, I call upon my friends across the country to inform their Members of Congress that they want to see action on this important issue.

In no way, shape, or form should this detract from the passion Mr. Bishop has for obscure provisions of the Antiquities Act and the NEPA process surrounding the establishment of public monuments, but this simply isn't the issue that galvanizes our country. This simply isn't the issue that reduces our deficit by $900 billion over two decades.

Whatever we do to the Antiquities Act does not create 150,000 jobs for American citizens, does not boost GDP, and is not backed by an unprecedented coalition of labor and business, farmworkers and agricultural companies, the faith-based community, police and law enforcement, and the business sector.

We have the opportunity to do something great for our country, Mr. Speaker--the opportunity to show real leadership by, of course, encouraging you, Mr. Speaker, to bring forward immigration reform. And if you prefer to bring forward several components, we will work with you to ensure that we can address some, if not all, of the issues within our broken immigration system.

But failing your leadership, Mr. Speaker, the membership of this body, under the rules of the House, has asserted itself under a discharge petition to bring comprehensive immigration reform, H.R. 15, immediately to the floor of the House for an up-or-down vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Is a discharge petition the process provided in the House rules to allow a majority of the House, without the support of the Speaker or the Rules Committee, to bring a measure to the floor that has not been reported by committee?

Mr. Speaker, is it correct that any House Member can file a discharge petition if a committee has failed to act on a bill after 30 legislative days?

Mr. Speaker, are there any provisions in the current rule that would allow for an up-or-down vote on immigration reform?

Mr. Speaker, is it true that H.R. 15, the bipartisan immigration reform bill, has been pending before several committees and has not even faced a vote in committee since it was introduced in October?

Mr. Speaker, the American people will determine what is relevant and what is not.

Mr. Speaker, I think what is relevant here is the fact that this body, which wasn't even in session last week, which is working 9\1/2\ hours this week, is simply not addressing the issues that the American people are demanding that we address.

Mr. Speaker, one wonders why perhaps only 8 or 12 percent of the American people approve of the institution of Congress. It is precisely because of the issues that people care about and they want us to solve. And it is not a partisan thing. These are the issues that my Democratic and Republican and Independent constituents all want us to solve. They all want to make sure that we reduce the deficit, secure our borders, and implement mandatory workplace authentication of workers. These are commonsense provisions that are supported across the ideological spectrum.

There has not been a committee vote on H.R. 15. There has not been a floor vote on any legislative proposal to address any dimension of our broken immigration system.

That is why I join my colleagues in signing a discharge petition under the rules of the House to bring forward this bill for immediate consideration on the floor so that this body can work its will to finally replace our broken immigration system with one that works.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let's replace the antiquity that is our broken immigration system with one that reflects our values as a country. The hole in our border security is wider than the Grand Canyon the gentleman from Utah mentions. Let's fix that.

The hole in our values is wider than the Grand Canyon. Let's fix that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that honors our American values.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Garcia), the chief sponsor of the bipartisan immigration reform bill, for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), a champion of immigration reform, for a unanimous consent request.

Was your inquiry through the Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to try until the gentleman from Utah allows our consent request.

I am proud to yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a true leader on immigration

reform, for a unanimous consent request.

Would the Chair inquire of the gentleman from Utah if he does accept the request?

Point of parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, does the Record show a response for the gentleman from Utah to the request from the gentlewoman from Illinois?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

How does the Speaker know the ``feelings'' of the gentleman from Utah?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Ben Ray Lujan), a leader in the fight for immigration reform, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to bring up H.R. 15.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), the chair of the Democratic Caucus, for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey), a leader on the fight for immigration reform, for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a response on the last four inquiries from the gentleman from Utah. I was hoping the Speaker could pose the question to him, if he would accede to our request for a unanimous consent.

I would ask the gentleman from Utah--and I will be happy to yield him a moment for an answer--how many of us need to come forward and ask for a vote on replacing the antiquity that is our broken immigration system until you will accede to a simple request for an up-or-down vote?

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Utah chose not to answer the simple question of how many people we need to have to bring up this bill. I know that we can get more people to come down because, guess what? We stand ready to solve the issue of our broken immigration system. We also stand ready, as Americans, as Democrats, as Representatives, to work with our friends on the other side of the aisle to fashion a solution that works for our country.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 15, the bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill introduced by Mr. Garcia that is nearly identical to the measure already passed by the Senate.

We need comprehensive immigration reform. And if the leadership of this body, Mr. Speaker, yourself, and the leader, Mr. Cantor, are serious about wanting to pass a jobs bill, are serious about wanting to reduce the deficit, they will act on this bill, because the Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting this bill reduces our deficit by $900 billion over 20 years. It boosts economic output, raises capital investment in our country, and increases the productivity of both labor and capital.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here and what we are doing under the rules of this body is we are using another method called the previous question where we, in the minority party, can actually get a vote where, if we defeat the previous question, we can then bring forward immigration reform, H.R. 15, the bipartisan bill. That is all we ask, Mr. Speaker, is that we ask our friends on both sides of the aisle to join us in a procedural motion to defeat the previous question.

Since the gentleman from Utah has thus far refused to allow a unanimous consent request--although I certainly am hopeful that he will as more Members of this body request that, out of courtesy, at least to have an up-or-down vote on immigration reform--we do have another outlet, and that is the previous question, which will be forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request, another leader in the fight to replace our broken immigration with one that works.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request so that this House can address replacing the real antiquity that is our broken immigration system.

Mr. Speaker, with due respect, our desire that we are placing before you is to have a debate about immigration.

Mr. Speaker, not 1 hour, not half an hour, not 10 minutes, not 1 minute of floor time for the last entire year and a half has been scheduled for debate on this important topic: replacing our immigration system with one that works. There is no desire to embellish or debate through motions. There is an earnest desire to debate the merits of the bill. We can accomplish that in three ways here, Mr. Speaker:

We can defeat the previous question and bring up immigration reform; the continued enthusiasm from my colleagues can convince Mr. Bishop to allow for the unanimous consent request to bring up H.R. 15; or, third, my colleagues can sign the discharge petition now at the desk, and once that petition receives 218 votes, it will advance immediately to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Lujan Grisham) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), a leader in the fight to replace our broken immigration system with one that works, for the purpose of a unanimous-consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Utah how many more of my colleagues need to urgently request that this bill come forward before he would kindly consider our unanimous consent request to allow this bill to be debated on, even recognizing you may be opposed to it and others may support it, at least allowing us to have this debate?

How many more Members need to come forward and request that for him, as a courtesy, to consider that?

I am happy to yield for an answer.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Utah is immersed in the arcane aspects of antiquities law. I certainly understand his passion for that. I truly do.

The gentleman from Utah and I have had a many great discussions on managing our public lands, which is a big part of his district and is certainly a big part of the district that I represent, but the true antiquity in the room is our broken immigration system.

The gentleman from Utah has the ability to allow us, through unanimous consent, to bring H.R. 15, comprehensive immigration reform, to the floor of the House to solve this issue.

Every Member of this body, Democratic and Republican, has the ability to sign a discharge petition. Once it reaches 218 signatures, no Member--not the Speaker and not the majority leader--can prevent that bill from being voted on in a straight up-or-down vote. It is time to simply demand a debate, demand a vote on comprehensive immigration reform.

Today, Mr. Speaker, we have a chance to act on legislation that has already passed the Senate with more than a two-thirds majority, including support from the home State of the gentleman from Utah, the senior Senator.

We passed a bill that the President would sign. We have a chance to pass bipartisan legislation that reduces our deficit, that secures our borders, that requires workplace authentication.

I am proud to say, Mr. Speaker, that just this morning, Congressman Garcia filed a discharge petition on H.R. 15, finally allowing the membership of this body to go around a Speaker or a majority leader that is unwilling to address the issue of immigration, to bring forward our solution, our bipartisan solution, H.R. 15.

Now, again, I and many Members of this body are happy to consider other proposals. The gentleman from Utah has mentioned that he has a proposal. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle have a number of proposals.

Some have even passed through the Judiciary Committee, but not one immigration bill has been debated or voted on in the entire year and a half of this legislative session.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Napolitano), a leader in the fight for immigration reform, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think reducing our deficit by $900 billion is a good idea. I really do. I think the American people agree that reducing our deficit by $900 billion is a good idea; and if all that stands in the way of us reducing our deficit by $900 billion is allowing this request to move through, I would certainly urge my friend from Utah to reconsider.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the majority of the American people, regardless of where they stand in the ideological spectrum or their party--Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Greens, Libertarians--all agree that the time is now to pass immigration reform. A recent CNN poll showed 81 percent support for immigration reform.

Another poll showed that 72 percent of Republicans support the package of reforms that are included in the Senate bipartisan package and the House bipartisan package.

So what are we debating here, Mr. Speaker? Are we simply refusing to discuss any solutions? Mr. Speaker, we have offered unanimous consent request after unanimous consent request, which the gentleman from Utah has not agreed to one of those; and, Mr. Speaker, on others, you have read his mind and assumed that he hasn't agreed, although we haven't heard from him on each of those.

We filed the discharge petition. I hope that that soon has 218 votes, but very soon, Mr. Speaker, there will actually be a vote right here in this body on the previous question; and if we defeat that motion on the previous question, we will bring forward H.R. 15, the bipartisan immigration reform bill.

A similar version passed the Senate with more than two-thirds' support, and I am optimistic that that bill will pass the House today.

Let's have some debate on immigration reform. Rather than working 9\1/2\ hours this week, the American people

want to see a Congress that tackles problems and works towards solutions.

They want to see a Congress that creates jobs for Americans, makes sure that we have workplace enforcement of our immigration laws, and secure borders. It doesn't happen by itself.

Absent this body taking action, the hole in our border security will continue to be as wide as the Grand Canyon, as the gentleman from Utah has mentioned.

The hole in our national spirit and our identity and our values will be just as wide if we continue to refuse to act to unite families and bring together Americans and to finally reflect our history as a nation of immigrants and as a nation of laws.

It is not inconsistent to be a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws, but under the current chaos and disorder that is our immigration dysfunction, we appease no one.

It is not good for our security when we don't know who is here. It is not good for American business when they don't know who is here legally and who is not, nor when companies that hire people under the table for cash are rewarded.

It doesn't reflect our values, as a country, to tear an American child from their parent and, at taxpayer expense, sending a parent back to another country away from their child.

It doesn't reflect our values to, at taxpayer expense, keep people detained for months or even years who have committed no criminal act in our country.

These should all be addressed, Mr. Speaker, through a bill with broad bipartisan buy-in, with support from across the ideological spectrum that would pass tomorrow if we can simply defeat the previous question or if the gentleman from Utah will entertain one of my colleagues' unanimous consent requests or if 218 of us sign where I have signed on demand a vote, the discharge petition now at the desk on immigration reform.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

We have an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, an opportunity in this body to address an issue that is in the hearts and in the minds of people across our country, of businesses across our country, of faith leaders across our country, and that is reconciling our immigration system with our values and with our economic needs, as a country.

We can do it, Mr. Speaker. We can, with one bill, reduce our deficit by $900 billion. We can, Mr. Speaker, secure our borders and prevent people from entering this country illegally. We can, Mr. Speaker, ensure that every company verifies the people that work for it are legally here through a national database.

We can, Mr. Speaker, create 151,000 jobs for Americans. We can, Mr. Speaker, grow our economy by an additional 4.8 percent over a 20-year period. We can, Mr. Speaker, unite an American child with their parents, so they can grow into the great Americans that they will become, if only we let them.

There are millions of aspiring Americans throughout our country--in my district, in my State of Colorado, and across the country--people who want nothing more than to play by our rules, to speak our language, to pay taxes, and to spend money in our stores, generating jobs for our economy, if only we will let them.

We need immigration reform, Mr. Speaker, which is why an unprecedented alliance has come together from across the spectrum in support of immigration reform. In the faith-based community, leaders in the evangelical movement, the Catholic Church, the Jewish faith, and many others have joined arm-in-arm saying: demand action, the time is now.

The business community--from the tech community to the farmers to agriculture--are united around replacing our broken immigration system with one that works, so we have the pipeline of talent we need, so that America remains competitive and to prevent the offshoring of jobs overseas.

Workers across the country are united, in organized labor, in saying: we want to replace our broken immigration system with one that works because, when we have a large illegal workforce in our country, it undermines wages for American workers.

We need to prevent the undermining of wages for American workers by replacing our immigration system with one that works and one that requires workplace authentication of all people that are employed.

At this time, I will move down to the well, where I have a sign that will be displayed with me, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 and demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that unites our families.

I would like to ask the gentleman from Utah if he has changed his mind and will yield for that purpose?

Mr. Speaker, we will not give up. The American people will not give up. American companies will not give up, whether they are Fortune 400 companies, whether they are tomorrow's start-ups, which contains an entrepreneurship visa bill within immigration reform. We will not give up.

This issue gets larger and larger, bigger and bigger the longer we wait. There may be 10 million people here illegally today. If this body takes no action, Mr. Speaker, there might be 15 million people here illegally in 10 years.

The problem does not solve itself. We need to have enforcement of the law and border security and a rational way to deal with the issue within our country.

I encourage my friends, Mr. Speaker, on social media, on Twitter, on Facebook, to demand a vote and join me in simply allowing this body, Congress, the only body that can solve this bill--I know, Mr. Speaker, many of our State legislatures have debated around the edges and discussed whether instate tuition works or what benefits might be denied to people who aren't here legally.

But our State legislators across the aisle--Democratic and Republican--know that only Congress can secure our borders and replace our broken immigration system with one that works.

That is why I encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to join me in demanding a vote, demanding a debate, and bringing to the floor comprehensive immigration reform, or, if you prefer, Mr. Speaker, a series of bills designed to address issues within immigration reform to see how we can move forward to get on the same page with the Senate and fundamentally address this issue in a way that creates jobs for Americans, secures our borders, restores the rule of law, and reduces our deficit by $900 billion.

I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform that reduces our deficit by $900 billion.

The longer we delay in passing immigration reform, the greater costs of inaction. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office shows that H.R. 15 would reduce our deficit by $900 billion. Imagine including that, $200 billion in the first decade, in the baseline budget for the House of Representatives being worked on by Mr. Ryan and his associates on the Budget Committee.

What could that $200 billion do? Could we reduce the marginal rate? Could we reduce tax rates for corporations that keep jobs here rather than outsource them overseas? Could we reduce our deficit with that $200 billion? Could we invest it in tomorrow's infrastructure to help America remain competitive?

The answer is yes. $200 billion is generated from fixing our immigration system in a commonsense way that more than 80 percent of the American people support. Immigration reform means that housing units would be increasingly in demand and residential construction spending would increase by $68 billion per year over a 20-year period. Under immigration reform, over $100 billion more in additional taxes would be paid, allowing, again,

tax reductions to others or investments in education and infrastructure, including revenues to State and local government.

I hope the majority is listening to former Speaker Hastert who said in an op-ed recently:

Immigration reform will make us safer, and it will make us

economically stronger. It is politically smart and morally

right.

And when we look at ourselves at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, we do need to stand for what in our own faith traditions and in our own conscience is morally right. And I know, Mr. Speaker, that what is morally right is an immigration system that reflects our values as Americans, one that honors our ancestors, one that honors my great- grandparents who came to this country from foreign shores at a young age and had their families here and allowed their great-grandson to serve here in the United States Congress.

Today's immigrants are no different from my great-grandmother who came in 1905 to this country from Eastern Europe. If only we will provide them the opportunity and a pathway for them to be and become the good Americans that they already are and contribute to make our country stronger, we will be strengthened as a nation; jobs will be created for Americans; we will prevent foreign workers from undermining wages for American workers; we will secure our borders to prevent people from sneaking across and working in this country illegally; and we will require that companies authenticate the legal status of all workers.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my plea has not fallen upon deaf ears.

I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 15 to demand a vote on the bipartisan immigration reform bill that unites our families.

Mr. Speaker, every day we fail to act, the economic and human toll increases. Every day we fail to act, we sacrifice significant levels of investment in our country as well as lose out on talented and entrepreneurial potential Americans to overseas corporations.

I represent a district that contains the Colorado State University and the University of Colorado at Boulder. Like a lot of great schools across our country, many of our graduate students in computer science and engineering are from other countries. They are here on student visas. And when they receive their master's or their Ph.D., rather than allow them to stay here, work here, and make our country stronger, we force many of them to return overseas where the jobs follow them to make another country stronger. In some cases, countries that have differences of opinion with us on a geopolitical landscape, like Russia and China, allow these students to make their countries stronger rather than ours.

Our economy, our faith leaders, our businesses, our workforce, and our families are all crying out for the House to debate this bill and to demand a vote now. I urge House leadership to heed their calls and put H.R. 15 on the floor for an immediate vote. It will pass; it has the votes. It will become the law, and it will solve this issue. The time is now. Our country and our families demand a vote.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 524 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which they may revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for a structured rule for the consideration of H.R. 1459, Ensuring Public Involvement in the Creation of National Monuments Act.

It provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order three amendments, two of which are Democrat amendments, in addition to a manager's amendment. The rule also wisely provides for same-day authority for the legislative day of Thursday to consider the so-called ``doc fix'' bipartisan proposal, which may come forward for our consideration, as well as for the consideration of measures aimed at supporting the people of Ukraine against Russian aggression and expansionism. So this is an important rule. Therefore, it deserves our strong support.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand before the House today in support of the rule as well as of the underlying legislation primarily because it is my bill. I appreciate the hard work and support of the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), in forwarding this important bill to the floor of the House for our consideration.

I have to admit, Mr. Speaker--perhaps because the underlying bill is my bill--that I have had a closer consideration of the discussion, of the comments, that have been made about it, and I have taken some of them rather personally. To be honest, I am, quite frankly, amazed at some of the inaccuracies and the misinformation that has taken place by some outside groups in blogs, in Internet descriptions by special interests groups, and, actually, even by some Members of the floor.

When I originally saw some of the reports that said this bill would stop the creation of any more national parks, nothing could be further from the truth, because actually the President can't create national parks; only Congress can. It has nothing to do with national parks.

Eventually, they changed it to say this will stop creation of national monuments. Again, that charge is simply ridiculous.

The essence of this bill is very simple. What it says is the President should be treated like everyone else. Congress, if they are going to make any kind of land decisions, must have an open process where they have hearings and markups and bring things for an open vote.

If an agency of the government is going to make some sort of land designation, they have to go through NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, the process which provides for input--public discussion and public advice--about it. The only one who cannot do that is the President.

When the administration testified about this bill in committee, I was amazed, because they said the President should not have to go through the open process of obtaining public input on his decisions because even though the entire Federal branch has to, he is only the head of the Federal branch, he is not the Federal branch.

That just does not make sense to me. The idea is that everyone, including the President, should ask for public input.

One of the groups, the National Resources Defense Council, wrote on their blog that NEPA was the Magna Carta of environmental laws. They wrote:

Much like the Magna Carta protected people from dangers of

monarchical rule, NEPA protects people by providing

transparency in Federal projects. Both the Magna Carta and

NEPA espouse the ideas of public participation in democracy

by giving citizens a voice in government decisions.

Yesterday, in a different bill in a different committee, the administration testified against the bill, saying it would stop public comments about this particular issue. I am sorry, but that is why I get so confused about the rhetoric about this particular bill.

What we are asking is that before the President uses this authority, it go through NEPA to provide for public comment and concepts.

If NEPA is the Magna Carta and it provides for citizen voices in democratic decisions, how can you then say that this bill, which provides for NEPA and that kind of policy, would eviscerate one of America's bedrock conservation laws?

This is simply intellectual gymnastics at the highest level. Either getting public input is good, in which case we should pass this bill, or getting public input is bad, in which case there are a lot of things that we should change around here. I happen to think that getting public input is good. Because it does one thing: it solves problems before they develop.

In our State, we have had a National Monument that has been designated by Presidential proclamation for almost 20 years now. We are still dealing with issues of what kind of grazing rights were or were not included in that proclamation, what kind of roads were or were not open. Even though we tried to solve the problem, because the President had no concept of what School Trust Lands were in that area, and we have tried to exchange those out, not all of those exchanges have yet to be consummated.

Another of the monuments that the President recently proposed, they have already come to us and said there are problems within the boundaries of that monument. We have found private property we didn't know existed. We don't know whether there are provisions in there to allow duck hunting to go on, but we are not quite sure how you accomplish that. We are really not quite sure which land agency is responsible for the administration.

Those issues are all the issues that could be settled before you make the designation. And if, indeed, the NEPA process was required, those would become the issues that would be brought up, they would be understood, and they would be dealt with before you make the initiative.

So I have had people tell me that this is actually the ``No More National Monuments'' bill. It would stop national monuments. It is patently false. It is a false premise. It is a scare tactic, not an argument. And it is incredibly wrong.

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

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

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

I am pleased to see the passionate fervor of the gentleman from Colorado on this issue. I wish that that passion and fervor had been there a couple of years ago when I had an immigration bill on the floor that dealt with many of these issues.

Unfortunately, today, we have an issue that is extremely important to those of us who live in the West. I think my county commissioners, all of whom see this as a very, very critical issue, will take some kind of umbrage to saying that this is not a significant thing, especially if you are one of the county commissioners that lives in the West and the Federal Government has control of your land--the entire county. Take Wayne County, for example: 3 percent of its county is private property, and that is not a small county. The rest is controlled by the Federal Government.

There is the constant fear by these people that the President, by a stroke of a pen or picking up a telephone, can make a ruling or a proclamation that will change their lives significantly; that will make their economy turn upside down. And there is not a thing they can do about it. This is the reason we have asked for this bill--to at least give these county commissioners the chance of having public input before the decision is made. That is why this becomes so significant.

These county commissioners want to be treated fairly, as all people want to be treated fairly, and one of the problems they have in being treated fairly is simply this particular archaic act.

The original Antiquities Act was passed in 1906. Think about that for a minute. What kind of environmental laws were there in 1906? Also consider the state of the Nation in 1906. In 1906, the States of Alaska, Hawaii, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma were not part of the Nation.

Even my State of Utah was less than a decade old as a State in this particular Nation.

A lot is made often about how the Grand Canyon was created by using the Antiquities Act. Actually, it was. Unfortunately, it was a monument using the Antiquities Act, but the Grand Canyon had actually been a national forest before it was created a monument; and when it was created as Grand Canyon National Park, that was done by Congress because only Congress has the ability to create national parks.

So one of the situations we have is the situation is extremely different from 1906 till today; and one of the things that also is different is that the Antiquities Act has been used in the past, but it has basically been abused in the current time.

There are three criteria for which the Antiquities Act is supposed to be able to be used to create a national monument. One is it has to have a specific element that needs to be protected: archaeological, historical, geographical.

Secondly, it has to be in imminent danger of being destroyed.

Third, it has to be in the smallest footprint possible, which meant, when they were debating it in 1906 on the floor, the debate was very clear they were talking about 2 to 300 acres.

President Bush created thousands of acres of a national monument. Fortunately, it was in water, but he created one because it had a lot of fish without ever deciding what the significant factor was.

The President has created a couple of national monuments, our current one, for structures that were already under preservation status. There was no imminent danger.

When President Clinton did the Grand Staircase-Escalante, that was not 200 acres. That was 1.9 million acres, which is larger than a couple of our small States combined. So the criteria for the use of the Presidential authority has changed radically.

Also, the way it has been used has changed radically. Look, from the Depression era to the beginning of 1976, let us say, roughly a half century, the Antiquities Act was only used nine times.

President Roosevelt, in his four terms, only used it three times, and one of those was reversed by Congress.

When President Carter came into office, he then used it 15 times in his 4 years.

President Clinton then used it 22 times, all of which were in his last 4 years.

President Obama has already used it eight times, and is counting.

It is very clear that we are doing it differently than it was in the past. All those other uses of the Antiquities Act were done, actually, to designate a specific topic and try to preserve it. What we are finding now is it is being used as a political weapon, a ``gotcha'' effort, a power play, without letting anyone know about it.

In the case of the Grand Staircase-Escalante, the Governor, the morning, at 2:00 in the morning, was explaining what public trust lands were to the White House. At 12, the President then designated the Grand Staircase-Escalante monument without ever dealing with the issue of school trust lands in those particular areas.

What I am saying is, we need to change something now because we are starting to use the Antiquities Act as a political bludgeon, and it shouldn't be that way. The most mellow way, the most moderate way of doing that is simply doing this bill that says, okay, we are not going to take the power away from the President. All we are going to do is, before you use it--you can't surprise people with it--you have to go through the NEPA process, which requires public comment, public input, which is what every other agency in the Federal Government has to use. Congress has to go through that same process.

The only one who is exempt from public comments is the President. That is why this is important. That is why this is vital, especially to people who live in high rural areas that have a lot of Federal land in which they are frightened that the President could upend everything simply by a stroke of a pen, and they don't have an avenue to give input. This bill gives them input. It is easily the most moderate approach that will ever come about the Antiquities Act on this floor, and I think it is worthy of supporting the rule and bringing it to the floor for a final vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not yield for this purpose.

May I ask an inquiry?

Was that for a vote on Tule Springs or something else? Apparently, it was something else.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate my earlier announcement that all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. I am not prepared to yield for any other purpose.

I thank the gentleman for giving me his time, which I would be happy to talk about the bill that is actually before us and will be here because it is a wonderful bill.

I, again, appreciate the gentleman from Colorado giving me the opportunity to speak about the issue that is at hand. I would even be happy if he would give me the opportunity to speak about a good immigration bill, which is mine, but since that is not the case, let me go, once more, to the issue that is at hand.

I reserve the balance of my time for the moment.

I am actually prepared to close and will reserve the balance of my time until that time.

Mr. Speaker, I have not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In all due respect, I have been called very sarcastic in the past, and I probably am. So as I speak to you now, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to be considered flippant in anything I say, but in all due respect, the speaker was not just divining what I was thinking at the time. I clearly said at the very beginning of what my purpose was and for what I would yield, and you did that very well.

The continuous requests for unanimous consent were for immediate consideration of a bill which, in my humble opinion, I think is a poorly written bill. There are better bills out there. I have one of those. In fact, a couple of years ago, I had one of those that I would have liked the support of the other side, as well.

Perhaps if we had talked about some of those that I think actually go to the point of the issue and are properly written, it may have been somewhat different. But, instead, I am going to come back to the issue that is at hand which deals with the Antiquities Act and how the Antiquities Act has been abused.

Congress has recognized that in the past. It is kind of ironic, and I don't think many people realize this, but not every State allows the Antiquities Act to be used in their State. Congress, in 1944, withdrew the use of the Antiquities Act in the State of Wyoming. Responding to an abuse later on, the State of Alaska was withdrawn from that consideration. Even the ranking member of our committee has introduced legislation and voted for it, and it passed this House, which would limit the use of the Antiquities Act in his district.

So people are recognizing that there is a reason--a reason--that the use of the Antiquities Act has changed over the years, and not necessarily for the better. The best way of solving that problem is not necessarily taking that act away or that power away, but simply making sure that the President of the United States gets public input before he actually pulls the trigger.

Now, you may ask why I consider this such a significant issue. Well, to be honest, it is for two reasons: one, I am from the West; and number two, I am a schoolteacher.

You see, when the Antiquities Act is used without public input, it has the potential--and has in the past and could in the future and I think will in the future--to destroy economic patterns that take place, especially in rural counties. When that happens and that disruption takes place, then the ability of raising revenue for local needs becomes significant. And it is more difficult in the West than it is in the rest of the Nation. Let me try to illustrate why.

The States that are in red are the States that are considered public land States. Those are the ones that have the greatest potential of having abuse of the Antiquities Act foisted upon them. The States that are in yellow have very little public lands. In fact, two-thirds of everything the Federal Government owns is found in the red States.

What I am holding up here is the ability of these States to generate funds for their education system. As you can look over the past two decades, those States in the eastern portion of this country--the yellow States--have increased their education funding at twice the rate of those of us who live in the West. And the simple question has to be: Why do you think this takes place?

There is a distinct correlation to the amount of Federal land and the inability of States who have all that Federal land to raise money for their education systems. That is one of the continuous complaints that we have.

When monuments are made without getting the input of local citizens, the chance of making this even worse is a reality. It has happened in the past, and it will happen in the future. So I am not saying do away with the act altogether. What I am simply saying is make sure that the people who live in these red States who have a more difficult time funding their education system have the ability of making a statement before final action takes place, before simply a pen is signed to a proclamation that can change the dynamics of everything. It has happened in the past.

So that is why this is not simply a procedural bill for me. This is a bill that impacts my kids. It impacts my profession. It impacts the future of education in the West and should not be dismissed as insignificant. That is why this issue becomes so vital to those of us who live in the West because it has a direct impact on the way we live.

The gentleman from Colorado did say one thing in which I agree. He said that at some time we should all play by the same rules. That is the purpose of the underlying bill. The President should play by the same rules Congress has to use and as every agency of the Federal Government has to use, which is simply to come up with the concept that before decisions are made you get public input. And that is why all the discussion I have seen in blogs and from special interest groups are so confusing to me, because at one time we say, yes,

it is important that we get public input, except for this particular bill in which public input is bad. That does not make sense. That is mental gymnastics of the worst variety.

If this bill were to pass, it would not change the Antiquities Act, it would not prohibit the President from making national monuments, and it would not prohibit Congress from establishing national parks. All it would do is simply say you have got to go through the NEPA process which requires public input, especially from those who are going to be directly impacted.

And we have seen that if you mandate that ahead of time, you solve problems before they develop. We have practice, we have proof, and we have examples of where the monument was created without getting the input and problems developed which still have not been solved.

Don't do that. Do it the right way. We can do that, and we can make this effort happen. And, once again, of all the concepts of how to deal with the Antiquities Act and the problems it presents for those of us who live in the West, this is easily the most moderate approach, a simple approach which simply says, look, before you do it, listen to us. Let us have the chance to say something.

That is the way it ought to be and the way it should be. This bill is actually a vast improvement on a 100-plus-year-old bill that has outlived its usefulness and has changed not necessarily for the better over that course of time.

So, with that, Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the comments that had been made. I would have appreciated it if people would also recognize the significance of this bill to those of us who live in the West. I wish they would also look at the bill as it is written. It is a very positive approach. It is something which we can all support, and it is a very good bill. I am biased because it is my bill, but it still is a very, very good bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to close to reiterate the fairness of not only the bill but also of the rule, the other parts of the rule, the appropriateness of the underlying pieces of legislation, the potential of putting up other issues that are significant that must be addressed this particular week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.